5 ms·
Yep, exactly. The key question is to ask why this stream of concerted effort is pointed at taking down Favebook, and Twitter is left alone.
by seneca 5y ago
Yep, exactly. The key question is to ask why this stream of concerted effort is pointed at taking down Favebook, and Twitter is left alone.
- LordHumungous 5y agoTwitter amplifies the voices of the "right" type of person: celebrities, journalists, those verified by blue check.
- ethbr0 5y agoBecause Twitter isn't as wide as Facebook (in number of products), and because its primary features aren't as algorithmically tweaked?
- quickthrowman 5y agoIt’s quite simple really, journalists use Twitter.
- AzzieElbab 5y agoIf these hearings produce regulations fb won’t be the only one.
- JohnBooty 5y agoFB's emphasis on family connections makes it much more... potent, and almost cult-like in some ways. Families stay in touch and plan events on FB. Your mom, aunt, and uncle-in-law are rather likely to be on FB, but not Twitter. If they are on Twitter, Twitter doesn't hector you to "connect" with them with nearly the same fervor as FB. That has somewhat profound implications. If one ditches FB, one loses access to your family to some small or large extent. On the mild end of things you miss out on baby pictures and invitations to picnics. On the more distressing side of things, unfriending a family member or leaving FB altogether may be seen as a rejection of parts or all of the family. Perhaps this doesn't apply to your family, but we can agree it applies to many. The "family" aspect of FB also makes it much more of a fertile breeding ground for misinformation relative to Twitter. The boomers using FB are (on average) much less tech-savvy and don't know how to verify claims. But, as your neighbor/uncle/mom/dad/whatever, they are much harder to ignore than some Twitter rando.
- MiddleEndian 5y agoTo me, this is what makes Twitter (and Instagram and anything else aimed at talking to the public) mostly useless. I don't want to hear about the day-to-day lives of Twitter randos at all or follow celebrity gossip. On Facebook, I talk to and organize events with my friends and family. My conversations are continuous across devices, and they are not mobile-first like texting or whatsapp or snapchat or some of the new privacy-oriented platforms. I'm not a huge user of the newsfeed but I just unfollow anyone who posts irritating content. Back when they had auto-playing videos I unfollowed anyone who posted a video. Some of my friends apparently unfollowed me when I had a scary profile picture lol. But for the core usecase it still worked fine, we were still able to talk and organize events.
- JohnBooty 5y agoTo me, this is what makes Twitter (and Instagram and anything else aimed at talking to the public) mostly useless. I don't want to hear about the day-to-day lives of Twitter randos at all or follow celebrity gossip. I enjoy Twitter a lot and my feed is 0% randos and celebrities. It's about 50% friends I know personally and 50%... well, not "celebrities" but like... local personalities, independent musicians, leaders of open source projects, etc. The ones I follow are actually very responsive to replies which is very very cool and useful to me. I'm not sure where else I could easily and enjoyably aggregate that stuff.
- MiddleEndian 5y agoI guess I just don't have a particular desire for that to be integrated into the same system I use to talk to my friends. To me FB is just a replacement for AIM with some conveniences like being able to look people up by name. If I want aggregated tech news I just come here, if I want to know what someone specific like Stallman is up to, I'll go to his site or send him an email.
- AzzieElbab 5y agoI don’t even use the feed. Just private lists, and I avoid adding journalists.