5 ms·

I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate. If the apparent result of this communication is "tearing us

by ornxka 6y ago

I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate. If the apparent result of this communication is "tearing us apart", then isn't that the fault of the end to which people communicate, and not the means by which they communicate?

whymauri 6y ago
Yes and no. Keep in mind that the algorithms that Facebook and Twitter use to increase engagement metrics might actually encourage conflict. As a result, the means of communication fundamentally change the framing of the resulting social interactions. Now, within that system users can certainly be self-aware and actively abide to 'remembering the human.' Even then, this self-aware group is likely a minority.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate The problem is in the way it is designed. The shortness of the tweet limits context and nuance. This makes it easy to find something to be outraged over. Now add the re-tweet that makes it easy to spread the outrage everywhere. No, Twitter is optimized for outrage and conflict.
gbjw 6y ago
The medium is the message. The medium, Twitter, may not necessarily be just a passive channel, but an active component that amplifies and promotes certain types of communication at the expense of others.
- DamnYuppie 6y ago
  It promotes the type of communication people wouldn't generally have in person. Its discourse is pure childish vitriol masquerading a some just cause.
acituan 6y ago
> Twitter is just a means for people to communicate Human to human communication inherently includes a certain amount of noise per signal transmitted. Twitter or in general social media algorithms seem to amplify the noise more than the signal since disagreement translates to higher engagement metrics than agreement. There is only so much their algorithms can do in the name of increasing relavance (i.e finding signal amidst the giant noise they help created).
kaibee 6y ago
> I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate. If the apparent result of this communication is "tearing us apart", then isn't that the fault of the end to which people communicate, and not the means by which they communicate? No, tooling and the incentives around them matter. Twitter makes it super easy to find the worst examples of the other side/take them out of context, and circulate what they said among 'your people' to get massive retweets. Twitter does this because it creates a more engaging experience. Yes, if people were perfect robots, Twitter could just be a means for people to communicate. But the incentive structure of social media, ie: what goes viral, selects for outrage. The medium is the message.
- blondin 6y ago
  > Twitter makes it super easy to find the worst examples of the other side/take them out of context, and circulate what they said among 'your people' to get massive retweets. Twitter does this... i mean, i can give plenty others that do exactly what you said. twitter is not unique and certainly not the problem. i read his final(?) tweets and the reasons why he decided to leave twitter. and i don't think or remember him blaming the medium.
  - laretluval 6y ago
    Maybe Twitter isn't uniquely the worst at this but it's certainly in the top 5.
  - AlexCoventry 6y ago
    The pressure to keep one's communication brief due to the 240 character limit makes nuanced communication much more laborious, and that results in more conflict.
- bbutterworth 6y ago
  Haha each tweet is like a punch. And everyone else on twitter are the kids in the school playground laughing and pushing the 2 battling it out.
laretluval 6y ago
One perspective is that humans weren't meant to communicate so broadly and with such low costs. The result is the emergence of toxic dynamics that are usually held in check by the difficulty of communication, which raises the cost of signalling. When signalling is cheap, as it is on Twitter especially, then signals lose value in the same way that currency loses value in hyperinflation. People have to resort to more and more extreme signals in order to get a reaction from the network. By making highly viral communication easier, Twitter has done something equivalent to removing control rods from a nuclear reaction. The reaction is fine when it's under control, but if it reaches a certain level of intensity, then different and highly damaging behaviors can emerge.

by ornxka 6y ago

whymauri 6y ago

Yes and no. Keep in mind that the algorithms that Facebook and Twitter use to increase engagement metrics might actually encourage conflict. As a result, the means of communication fundamentally change the framing of the resulting social interactions. Now, within that system users can certainly be self-aware and actively abide to 'remembering the human.' Even then, this self-aware group is likely a minority.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate The problem is in the way it is designed. The shortness of the tweet limits context and nuance. This makes it easy to find something to be outraged over. Now add the re-tweet that makes it easy to spread the outrage everywhere. No, Twitter is optimized for outrage and conflict.

gbjw 6y ago

The medium is the message. The medium, Twitter, may not necessarily be just a passive channel, but an active component that amplifies and promotes certain types of communication at the expense of others.

DamnYuppie 6y ago
It promotes the type of communication people wouldn't generally have in person. Its discourse is pure childish vitriol masquerading a some just cause.

acituan 6y ago

> Twitter is just a means for people to communicate Human to human communication inherently includes a certain amount of noise per signal transmitted. Twitter or in general social media algorithms seem to amplify the noise more than the signal since disagreement translates to higher engagement metrics than agreement. There is only so much their algorithms can do in the name of increasing relavance (i.e finding signal amidst the giant noise they help created).

kaibee 6y ago

> I don't really understand sentiments like this - Twitter is just a means for people to communicate. If the apparent result of this communication is "tearing us apart", then isn't that the fault of the end to which people communicate, and not the means by which they communicate? No, tooling and the incentives around them matter. Twitter makes it super easy to find the worst examples of the other side/take them out of context, and circulate what they said among 'your people' to get massive retweets. Twitter does this because it creates a more engaging experience. Yes, if people were perfect robots, Twitter could just be a means for people to communicate. But the incentive structure of social media, ie: what goes viral, selects for outrage. The medium is the message.

blondin 6y ago
> Twitter makes it super easy to find the worst examples of the other side/take them out of context, and circulate what they said among 'your people' to get massive retweets. Twitter does this... i mean, i can give plenty others that do exactly what you said. twitter is not unique and certainly not the problem. i read his final(?) tweets and the reasons why he decided to leave twitter. and i don't think or remember him blaming the medium.
- laretluval 6y ago
  Maybe Twitter isn't uniquely the worst at this but it's certainly in the top 5.
- AlexCoventry 6y ago
  The pressure to keep one's communication brief due to the 240 character limit makes nuanced communication much more laborious, and that results in more conflict.
bbutterworth 6y ago
Haha each tweet is like a punch. And everyone else on twitter are the kids in the school playground laughing and pushing the 2 battling it out.

laretluval 6y ago

One perspective is that humans weren't meant to communicate so broadly and with such low costs. The result is the emergence of toxic dynamics that are usually held in check by the difficulty of communication, which raises the cost of signalling. When signalling is cheap, as it is on Twitter especially, then signals lose value in the same way that currency loses value in hyperinflation. People have to resort to more and more extreme signals in order to get a reaction from the network. By making highly viral communication easier, Twitter has done something equivalent to removing control rods from a nuclear reaction. The reaction is fine when it's under control, but if it reaches a certain level of intensity, then different and highly damaging behaviors can emerge.