11 ms·
Stop Writing Twitter Threads
- Waterluvian 4y agoTwitter threads are kind of nice in a way that every segmented idea has its own comments section and you can share them. It gives the reader power to more easily share the part they’re interested in sharing.
- gausswho 4y agoThere is some utility that. I haven't seen blogs offer anchors per paragraph but would serve the same objective.
- posharma 4y agoCompletely agree. Whatever happened to long form writing!
- browningstreet 4y agoMedium /s (but not really)
- __derek__ 4y agoI think the "/s" is appropriate. Yesterday, I visited Medium for the first time in a while to read a post shared by a local VC. The post itself was a long-form tweet: a series of punchy emotional lines with little substance, and the side-bar was full of ZergNet-style posts with click-bait titles (including the "Cheat Codes for Life" one that made the front-page this morning).
- poulsbohemian 4y agoHe's not wrong, but he's also overlooking that it's darn easy to open Twitter and start typing, and get instant conversation started, IE: it's a path of least resistance. Set up your own site? Sure, I wish more people would, but it takes some degree of knowledge to do that, and then your mom and your dog are the only people who will find your site unless you work really hard at self-promotion. Facebook would have been a good place for this in the past, but is a cesspool these days. There might be specialized forums and interest groups out there - but it can be hard to pin your content for general use, IE: it gets lost in some thread, whereas at least Twitter is tied to you. Yes, there are various sites promoting themselves as places for long-form writing, but they have their own issues with copyright, walled gardens, etc. This is a space that needs entrepreneurial focus.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoTweet a summary, supply a link. Discussion can take place on Twitter, but I won't have to use those thread unrollers (or rollers, I don't know) to emulate a functioning article.
- poulsbohemian 4y agoI don't disagree that this would be more desirable, but then we are asking people to find a place to write their long-form content. For a lot of people, anything more complicated than a text message is too much - just keeping it real here.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoHaving just registered a substack in ~25 seconds just to see how long it takes, I struggle to imagine that such people, doubtless numerous in the general population, have the capacity to produce Twitter threads or articles that add particularly valuable insight on any topic of interest (to me, anyway). I genuinely don't know how it can be any simpler to do. Signing up for an email account is far more complicated.
- pixl97 4y ago> darn easy to open Twitter and start typing, signs in [Your account is suspended until you give us your phone number] never signs in again
- shmageggy 4y agoOpening twitter.com on my phone reveals no fewer than 4 (FOUR!) obstacles to doing or seeing anything. Log-in with Google pop-up | “Use the app” nag box | Cookie modal | Log-in page When I get bombarded like that I just “nope” right out
- shever73 4y agoExactly. I don't have a Twitter account for precisely this reason. Without an account, you have to be very careful about scrolling before Twitter decides you've seen enough. If the content is really interesting, then I might resort to Developer Tools to remove the overlay, but most often I just close the tab.
- agentdrtran 4y agoDoes anyone outside of a small technical set care about this? I have no problem reading twitter threads — I think they're easier to read than this site!
- corobo 4y agoI only really see it when Foone posts something interesting and HN agrees with itself repeatedly that Twitter threads suck
- endorphine 4y agoI find them significantly harder to read than this site, which renders fine in my phone. The fact that speech is interrupted every 140 chars is ridiculous.
- __derek__ 4y agoThey bumped it up to 280 characters some time back, but the point stands. Twitter is a poor medium for communicating ideas (let alone guides as linked in TFA).
- xigoi 4y agoEnable network throttling in your browser (to simulate the experience of people who can't afford fast internet) and see which becomes easier to read.
- agentdrtran 4y agoThis is true, but I also don't think anything but a tiny fraction of HN is on a slow connection.
- xigoi 4y agoAnd? Do people who can't afford a fast connection not deserve to read quality content?
- lazzlazzlazz 4y agoI genuinely don't understand why a small number of people think Twitter threads are so difficult to read. They're not. Threads can also create new conversations — just like the comments here on Hacker News — but what's better is that each Tweet (like a paragraph) can have comments and discussions corresponding to that Tweet. There's a finer level of detail in the overall conversation. It's just fine and posts like this read like oldheads struggling to adapt.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoIt's just so pointless and unnecessary... There are far better platforms for this. If you had to give a two-hour talk, would you post it as a Youtube video, or a series of TikTok snippets? Twitter conversations are marginally less vacuous and pointless than YouTube comments, but not significantly so. >what's better is that each Tweet (like a paragraph) can have comments and discussions corresponding to that Tweet. There's a finer level of detail in the overall conversation. So there are people out there in the wild who actually unroll those mid-thread tweet replies and read them? Huh.
- corobo 4y ago> If you had to give a two-hour talk, would you post it as a Youtube video, or a series of TikTok snippets? Both tbh. The snippets being marketing for the whole video, which itself is marketing for the rest of the channel. I'd wang it on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and even LinkedIn too if there's a biz link.
- nh23423fefe 4y agoAh there's the disconnect. You dont care about the information, its just an ad. i thought people wanted their ideas out there and for people to be delighted to read them. naive.
- cercatrova 4y agoIf the content is truly good, then my incentive is for as many people to read it as possible. Therefore, why should I not advertise it? What's the point of good writing if no one is around to read it? Sure, you can write for yourself, but again, if you think the content is good, you should want as many people to read it as possible.
- exolymph 4y agoPeople write Twitter threads because they have an audience on there, and they're used to the form factor as are their readers. Also because Twitter heavily downranks external links.
- zeptonaut22 4y agoAs someone that regularly writes long-form content on a blog, I have to say: this post completely misses the point. People write Twitter threads because Twitter gives them distribution for what they want to say. Sure, it may not be the perfect soapbox for what you want to say. But if you write something insightful, a zillion people may see it as opposed to your mom and best friend who read it on your blog.
- time_to_smile 4y ago> a zillion people may see it as opposed to your mom and best friend who read it on your blog If you write solely for vanity than this is great, a zillion is better than 10 so you can feel important. The problem is that Twitter threads are incredibly ephemeral and also written, inherent to the nature of the platform, to be more engaging than informing. I would rather a few hundred people, or even a few dozen, carefully read and consider what I've written rather than a "zillion" mindlessly click on some basically contently stream of "sounds good" blips. Of course I've basically left twitter because the ego boost from engagement was not sufficiently worth the pressure the platform puts on your writing to eventually become pure engagement obsessed drivel, devolving ultimately into the infamous "shit post". I've had plenty of people I really respect I've met on Twitter and they go only one of two paths in the long run: increasingly writing meaningless content for the ego-driven thrill of likes until they become an intellectual parody of themselves or they leave Twitter baring occasional updates.
- afavour 4y agoI think you’re presenting absolutes where there aren’t any here. People read deeply on Twitter sometimes too. Let’s say there’s a 100% chance of a blog reader deeply considering what you’re saying but only a 10% chance of the same happening on Twitter. If your tweets get 10.1x traffic your blog does then Twitter is still a better platform for broadcasting your thoughts.
- time_to_smile 4y agoI think you missed the point where the media itself does shape the way you write. There is no Twitter equivalent to a post or essay you've spent multiple days writing, tweaking, reworking and then finally publishing. I've never started a single essay with "a thread 1/?". Twitter abhors subtly and nuance. I have nearly 10k followers, the highest upvoted tweets I've made are always the most polemical, flippant statements I make. Anything nuanced or remotely complex is ignored. Any statement that makes people a little uncomfortable or is off brand will lose followers. Twitter encourages bad writing and bad thinking. And people don't read tweets as deeply as other content. It is extremely rare to see engagement on a tweet that is more than a few days old, yet blog posts I've written years ago get frequent revisits and rereads. I've had classes and organizations make my posts required reading, I've never heard of that happening with a twitter thread.
- nonameking2026 4y agoThreadreaderapp does a good job of making it readable https://threadreaderapp.com/ https://threadreaderapp.com/
- draw_down 4y agoUnfortunately these bots have people shitting up the replies with “unroll @somethreadbot”. Really annoying way to implement this.
- yunohn 4y agoIndeed, feels like Twitter should add this natively.
- agentdrtran 4y agoThey did, but stupidly it's a paid feature
- norswap 4y agoThis won't convince anyone. The truth is that Twitter thread get a ton of engagement that articles don't — even if you post them on Twitter. Leaving the platform, particularly on mobile, is additional friction that readers might not be willing to take on.
- dekervin 4y agoThe reason twitter threads work is because it forces writers to be explicit in how they articulate their demonstrations. No matter how long the thread, it's easy to follow, easy to scan beforehand. When I open a medium link, there is a high chance ( > 50%) it will be full of uninteresting filler, just to make the point look important. The only reason I would follow a link to a blog on a non technical topic, is if the author had already built a brand with me, in my brain. For example by writing good twitter threads.
- klodolph 4y agoThere are some people I read on both Medium and Twitter, and so I’ll see someone tweet about an article they posted on Medium. The same person that articulates themselves clearly and effectively on Twitter will sometimes post a rambling, conversational mess of Medium.
- kasajian 4y agoEspecially when posting something on Medium means that a lot of people won't see it since Medium blocks your post if the reader has read too many Medium posts that month, asking them to login or subscribe. I basically block people who tweet Medium posts for that reason. If I can't click on something on mobile to read it right there and then, it's a waste of my time. Same with paywalls.
- lbhdc 4y agoI really dislike reading twitter for similar reasons as tfa. I usually skip posts here where the link from twitter because I find the experience to be user hostile and I would rather not engage.
- AndrewGaspar 4y agoI think there are decent critiques of the Twitter Thread medium, but complaining about the bandwidth inefficiencies is just kind of silly. 22MB of data (uncompressed, uncached)?! The good (and bad) aspect of Twitter Threads is that, adapted appropriately to the medium, individual points can be individually addressed and pulled from their original context to start new discussion, or to emphasize the most important part of the essay. I think this is probably good for sparking additional discussions, though of course it can have the down side of removing context.
- prepend 4y agoI recently switched to a cheap mobile provider that only gives 2GB of data per month. 20MB per tweet ads up fast. I think it’s relevant to consider content bloat, especially when it’s 100x more than is actually needed. Telling me and other users to just suck it up and pay more isn’t a good solution. $15 vs $50 is a big difference for a monthly fee for 2GB vs unlimited.
- AndrewGaspar 4y agoHis numbers are incorrect because he's assuming every tweet is loading nothing from cache, which is wrong. If you're regularly browsing Twitter, you're not going to load 7MB per tweet thread.
- prepend 4y agoI don’t regularly browse Twitter, I follow links from places like HN.
- diebeforei485 4y agoHe's correct that Twitter should do a better job with threads. Thread reader apps shouldn't be a thing. I like that Twitter threads force people to be concise and doesn't allow for giant paragraphs.
- yunohn 4y agoI often find the conciseness to convey very little substance though. Always feels too vague but agreeable for virtue signalling purposes.
- evouga 4y agoI think the article misses the two bigger reasons to avoid writing Important content on Twitter: - Twitter forces people to log in to read it. The... dozens?... of us who have a burner account but don't use Twitter regularly and have no interest in doing so probably can't be bothered to log in to read what you're writing. - Twitter could delete your posts for any reason, or no reason, at any time(*). Given the ongoing Twitter-Musk struggle and Twitter's generally dubious financial outlook, this is not idle alarmist speculation. (*): The content on your blog could also disappear at any time, however, unlike your Twitter thread (1) the material will be archived by the Internet Archive and (2) you have full control over your data and if/when to stop hosting it.
- nine_k 4y ago- Twitter nudges you to log in to read. This can be sidestepped. Also, https://nitter.net https://nitter.net exists (and you can run your own copy if you want to). - Any third-party service can delete your post. Keep a copy of the source material. OTOH possibly more people lose interest in their blogs and stop keeping them online than old but important Twitter threads get deleted. - There are apps that create nice blog-like pages from Twitter threads. If you re interested mostly in reading, they do a really adequate job of turning a Twitter thread into a compact page not overburdened with heavy / slow scripts.
- evouga 4y ago> OTOH possibly more people lose interest in their blogs and stop keeping them online than old but important Twitter threads get deleted. I agree with you that this is true for now. However I expect that in the not-so-distance future, all Twitter threads will get deleted.
- xigoi 4y agoThe author of Nitter wishes Twitter didn't exist, they created Nitter just to make Twitter slightly more bearable.
- ISL 4y agoLogin is not forced. I was surprised to read the assertion above. Popping open https://twitter.com/EricTopol https://twitter.com/EricTopol in an incognito window allowed me to read posts and threads without login. Public-square distribution without login has been one of Twitter's key differentiators from Day 1 -- it is the reason that reporters/news-channels like it so much. You can cite it and everyone can see the same thing in real time.
- neals 4y agoShould be aimed at Twitter, allowing some type of article flow style tweeting
- Retr0id 4y agoI tweet regularly, and I also have a personal blog. Tweeting a link to a blog post, no matter how interesting, generates a fraction of the engagements of direct-to-twitter content. I write blog posts rarely, and the frequency of my blog posts dropped off dramatically once my twitter following grew. Part of this is self-imposed rules. I hold my blog to a high standard - it is for completed and whole ideas/thoughts/projects only. On the other hand, Twitter is where I can dump my random ideas and work-in-progress. I would love to say that all my projects are done purely for my own enjoyment, but that's not true. I do things because I want other people to look at it, to think about it, and to talk about it. Twitter is generally the best way to make that happen. In an ideal world I would blog more, and I try to - but tweeting is easier and more readily dopamine-inducing.
- rileyphone 4y agoTwitter penalizes posts with links in their algo I think.
- Retr0id 4y agoYup, they prioritise on-platform engagements.
- klodolph 4y agoFrom what I understand, Twitter doesn’t penalize posts with links—the problem is that people don’t engage with posts that have links, Twitter notices the reduced engagement, and the post gets shared less. It is commonly said that Twitter deprioritizes posts with links, I don’t think it’s true.
- fknorangesite 4y agoYeah lots of "I think I heard somewhere that..." in this discussion.
- Retr0id 4y ago
- black_puppydog 4y agoWhile I agree that twitter is a terrible medium for long form posts, this is not a battle I'm picking. I have a dedicated nitter instance that works perfectly. I had to invest 5 minutes of admin time on it within the last... 3 years? dunno, feels long anyhow. Automatic redirect configured in all my desktop/mobile browsers. I essentially never see twitter proper, this is the 80/20 solution that works really well for me. If/when that stops working I'll stop following twitter links. Done, now I can focus on some other soapbox. Semi-linear commits for example (anyone at github: pretty please?)
- letmeinhere 4y agoCory Doctorow does Twitter threads in a very intentional manner, cross-posting a legible version on his blog, e.g. https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1584493419287973893 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1584493419287973893
- Beltalowda 4y agoAnyone can write whatever they want on whatever medium they find works best for them. Why should I have an opinion on what medium someone else chooses to express themselves? It's on the same level as being snobby about music style. And for what it's worth, I dislike Twitter. I also dislike hip-hop, and Marvel movies, and a lot of other things. But if that's how people want to express themselves then more power to them. No one is forcing any of that on me.
- chuckreynolds 4y agoPOSSE link at bottom is broken, extra > in there. Ease of use & distribution supersedes ownership of content and compiled legibility. Same reason people used Medium and now Substack... and in another way patreon for paywalls etc.
- klodolph 4y agoNo. I don’t find Twitter threads hard to follow. You click on them, you get a sequence of 280-character tweets, with the little reply/retweet/like/share buttons between each block of text. This is not at all onerous to follow. Compare to your typical recipe blog or Fandom (.com) site. Is that any better? I’d say the recipe blogs are and sites like Fandom are far worse, because the page is constantly trying to hijack the browser to show ads. Recipe sites are barely usable these days. The 280-character limit also has benefits. Writers know that tweets will be viewed in isolation, so they try to make each tweet as coherent as possible, individually. This style of writing is bland and simplistic but also clear. You can’t say it in 280 characters, you rewrite it. I wrote this comment as if it were a Twitter thread. Each paragraph fits in 280 characters—and one fits exactly! This dry style may remind you of the papers you had to read or write in college, but I appreciate the clarity. Twitter encourages clarity and brevity, and I like it.
- rglullis 4y ago> you get a sequence of 280-character tweets, except when you get someone else's comment or response sandwiched between two items of the thread? > because the page is constantly trying to hijack the browser to show ads. Ad-blockers are amazing. Brave's Speed Reader also give you every blog or article already formatted with a clean, js-free stylesheet. > This style of writing is bland and simplistic but also clear. And also appealing to the lowest common denominator. It's like the McDonalds of an informational diet. > Twitter encourages clarity and brevity, and I like it. Twitter encourages soundbites and shallow thinking, and I think we should do better.
- klodolph 4y ago> except when you get someone else's comment or response sandwiched between two items of the thread? Can you give an example? When I look at Twitter threads, I see the main thread presented contiguously. If I want to look at replies, I have to scroll to the bottom or click on an individual tweet. Maybe I’ve seen a sandwiched reply once or twice, long ago, but I haven’t seen it in a long time. Maybe there’s been an UI change, or maybe it’s the fact that you can post an entire Twitter thread in one click. > Ad-blockers are amazing. Brave's Speed Reader also give you every blog or article already formatted with a clean, js-free stylesheet. Most people do not use ad blockers. I use different browsers, different computers and mobile devices. Shall I go through all the steps necessary to configure ad blockers on every device and browser combination I have? > And also appealing to the lowest common denominator. It's like the McDonalds of an informational diet. Your information diet should be varied. It’s okay to eat at McDonald’s, but you will probably have a bad time if you have every single meal there. It is okay to read threads on Twitter, but you should not get all of your news there. The content I read on Twitter is definitely not lowest common denominator content. It is generally highly technical, specialized content that is simply written for 280-character chunks. > Twitter encourages soundbites and shallow thinking, and I think we should do better. Blogs and journals encourage people to waste words on the page and ramble on without getting to the point. It’s sloppy writing, and I think we can do better. I’m not trying to be cute here; this is a serious problem and you should treat it as a serious problem. You should write and consume long-form content, but you should also write and consume short-form content. Professors and grad students have a perennial problem writing abstracts and summaries for their journal articles because they have underdeveloped short-form writing skills. They often assume that their readers are fellow experts in the relevant field, and can figure out that the research is important based on its content. The result? The research remains buried, because the professors and grad students doing the research can’t effectively summarize it or explain it to people outside the field. They give long-winded explanations that never get to the point, or assume that their audience has all of the relevant context. If they used Twitter more, they would likely find it easier to explain their research to people outside their own field. The reason is simple—brevity and clarity take practice. This isn’t an example that I made up or picked out of thin air, this is a recurring complaint I hear from people working in communications in academia. A professor will say, “My research is important, maybe a journalist would be interested in reporting on it.” Then the communications department asks, “Can you give us a two-sentence summary of what your research is about?” It should be easy! I like to think that academic papers can be clear and comprehensible, and don’t need to fall into the traps of traditional academic writing styles (obfuscated, incomprehensible, verbose). Likewise, Twitter threads can contain meaningful content, and don’t have to just consist of a series of quotable sound bites.
- magic_hamster 4y agoEverybody needs to stop taking Twitter too seriously.
- 4ad 4y agoI write on Twitter to engage with my audience, who voluntarily joined Twitter and voluntarily chose to engage with me. If you choose not to be part of my audience than you have absolutely zero standing to tell me how to write and where.
- matthewmacleod 4y agoThere is no hill I’m more willing to die on than “people should write using whatever the fuck medium works best for them”.
- pgt 4y agoI wanted to like parts of this essay but couldn’t find the Like button under the paragraphs I agreed with.
- thenerdhead 4y agoIt's easily the best way to get views for your content. Nobody is going to go to your blog organically, they need it thrown in front of their face. That's why modern social media is so powerful. It does take some courage to post things like threads or your own videos online for the whole world to witness. It's not for the faint of heart given the whole world now becomes your stage because the content can now be explored when various algorithms think it's best to do so. (The whole notion of explore vs. exploit)
- chad_strategic 4y agoI think the real problem is twitter. Rarely do I go on twitter and if I do I have firefox plugin that will filter out all the extra click bait features, such as you should follow... If it's worth reading about then, then the author should take the time to construct an paragraph/article. Full Disclosure: I suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder.
- skybrian 4y agoIt seems like instead of "do not write Twitter threads," better advice would be to write a blog post and then a Twitter thread to summarize and promote it?
- agentultra 4y agoAh, indie web. I gave up on it. Self-hosting is relegated to the dustbin of "meh, who has time for that." Most people, even savvy social media folks, wouldn't know the first thing about hosting a website (a good number of them might not even know that you can). We're forgetting the technology only marginally slower than it took to get here and enter the public consciousness. The problem is that the audience is on Twitter/FB/Insta/TikTok/etc. That's the first place people look/search/find things. I still host my own blog, email, etc but... the reader numbers are about what you'd expect: next to zilch.
- thomastjeffery 4y agoHow about a compromise? Put a link to the long-form blog post at the top of the Twitter thread as an alternative. Still put the whole thread on Twitter for those who prefer it. Everyone wins!
- hot_gril 4y agoI can't read Twitter threads either, but luckily people usually link elsewhere. Tools for reading Twitter threads also work, even if they're hacks. WAI.
- canadianwriter 4y agoTwitter penalizes links. If you post a tweet with a link only a fraction of the people will see it compared to a twitter thread. They much prefer people stay on platform. It's not just Twitter doing this - all social networks prefer you stay within their platform. Facebook is notorious for it. If you put all that work into a blog post and only 5 people see it versus typing it out as a twitter thread and 1000 see it, it makes it obvious which ones ie better - even if its a worse UI.
- gausswho 4y agoPenalizing links algorithmically this way could be fodder for antitrust cases?
- serf 4y ago>If you put all that work into a blog post and only 5 people see it versus typing it out as a twitter thread and 1000 see it, it makes it obvious which ones ie better - even if its a worse UI. that's not some universal truth; the method creates certain feelings within the reader. A plane trailing a banner for "EAT AT JOES" over a metropolis gets a lot of eyes, but there is a certain group of people below that plane that don't appreciate trying to squint at a banner in front of the sun while witnessing the waste of hydrocarbons and the cloud of AVGAS for such a trivial advertisement. Likewise when i'm being asked to read a 2000 word essay that is composed of a cloud of tweets interspersed with reply tweets and advertisement/related(s)-pushed by Twitter it's similarly angering. Why should the reader get the shortest end of the stick possible just to nudge some marketing numbers up? "Because the numbers aren't large enough." really isn't a suitable answer as the reader.
- bsnnkv 4y agoThank you for posting this. I have been on the anti-thread bandwagon for a long time, but something about your post really opened my eyes and convinced me to stop being so stubborn. I had shared an article link on Twitter earlier today and it predictably didn't get much traction. So I just turned it into a thread in 5 minutes and re-posted it like that. If you can't beat 'em...
- kasajian 4y agoThis post is going to increase the occurrences of Twitter threads.
- the-printer 4y agoWhat does anyone have to say about the nature of how Twitter threads (and to a similar extent, TikTok/Instagram short-form content) can affect literacy and comprehension skills?
- xcambar 4y agoAll of these comments are more true than the article itself, but I find one thing missing: Twitter threads drive a certain style of writing. You write punch-lines of 280 characters because of the platform's constraints, while you'd certainly not do so in a blog. Also, don't give me the proverbial "constraints drive creativity", please.
- aarondf 4y agoI spend a whole lot of time on Twitter and I want to agree with this post but it misses the point! Threads are really great for distribution. I hate that it's true, but it's true. You can write a huge, wonderful article and tweet the link to it and very few people are going to retweet it. You can write a thread and get hundreds of retweets. It sucks, but it's reality. This post sets up a false dichotomy though, he's saying not to write threads because your content deserves better. Well... just do both? I mean if your content really "deserves better," then it deserves the best chance of being read, and on Twitter that means a thread (currently!) I personally don't like a particular kind of thread. The thread that's like "I read a Wikipedia article and I'm gonna pretend it's some groundbreaking thing." I try to find a middle ground with my threads. The first thing I do is write the article. Write the article, flesh out the idea, give it a permanent home, put in a lot of work. Then I publish the article. Then, as a part of distribution I do a tweet thread about the article. I usually always put the link to the article in the very first tweet and then thread out the main concepts. I have some data on the fact that Twitter won't promote tweets with links in them as much as tweets without, but putting the link in the first tweet drives more clicks and is less annoying, so I do it that way. I wish things were a bit different on Twitter, but they aren't! I think using threads as a distribution mechanism for longer form content is a nice compromise. Here are some examples of articles I've written that I've then turned into threads. There is just no way I would've gotten the same traction with a single tweet, no matter how good the tweet (or article!) was. - 200 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1582797305404542976 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1582797305404542976 - 120 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1577325434248757249 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1577325434248757249 - 250 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1556327342955438082 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1556327342955438082 - 100 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1458117107183497219 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1458117107183497219 - 165 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1483127141675978760 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1483127141675978760 - 120 RTs: https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1545106513227923459 https://twitter.com/aarondfrancis/status/1545106513227923459 Let's say 2% of the people read the article, but the thread gives people something to read, understand, and share without reading the full article. It gives me a chance to reach more people, 2% of whom might read the article.
- mcint 4y agoUse nitter, one frontend at https://nitter.net/ https://nitter.net/. Project at https://github.com/zedeus/nitter https://github.com/zedeus/nitter Use https://threadreaderapp.com/ https://threadreaderapp.com/
- anotherevan 4y agoYes, you can replace "twitter.com" with "nitter.net" in the URL in your browser to get a readable version of a thread. The rest of the URL is the same. Because I don't post that often, I actually use an add-on to automatically redirect from Twitter to a Nitter instance. Makes life just that little bit betterer.
- mrblampo 4y agoI like reading them. Forces small chunks of information/opinion, fun rhetorical style.
- mplewis 4y agoUh, no? Twitter is where the eyeballs are.