3 ms·

>Twitter is a mob launch pad. True, but you don't have to participate and you can try to stop it, if you want. >It's ran by outrage addicted, sadistic, cruel

>Twitter is a mob launch pad. True, but you don't have to participate and you can try to stop it, if you want. >It's ran by outrage addicted, sadistic, cruel bullies. Not sure, but I think this is false. It seems to be run professionally, for profit, and with a great deal of thought. > It's as if all of the world's village idiots joined forces and became the ruling class in culture and speech. False, but with a seed of truth: Twitter has undue influence over decision makers because it satisfies their constant need for feedback. Powerful people take Twitter feedback far more seriously then they should. The worst example being businesses that fire people because of a cancel mob to "protect their reputation". (IMO such cancellations do far more harm to the business reputation demonstrating terrible judgement) >No normal person engages with another person like this. False. Or rather, you characterize Twitter engagement in one way, and ignore all the other ways. I, for example, enjoy engaging with smart, good people from around the world. The key is to a) be careful about who you follow, and b) give 0 care about likes, retweets, etc. Twitter is not really one place, it's a huge network of places, a bit like Reddit, and so behavior and content varies significantly.

smoldesu 5y ago
> False. Or rather, you characterize Twitter engagement in one way, and ignore all the other ways. I, for example, enjoy engaging with smart, good people from around the world. You don't need Twitter to do that. Arguably, it was easier to engage with the smart, good people from around the world on IRC since it wasn't through the guise of microblogging 240 characters at one another in public. I think it's perfectly fine to characterize Twitter by it's lowest common denominator. > The key is to a) be careful about who you follow, and b) give 0 care about likes, retweets, etc. Sounds like it's a fundamentally broken system then, no? If it's incentivizing toxic engagement and behavior patterns, that's an issue. > Twitter is not really one place, it's a huge network of places, a bit like Reddit, and so behavior and content varies significantly. No, it is "one place". There are federated networks similar to Twitter like Mastodon and Pleroma where that is the case, but Twitter is one homogenous userbase, for better or worse. You're lumped in with the left-wing pundits, the right-wing trolls and everyone in between. Generally speaking, this comment kinda makes me sad. Nobody needs to take the bullet for Twitter, of all places. It's notoriously shitty by-and-large, and while some people have gotten it to work for them (more power to you), trying to claim it's a universally altruistic platform if you ignore the bad stuff is simply disingenuous.
- javajosh 5y ago
  You are not communicating in good faith, changing my words and their meanings, in an effort to promote your dogmatic view. Ironically it is this, not the platform, that is the root of the problems that seem to bother you. Good day!
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Would you like to highlight the parts that you felt I changed?

smoldesu 5y ago

> False. Or rather, you characterize Twitter engagement in one way, and ignore all the other ways. I, for example, enjoy engaging with smart, good people from around the world. You don't need Twitter to do that. Arguably, it was easier to engage with the smart, good people from around the world on IRC since it wasn't through the guise of microblogging 240 characters at one another in public. I think it's perfectly fine to characterize Twitter by it's lowest common denominator. > The key is to a) be careful about who you follow, and b) give 0 care about likes, retweets, etc. Sounds like it's a fundamentally broken system then, no? If it's incentivizing toxic engagement and behavior patterns, that's an issue. > Twitter is not really one place, it's a huge network of places, a bit like Reddit, and so behavior and content varies significantly. No, it is "one place". There are federated networks similar to Twitter like Mastodon and Pleroma where that is the case, but Twitter is one homogenous userbase, for better or worse. You're lumped in with the left-wing pundits, the right-wing trolls and everyone in between. Generally speaking, this comment kinda makes me sad. Nobody needs to take the bullet for Twitter, of all places. It's notoriously shitty by-and-large, and while some people have gotten it to work for them (more power to you), trying to claim it's a universally altruistic platform if you ignore the bad stuff is simply disingenuous.

javajosh 5y ago
You are not communicating in good faith, changing my words and their meanings, in an effort to promote your dogmatic view. Ironically it is this, not the platform, that is the root of the problems that seem to bother you. Good day!
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Would you like to highlight the parts that you felt I changed?