4 ms·

> Given Twitter’s track record though, I’d bet that the threading revolution will not actually unfold on Twitter itself. There’s a 50-50 chance they will do som

by bhauer 7y ago

> Given Twitter’s track record though, I’d bet that the threading revolution will not actually unfold on Twitter itself. There’s a 50-50 chance they will do something boneheaded to mess up the potential, and starve out any products that attempt to build anything good on the quicksand of insecure attachment that’s the Twitter API. Quite on point given Twitter has recently diminished the utility of thread-viewing within their web application. Now when visiting a tweet URL that is part of a thread, the UI displays only a single tweet, though the title says "Thread." Instead of replies, a "More tweets" section follows. The user must click "See replies" to actually see the thread. The most egregious aspect of this anti-feature is that the URL doesn't change after requesting to see the replies. There is no way, to my knowledge, to avoid linking people to this frustrating interstitial page. Each visitor must individually navigate themselves past the "More Tweets" feature. Presumably added as a ham-fisted engagement booster, the new interstitial has materially reduced my own interaction with Twitter threads because it adds friction. It's amusing how often engagement boosting tactics end up achieving the opposite.

CaptArmchair 7y ago
I interpret it like this: Twitter somehow intended threading as this revolutionary innovation all along... ... which couldn't be further removed from reality. Going back into the past, Twitter originated as a side-project without a clear goal or business model. Over the past 15 odd years, it has pivoted several times, depending on how the audience interacted with the service, and what were best decisions towards monetization. No more, no less. At one point, Twitter was a micro-blogging platform. It didn't even invent micro-blogging. There were many services alike at the time such as identi.ca, FriendFeed, Plurk, Tumblr and so on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging). The main reason why tweets were originally 140 characters long was because they made it relatively easy - for the time - to connect with the service through text messages. Remember: Twitter originated in the era before the iPhone was introduced. They stuck with that limit because that was what set Twitter apart and what made it radically different from other services. Threaded Twitter entirely hinges on the notion of @ mentions. Which wasn't originally even a feature of the service. It took until 2008 before they added that @replies and only in late 2009 they became @ mentions as we know them now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mention_(blogging)#@_(At_sign) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mention_(blogging)#@_(At_sign) At that point, they didn't even have this vision of "threads". Users simply started to create these "cowpaths" on their own in order to circumvent the 140 character limit by @ mentioning themselves and creating these long reads on the platform. The primary reason why doing that is appealing... is because that's where the audience is. Because Twitter happened to funnel massive social networks into a centralized solution which gives individuals the immediacy of communication at zero financial cost. Put differently, if individuals would be able to reach out to a large audience through a decentralized online solution as part of a public commons at zero cost and with the same level of immediacy, there wouldn't be much need for a service like Twitter. Whether or not content is threaded isn't even relevant. That's just the form, and that always follows the function. Twitter doesn't represent society at large nor does it represent how humanity at large communicates. It's just one of many forms of communication, albeit a very visible one as large amounts of capital have been sunk into this particular private venture. As such, the prerogative of being part of the crowd using a decentralized, open infrastructure is that one is always free to look for new and different ways to connect, communicate and convince that don't necessarily have to be subjected to the whims of a single private actor. If threads on Twitter work out for you, even when Twitter designs against them, that's fine. If you want to use some other tool, that's valid too. Even in the age of social media, there are still people running BBS'es.
pm90 7y ago
I don't use the app but a mobile browser (FF) and the experience seems much better and share friendly.

by bhauer 7y ago

CaptArmchair 7y ago

I interpret it like this: Twitter somehow intended threading as this revolutionary innovation all along... ... which couldn't be further removed from reality. Going back into the past, Twitter originated as a side-project without a clear goal or business model. Over the past 15 odd years, it has pivoted several times, depending on how the audience interacted with the service, and what were best decisions towards monetization. No more, no less. At one point, Twitter was a micro-blogging platform. It didn't even invent micro-blogging. There were many services alike at the time such as identi.ca, FriendFeed, Plurk, Tumblr and so on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging). The main reason why tweets were originally 140 characters long was because they made it relatively easy - for the time - to connect with the service through text messages. Remember: Twitter originated in the era before the iPhone was introduced. They stuck with that limit because that was what set Twitter apart and what made it radically different from other services. Threaded Twitter entirely hinges on the notion of @ mentions. Which wasn't originally even a feature of the service. It took until 2008 before they added that @replies and only in late 2009 they became @ mentions as we know them now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mention_(blogging)#@_(At_sign) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mention_(blogging)#@_(At_sign) At that point, they didn't even have this vision of "threads". Users simply started to create these "cowpaths" on their own in order to circumvent the 140 character limit by @ mentioning themselves and creating these long reads on the platform. The primary reason why doing that is appealing... is because that's where the audience is. Because Twitter happened to funnel massive social networks into a centralized solution which gives individuals the immediacy of communication at zero financial cost. Put differently, if individuals would be able to reach out to a large audience through a decentralized online solution as part of a public commons at zero cost and with the same level of immediacy, there wouldn't be much need for a service like Twitter. Whether or not content is threaded isn't even relevant. That's just the form, and that always follows the function. Twitter doesn't represent society at large nor does it represent how humanity at large communicates. It's just one of many forms of communication, albeit a very visible one as large amounts of capital have been sunk into this particular private venture. As such, the prerogative of being part of the crowd using a decentralized, open infrastructure is that one is always free to look for new and different ways to connect, communicate and convince that don't necessarily have to be subjected to the whims of a single private actor. If threads on Twitter work out for you, even when Twitter designs against them, that's fine. If you want to use some other tool, that's valid too. Even in the age of social media, there are still people running BBS'es.

pm90 7y ago

I don't use the app but a mobile browser (FF) and the experience seems much better and share friendly.