5 ms·

I don't like Twitter but I suspect the effects of Twitter are often exaggerated because everything is public by default, whereas in other networks a lot of stuf

I don't like Twitter but I suspect the effects of Twitter are often exaggerated because everything is public by default, whereas in other networks a lot of stuff happens in groups/channels by default, where it is not immediately visible, so it is simply less amenable to OSINT, scraping and media analysis. In any case, between Twitter and Google it is quite obvious who is doing more harm to more people in more places and more ways. Twitter may still be a net-negative overall (in fact I believe it is) - a lot of stuff is.

concordDance 5y ago
> it is quite obvious who is doing more harm to more people in more places To me it's "obviously" Twitter, so I'm quite curious how you came to the conclusion it's Google.
- riffraff 5y ago
  Google's search bubble is arguably more impactful than Twitter's social bubble due to reach, imo.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Google is an ad company, but search is their foremost product, unlike social media.
    - taneq 5y ago
      Ads are their foremost product. Search is just their vehicle for delivering ads to viewers' eyeballs.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  In many ways Google is on the same playbook as Microsoft's Embrace/Extend strategy, but perhaps in slightly more creative and net positive way. Google embraced search, and they're basically the only one left. They embraced email and their free offering distorted the market to enough extent to make most other providers also-rans, except a few key players. Youtube is the only viable player left in the video sharing field. RSS readers are recovering but it also was a blood bath. I could go on for long, Google coming and leaving(or not) markets has huge negative impacts that I don't see Twitter having in general.
vosper 5y ago
Twitter is actually under-rated, IMO. It’s public, popular, and all the data is for sale for custom analytics. So journalists are in there amplifying tweets into other media. Companies (many/most of the medium and big ones) are desperately monitoring Twitter (Reddit is gaining) because it’s the only window they have into what people say about them. Government agencies are doing the same, for reasons ranging from vaccine disinformation research to protecting senior politicians (and post offices).
- pumaontheprowl 5y ago
  > Companies (many/most of the medium and big ones) are desperately monitoring Twitter (Reddit is gaining) because it’s the only window they have into what people say about them. This just makes Twitter even worse. Only a tiny percentage of the US population are active posters on Twitter. If governments are using Twitter to decide public policy, then they are going to design policy that tailors to only a narrow subset of the population. If companies/politicians want to know what people think of them, they should be sending out surveys to their customers/constituents. Twitter is not a statistically sound replacement for actual research.
fatjokes 5y ago
Yeah, obviously Twitter for me. Twitter is a clout machine. It is purely for brand building and very little else. After all, there's only so much you can do in a hundred-or-so characters/words/whatever it is now. The result is a huge incentive to take extreme positions to generate as much noise and controversy as possible.

concordDance 5y ago

> it is quite obvious who is doing more harm to more people in more places To me it's "obviously" Twitter, so I'm quite curious how you came to the conclusion it's Google.

riffraff 5y ago
Google's search bubble is arguably more impactful than Twitter's social bubble due to reach, imo.
- loopz 5y ago
  Google is an ad company, but search is their foremost product, unlike social media.
  - taneq 5y ago
    Ads are their foremost product. Search is just their vehicle for delivering ads to viewers' eyeballs.
makeitdouble 5y ago
In many ways Google is on the same playbook as Microsoft's Embrace/Extend strategy, but perhaps in slightly more creative and net positive way. Google embraced search, and they're basically the only one left. They embraced email and their free offering distorted the market to enough extent to make most other providers also-rans, except a few key players. Youtube is the only viable player left in the video sharing field. RSS readers are recovering but it also was a blood bath. I could go on for long, Google coming and leaving(or not) markets has huge negative impacts that I don't see Twitter having in general.

vosper 5y ago

Twitter is actually under-rated, IMO. It’s public, popular, and all the data is for sale for custom analytics. So journalists are in there amplifying tweets into other media. Companies (many/most of the medium and big ones) are desperately monitoring Twitter (Reddit is gaining) because it’s the only window they have into what people say about them. Government agencies are doing the same, for reasons ranging from vaccine disinformation research to protecting senior politicians (and post offices).

pumaontheprowl 5y ago
> Companies (many/most of the medium and big ones) are desperately monitoring Twitter (Reddit is gaining) because it’s the only window they have into what people say about them. This just makes Twitter even worse. Only a tiny percentage of the US population are active posters on Twitter. If governments are using Twitter to decide public policy, then they are going to design policy that tailors to only a narrow subset of the population. If companies/politicians want to know what people think of them, they should be sending out surveys to their customers/constituents. Twitter is not a statistically sound replacement for actual research.

fatjokes 5y ago

Yeah, obviously Twitter for me. Twitter is a clout machine. It is purely for brand building and very little else. After all, there's only so much you can do in a hundred-or-so characters/words/whatever it is now. The result is a huge incentive to take extreme positions to generate as much noise and controversy as possible.