5 ms·

Yeah, but that is where their friends, followers, audience, comfort is. Its like saying 'I wish he hadn't told they story down the pub, the pub is a terrible p

by ljf 5y ago

Yeah, but that is where their friends, followers, audience, comfort is. Its like saying 'I wish he hadn't told they story down the pub, the pub is a terrible place to tell stories as it is too noisy and I find it hard to follow with everything else going on'. But hey, they were down the pub telling stories, that is where it happened and that is where they were happy to do it. They might not have wanted to sit on a stage at a conference or record a video for you. By all means take their story and retell it like journalist and bloggers have done for years, but don't complain about someone's medium, just be glad they shared the story at all.

OGWhales 5y ago
> Yeah, but that is where their friends, followers, audience, comfort is. I just link to a better format from my twitter when I want to tell a longer story and it works great. I find writing longer stories in a string of tweets even more annoying than trying to read them.
oauea 5y ago
You do realize that the internet has this thing called hyperlinks that you can use to send people to another website? Just in case, let me show you: https://twitter.com https://twitter.com Boom! You were on HN, now if you click that link you're on twitter! Magic!
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  You do realise that that reduces “engagement”, so most social media sites punish their users for doing that?
  - oauea 5y ago
    Can you explain how they're punished?
    - kemayo 5y ago
      Because social media site algorithms feed on "engagement", people interacting with your content rewards you in the form of your content becoming more visible to others, which results in more engagement, which spreads it further, etc etc etc. This is how something "goes viral". Sending people away from your content on the social media site to view it somewhere else results in less interactions with the social media content -- there's not 20 tweets all of which can be replied to, liked, retweeted, etc, there's just one tweet (and a blog post that the social media site can't see). Thus, giving people less things to interact with means that you'll receive less rewards. This is the "punishment".
      - oauea 5y ago
        You're speculating on "why" they're punished. I ask for "how". How is someone posting a link punished?
        kemayo 5y ago
        I told you how. Maybe you're being too literal? It's "punished" in the sense that there's a relative negative consequence -- your post is raised up less by the algorithm than competing posts. This is colloquially valid.
roenxi 5y ago
The pub is a great place to tell stories though, so your analogy is an appropriate action in an appropriate place. This is like staging a play at a pub - great gimmick once in a while, certainly not a bad thing, but it just isn't practical to do a full stage production at an average pub. The lighting isn't there, the stage isn't big enough and the patrons are busy eating and drinking. It would be better to go to a theatre. Similarly, this fellow is telling an interesting anecdote. But what we see here is a man searching for a paragraph while living in the desert of a sentence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
robby_w_g 5y ago
> Its like saying 'I wish he hadn't told they story down the pub, the pub is a terrible place to tell stories as it is too noisy and I find it hard to follow with everything else going on'. More like 'I wish he hadn't told the story at the pub in small snippets over 4-6 drinks' Twitter, unlike pubs, has intentional systems in place to interrupt medium to long-form communication. It was designed to be a bad medium for telling stories, so chaining a dozen tweets is a frustrating experience for both the author and the reader. It's obvious why people still insist on using Twitter for telling stories: Twitter is a massively popular website, and the author will lose some percentage of readership if they link to an external blog. Ideally, Twitter would recognize that this is now a major use case and would add UI to support long-form communication. In the meantime, it'd be nice if people shared Twitter chains via threadreaderapp or authors used screenshots of the Notes app. Using a medium designed for telling stories would be even better.
- kixiQu 5y ago
  Screenshots of text are inaccessible to assistive technologies without alt text. Twitter's alt text limit is 1000 characters. But, again, if you're also annoyed that social story telling IRL happens with interruptions and digressions and background noise (and perhaps even four to six drinks!) then you are really asking for something other than what it is.
  - robby_w_g 5y ago
    > But, again, if you're also annoyed that social story telling IRL happens with interruptions and digressions and background noise Really, this pub/Twitter comparison doesn't work. Yes, interruptions happen IRL, but they aren't systematically happening every other sentence. Also, you can use body language or talk louder to ensure you're understood IRL. Internet communication doesn't have the same luxury. Disruption while consuming information in the browser is a different animal compared to person-to-person contact.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      >Yes, interruptions happen IRL, but they aren't systematically happening every other sentence. No, you usually have to go see Shakespeare for that.

by ljf 5y ago

OGWhales 5y ago

> Yeah, but that is where their friends, followers, audience, comfort is. I just link to a better format from my twitter when I want to tell a longer story and it works great. I find writing longer stories in a string of tweets even more annoying than trying to read them.

oauea 5y ago

You do realize that the internet has this thing called hyperlinks that you can use to send people to another website? Just in case, let me show you: https://twitter.com https://twitter.com Boom! You were on HN, now if you click that link you're on twitter! Magic!

wizzwizz4 5y ago
You do realise that that reduces “engagement”, so most social media sites punish their users for doing that?
- oauea 5y ago
  Can you explain how they're punished?
  - kemayo 5y ago
    Because social media site algorithms feed on "engagement", people interacting with your content rewards you in the form of your content becoming more visible to others, which results in more engagement, which spreads it further, etc etc etc. This is how something "goes viral". Sending people away from your content on the social media site to view it somewhere else results in less interactions with the social media content -- there's not 20 tweets all of which can be replied to, liked, retweeted, etc, there's just one tweet (and a blog post that the social media site can't see). Thus, giving people less things to interact with means that you'll receive less rewards. This is the "punishment".
    - oauea 5y ago
      You're speculating on "why" they're punished. I ask for "how". How is someone posting a link punished?
      - kemayo 5y ago
        I told you how. Maybe you're being too literal? It's "punished" in the sense that there's a relative negative consequence -- your post is raised up less by the algorithm than competing posts. This is colloquially valid.

roenxi 5y ago

The pub is a great place to tell stories though, so your analogy is an appropriate action in an appropriate place. This is like staging a play at a pub - great gimmick once in a while, certainly not a bad thing, but it just isn't practical to do a full stage production at an average pub. The lighting isn't there, the stage isn't big enough and the patrons are busy eating and drinking. It would be better to go to a theatre. Similarly, this fellow is telling an interesting anecdote. But what we see here is a man searching for a paragraph while living in the desert of a sentence.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

robby_w_g 5y ago

> Its like saying 'I wish he hadn't told they story down the pub, the pub is a terrible place to tell stories as it is too noisy and I find it hard to follow with everything else going on'. More like 'I wish he hadn't told the story at the pub in small snippets over 4-6 drinks' Twitter, unlike pubs, has intentional systems in place to interrupt medium to long-form communication. It was designed to be a bad medium for telling stories, so chaining a dozen tweets is a frustrating experience for both the author and the reader. It's obvious why people still insist on using Twitter for telling stories: Twitter is a massively popular website, and the author will lose some percentage of readership if they link to an external blog. Ideally, Twitter would recognize that this is now a major use case and would add UI to support long-form communication. In the meantime, it'd be nice if people shared Twitter chains via threadreaderapp or authors used screenshots of the Notes app. Using a medium designed for telling stories would be even better.

kixiQu 5y ago
Screenshots of text are inaccessible to assistive technologies without alt text. Twitter's alt text limit is 1000 characters. But, again, if you're also annoyed that social story telling IRL happens with interruptions and digressions and background noise (and perhaps even four to six drinks!) then you are really asking for something other than what it is.
- robby_w_g 5y ago
  > But, again, if you're also annoyed that social story telling IRL happens with interruptions and digressions and background noise Really, this pub/Twitter comparison doesn't work. Yes, interruptions happen IRL, but they aren't systematically happening every other sentence. Also, you can use body language or talk louder to ensure you're understood IRL. Internet communication doesn't have the same luxury. Disruption while consuming information in the browser is a different animal compared to person-to-person contact.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >Yes, interruptions happen IRL, but they aren't systematically happening every other sentence. No, you usually have to go see Shakespeare for that.