3 ms·
“…you could end up on twitter.com for example but it would be worthwhile.” Unpopular opinion: I never click on twitter links anymore. It’s almost never worth i
by IHLayman 5y ago
“…you could end up on twitter.com for example but it would be worthwhile.”
Unpopular opinion: I never click on twitter links anymore. It’s almost never worth it.
IMHO, 140/280/N character limits are a way to cheapen discourse. I think there is something to be said for the “density” of text: text that offers very little to think about (less dense) is vacuous but encouraged by a character limit; yet, text that is compressed into a character limit either packs too much info into a short space that requires more discourse to properly get a thought across or elides too much from the text, making it less accurate/meaningful/important. Or worse: people chain posts into long 1/907, 2/907, 3/907… trains that should be blog posts rather than requiring some other application to string the thread together.
Of course the other reason (more central to this discussion) never to click on a twitter link is that JS and an account login is required now to read the posts past a certain point. If that makes me an old man yelling at a cloud, so be it, but aren’t there better ways to handle online public discourse without sacrificing people’s privacy and security?
- hilbert42 5y ago"Unpopular opinion: I never click on twitter links anymore. It’s almost never worth it." It's not unpopular with me, I agree with you completely. I was never a Twitter fan but when they forced the use of JS that was the end of it (you'll note I used Twitter as an example in one of my earlier posts). You're right about sacrificing people’s privacy and security, as I said in another post 'I'm forever amazed at the trust the average person has in these vulnerability-ridden flaky systems'.