6 ms·
Agreed. The problem with Twitter is in its design. It's in what it allows you to do, and what it doesn't. I'll repeat what I raised in the other post: 1. Peopl
by phailhaus 4y ago
Agreed. The problem with Twitter is in its design. It's in what it allows you to do, and what it doesn't. I'll repeat what I raised in the other post:
1. People are high-variance, and yet we're only allowed to follow individual accounts. That's a problem, especially because network effects mean that one person's voice gets amplified exponentially with the number of followers they have. Consider the six degrees of separation: applied to Twitter, we realize that it only takes 6 retweets to reach basically everyone. Following "Topics" is close but not good enough, because you cannot voluntarily opt into topics or really understand why a given tweet is within a topic; Twitter uses its Computer Magic to categorize tweets and makes all the decisions in a black box.
2. The only negative feedback is unfollowing. This is a problem because it means that practically all forms of engagement are treated equally. Oh, this tweet is getting a lot of comments, let's boost it so more people see it! Whoops, it was about space lasers. We are stuck repeatedly fighting Bad Takes because they have to be argued against every time, always gain nonzero traction. They are never put to rest. There is very little negative incentive against being a garbage human on Twitter, especially if you're anonymous.
We're never going to change core human behavior, but the design of a platform can guide that behavior. For example, the HN and Reddit model of posting means that your previous karma has no impact on your post's reach. That has serious implications for the kind of conversations that become popular on the platform. Another example: Facebook's commenting model is not nested and therefore doesn't allow you to have conversations with other people. So what do you get? Everyone screaming into the void, vaguely in the direction of other people.
Everyone talks about "changing the system", and yet all the suggestions are mostly cosmetic like charging for accounts. That doesn't change the fact that every time Elon tweets, it's automatically shunted to a million people no matter how bonkers it is.
- renonn 4y ago
- phailhaus 4y agoThat's not constructive feedback, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
- dqpb 4y agoYou agree and then list a bunch of technical problems.
- phailhaus 4y agoThose aren't technical problems. They have nothing to do with the tech stack of Twitter, how it scales, whether it's centralized or decentralized, etc. It's entirely how the experience is structured and what users are allowed to do, how site is designed independent of implementation details.
- dqpb 4y agoThose are technical problems. "Technical" doesn't just mean tech stack.
- phailhaus 4y agoIf you use "technical" that broadly, then everything is "technical" because at some point code has to be written for it. The design of Twitter is not technical. The fact that there is no "dislike" button is not a technical issue, it is a design decision. The point is that when pointing out issues with Twitter, everyone is focusing on internals. The issue is not the implementation. It's the design. It's like everyone's saying "the reason why TV rots your mind is because it uses CRT's! LCD is obviously better." Neither addresses the actual underlying problem.
- dqpb 4y agoYou should look up the word in a dictionary. You might be surprised by its definition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- phailhaus 4y ago1. relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques. "technical terms" 2. of, involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences. Wow, that was completely useless. What's your point? Or was that just a "zinger" to get the last word in?