3 ms·
> The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with
by ardy42 6y ago
> The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with this other idea, etc."
I disagree that would be "the valuable version." That's just "the more quantified" version. A music critic's list of the 100 best songs of 2020 is not inferior to Billboard's list of the 100 most popular songs of 2020 as determined by quantified data.
Twitter is a cultural phenomenon, and its milieu(s) and output aren't completely unworthy of journalistic attention. That's not to say it's a top shelf subject, but the "news" properly covers all kinds of similar things, and some, like sports for instance, have even less value.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoIt's not the quantification that makes it important, it's that it's being put into context. When you see a list of twenty tweets holding the same viewpoint, the main question is whether they are representative (and of whom are they representative). Whether you say "70%" or just "most people," it's the same value that's missing usually. The quantification doesn't matter. It's the difference between a music critic choosing the 100 best songs (fine, because it's a person's own opinion presented honestly) versus a music critic saying they're just going with the popular consensus while cherry picking tweets that happen to pick the 100 they would have chosen (bad, because the tweets aren't put into context). Or like a traditional paper looking for a scientist who will say something exciting/sensational in a particular direction, then presenting it as scientific consensus. You can find a group saying anything on twitter. That means that the fact that some particular thing exists on it is useless.