6 ms·

> The goal isn't to replace Twitter. The goal is to create a public square for communities on Instagram that never really embraced Twitter and for communities o

> The goal isn't to replace Twitter. The goal is to create a public square for communities on Instagram that never really embraced Twitter and for communities on Twitter (and other platforms) that are interested in a less angry place for conversations, but not all of Twitter. So only the super PC, brand friendly stuff? Guess I shouldn’t be surprised given it’s Meta but disappointing if true. How can you have a public square without fostering news and political niches? That doesn’t mean you have to shove it in everyone’s feeds like Elon’s Twitter. So it really will just be instagram with a text focus then. Was hoping all the influencer/celeb/brand focus early on was just a result of early app launch and no following feed yet.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How can you have a public square without fostering news and political niches Most people in most public squares aren’t engaging in civic discourse. They’re bantering and conversing and trading. With Reddit and Twitter simultaneously crapping the bed, there’s a valid niche for that sort of square on the internet. We still need a public square for civic discourse. But it’s clear the current model optimises for bloviation and posturing. Maybe there’s a better model than every person their own broadcaster.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > They’re bantering and conversing and trading. What do you think is happening on the internet or social media? Most of the internet or social media is non-political and non-news related. > Maybe there’s a better model than every person their own broadcaster. You are blaming 'every person' when the toxicity of news and politics is news and politics itself. It's the toxic mainstream news and politicians that are the problem. Not 'every person'.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- DelightOne 3y ago
  How is that possible without becoming an echo chamber? I believe it won't happen without categorization in question/answer/redirect/objection + grouping into opinion-direction per group to curtail baseless attacks and attempts at homogenization to "be right". Everyone can be right in their own way anyway, just formalize it.
timeon 3y ago
> public square Are those really public? I know that is just metaphor but Guardian has whole category for this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/privately-owned-public-space-pops https://www.theguardian.com/cities/privately-owned-public-sp...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  No, they're not. Threads is not a "public square" in any meaningful sense of the term. Neither is/was Facebook, Twitter, etc.
impulser_ 3y ago
If you read his posts more than the one in the article. He is basically saying these topics will exists on the platform and they are welcomed, but they aren't to promote them or include them in the service as they do on other platforms. Which basically means they probably aren't going to show you news and politics through the algorithm. I think they are going for more promoting communities topics like sports, fashion, entertainment ect than hot topics like news and politics.
- Method-X 3y ago
  I just opened the threads app and the first post a see is from aoc talking about legalizing marijuana.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    That doesn’t count as politics
    - jacooper 3y ago
      /s
cush 3y ago
What’s wrong with focusing on and promoting non-political ideas? The internet is saturated at this point. People need a break.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  The internet is saturated with ridiculous caricatures of politics. These mostly existed before, but have been grossly exacerbated by algorithms which make people angry on purpose so as to 'drive engagement' (hmm). Facebook is now offering the 'cure' to a disease they spread themselves, for profit. And monetizing it, with ads from corporations who lobby heavily. This 'cure' is another series of steps toward complete disengagement with everything that might actually improve the lives of the 99% (ie, actual politics). Climate change is politics, inequality is politics, corruption is politics - all of it shoved under the rug in favor of yet more inane sports and celebrity trivia.
  - cush 3y ago
    You’re confusing engagement with action. Nothing you mentioned will be solved with tweets.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      Did I say that tweets alone solve anything?
      - cush 3y ago
        And...? You replied to me. I was talking about twitter.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        [flagged]
        cush 3y ago
Barrin92 3y ago
>So only the super PC, brand friendly stuff? I'm perfectly fine with an internet platform, especially if run by a private company, that explicitly embraces the fact that it's a discussion platform for fashion, video games, or whatever anime or movie someone has seen instead of some mad billionaire's experiment. If you want politics the correct place is your local townhall, want news subscribe to a quality paper. Instagram is decent precisely because it is limited to the kind of content I trust Meta with. Politics on Twitter isn't people genuinely being productive citizens, it's political hobbyism, purely for entertainment and self-expression, politics as spectator sport.
mc32 3y ago
Sounds like it might be targeting the NextDoor audience but instead of being geographically based, is graph-based?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> How can you have a public square without fostering news and political niches Most people in most public squares aren’t engaging in civic discourse. They’re bantering and conversing and trading. With Reddit and Twitter simultaneously crapping the bed, there’s a valid niche for that sort of square on the internet. We still need a public square for civic discourse. But it’s clear the current model optimises for bloviation and posturing. Maybe there’s a better model than every person their own broadcaster.

goodbyesf 3y ago
> They’re bantering and conversing and trading. What do you think is happening on the internet or social media? Most of the internet or social media is non-political and non-news related. > Maybe there’s a better model than every person their own broadcaster. You are blaming 'every person' when the toxicity of news and politics is news and politics itself. It's the toxic mainstream news and politicians that are the problem. Not 'every person'.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DelightOne 3y ago
How is that possible without becoming an echo chamber? I believe it won't happen without categorization in question/answer/redirect/objection + grouping into opinion-direction per group to curtail baseless attacks and attempts at homogenization to "be right". Everyone can be right in their own way anyway, just formalize it.

timeon 3y ago

> public square Are those really public? I know that is just metaphor but Guardian has whole category for this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/privately-owned-public-space-pops https://www.theguardian.com/cities/privately-owned-public-sp...

JohnFen 3y ago
No, they're not. Threads is not a "public square" in any meaningful sense of the term. Neither is/was Facebook, Twitter, etc.

impulser_ 3y ago

If you read his posts more than the one in the article. He is basically saying these topics will exists on the platform and they are welcomed, but they aren't to promote them or include them in the service as they do on other platforms. Which basically means they probably aren't going to show you news and politics through the algorithm. I think they are going for more promoting communities topics like sports, fashion, entertainment ect than hot topics like news and politics.

Method-X 3y ago
I just opened the threads app and the first post a see is from aoc talking about legalizing marijuana.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  That doesn’t count as politics
  - jacooper 3y ago
    /s

cush 3y ago

What’s wrong with focusing on and promoting non-political ideas? The internet is saturated at this point. People need a break.

mandmandam 3y ago
The internet is saturated with ridiculous caricatures of politics. These mostly existed before, but have been grossly exacerbated by algorithms which make people angry on purpose so as to 'drive engagement' (hmm). Facebook is now offering the 'cure' to a disease they spread themselves, for profit. And monetizing it, with ads from corporations who lobby heavily. This 'cure' is another series of steps toward complete disengagement with everything that might actually improve the lives of the 99% (ie, actual politics). Climate change is politics, inequality is politics, corruption is politics - all of it shoved under the rug in favor of yet more inane sports and celebrity trivia.
- cush 3y ago
  You’re confusing engagement with action. Nothing you mentioned will be solved with tweets.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Did I say that tweets alone solve anything?
    - cush 3y ago
      And...? You replied to me. I was talking about twitter.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        [flagged]
        cush 3y ago

Barrin92 3y ago

>So only the super PC, brand friendly stuff? I'm perfectly fine with an internet platform, especially if run by a private company, that explicitly embraces the fact that it's a discussion platform for fashion, video games, or whatever anime or movie someone has seen instead of some mad billionaire's experiment. If you want politics the correct place is your local townhall, want news subscribe to a quality paper. Instagram is decent precisely because it is limited to the kind of content I trust Meta with. Politics on Twitter isn't people genuinely being productive citizens, it's political hobbyism, purely for entertainment and self-expression, politics as spectator sport.

mc32 3y ago

Sounds like it might be targeting the NextDoor audience but instead of being geographically based, is graph-based?