2 ms·
I guess? I always felt like Twitter (or any social media, really) as a news aggregator was a classic example of quantity over quality. Once upon a time, we'd w
by bunderbunder 3y ago
I guess?
I always felt like Twitter (or any social media, really) as a news aggregator was a classic example of quantity over quality. Once upon a time, we'd wait a day for journalists to make sense of what was happening, and they would boil it down to a series of pyramid-structured article that you could read as far into as you want depending on how much detail you cared to know. And then you could skim through that over breakfast or during your coffee breaks and be, for all practical purposes, just as informed with less effort.
But this new iteration of the attention economy demands frequent shallow engagement, and in order to serve it journalists are now asked to basically just straightpipe information into articles in a race to be the first to trend on Twitter or Facebook or wherever. And if you frame it that way then I think that Twitter might actually be the worst of the lot because it created the greatest sense of haste.
- macspoofing 3y ago>and in order to serve it journalists are now asked to basically just straightpipe information into articles in a race to be the first to trend on Twitter or Facebook or wherever. That isn't going away. If Twitter goes bankrupt, something else will play that role. And this trend has been happening for generations. Books/Scrolls -> Newspapers -> Newspapers + Telegraph ('wire services') -> Radio / TV / Cable 24/7 news -> Internet ... If some technology provides a faster way to share information and news then people will make use of it.