5 ms·

It’s faster than traditional means and they can craft the narrative completely (unlike newspapers, TV news)

by derwiki 6y ago

thwarted 6y ago
It would be just as fast to give high level officials a textbox and a submit button that adds content to a web page.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  This is what makes me roll my eyes at anyone who says getting kicked of Twitter is being “silenced”. Make a web page and you have broader and more direct reach than almost anyone on Earth 20 years ago.
  - acct776 6y ago
    But not today.
    - bigwavedave 6y ago
      > But not today. Exactly. That was kind of like telling a content creator to build a web site and post videos there after getting kicked off YouTube. Sure, only a fraction of their fanbase will start using their site to consume their content, but hey, at least they have a broader reach than almost anyone on Earth had 20 years ago.
      - travisjungroth 6y ago
        My point is that while it may suck, it’s not the violation of human rights that some people treat it as. So I understand if someone kicked off YouTube complains about it but I’m not going to entertain the idea they’ve been silenced.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  But if people are only reading on social media, then they will only see it when someone else posts it there (e.g. a newspaper). Or I’ll read it from a newspaper and it’s still filtered through someone’s perspective, unless it’s an op ed. To reach people directly, you need people to be regularly checking wherever you post. Probably what GP meant by being able to create the narrative better on social media.
  - thwarted 6y ago
    People won't continuously reload a web page that is a political leader's stream of thought? Something can be a highly currated narrative and be accessible to everyone. Shit, people even have web browsers on their phones and computers these days. Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, does not encourage the creation of highly currated narratives. We should probably invent a publish-subscribe distributed protocol for this, maybe some kind of Really Simple Syndication.
    - pimlottc 6y ago
      You can use the word “should” all you want, but the fact is that Twitter is where most people are today. And when you’re trying to your message out, that matters.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
      > We should probably invent a publish-subscribe distributed protocol for this, maybe some kind of Really Simple Syndication. +1 for that. Was RSS just too much effort to catch on? Or was discovery the issue? It's a great thing.
charlus 6y ago
This is the main reason. Twenty years ago it was very hard to get your message as Government out there to the people, with media being the only conduit to do so, of course with their own agenda. Now if you want to communicate a point, or refute something, you can hop on Twitter and sort it out.

It’s faster than traditional means and they can craft the narrative completely (unlike newspapers, TV news)

thwarted 6y ago

It would be just as fast to give high level officials a textbox and a submit button that adds content to a web page.

travisjungroth 6y ago
This is what makes me roll my eyes at anyone who says getting kicked of Twitter is being “silenced”. Make a web page and you have broader and more direct reach than almost anyone on Earth 20 years ago.
- acct776 6y ago
  But not today.
  - bigwavedave 6y ago
    > But not today. Exactly. That was kind of like telling a content creator to build a web site and post videos there after getting kicked off YouTube. Sure, only a fraction of their fanbase will start using their site to consume their content, but hey, at least they have a broader reach than almost anyone on Earth had 20 years ago.
    - travisjungroth 6y ago
      My point is that while it may suck, it’s not the violation of human rights that some people treat it as. So I understand if someone kicked off YouTube complains about it but I’m not going to entertain the idea they’ve been silenced.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
But if people are only reading on social media, then they will only see it when someone else posts it there (e.g. a newspaper). Or I’ll read it from a newspaper and it’s still filtered through someone’s perspective, unless it’s an op ed. To reach people directly, you need people to be regularly checking wherever you post. Probably what GP meant by being able to create the narrative better on social media.
- thwarted 6y ago
  People won't continuously reload a web page that is a political leader's stream of thought? Something can be a highly currated narrative and be accessible to everyone. Shit, people even have web browsers on their phones and computers these days. Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, does not encourage the creation of highly currated narratives. We should probably invent a publish-subscribe distributed protocol for this, maybe some kind of Really Simple Syndication.
  - pimlottc 6y ago
    You can use the word “should” all you want, but the fact is that Twitter is where most people are today. And when you’re trying to your message out, that matters.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    > We should probably invent a publish-subscribe distributed protocol for this, maybe some kind of Really Simple Syndication. +1 for that. Was RSS just too much effort to catch on? Or was discovery the issue? It's a great thing.

charlus 6y ago

This is the main reason. Twenty years ago it was very hard to get your message as Government out there to the people, with media being the only conduit to do so, of course with their own agenda. Now if you want to communicate a point, or refute something, you can hop on Twitter and sort it out.