3 ms·

I thought the article was going to talk more about how Twitter isn’t really used for breaking news as ubiquitously anymore. It used to be the authority on that

by dangus 3y ago

I thought the article was going to talk more about how Twitter isn’t really used for breaking news as ubiquitously anymore. It used to be the authority on that sort of thing, almost like it was “faster” than other social media. It’s hard to put a finger on but to me it feels like the changes put together put Twitter in more of a niche landscape, like it’s not that app that everyone uses and everyone references on TV shows anymore. It’s just one of the more mediocre options in a sea of other social media. There was a time when nothing else really did the same function that Twitter did. I have to think that Reddit is really taking over the breaking news space that Twitter used to dominate. TikTok and Instagram pull away a lot of the entertainment. Threads is yet another new alternative, along with Mastodon and BlueSky their sliver as well. This isn’t a company that’s likely to grow its user base or even keep it stable anytime soon.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
>I thought the article was going to talk more about how Twitter isn’t really used for breaking news as ubiquitously anymore. Same, I was kind of expecting some kind of stats comparing tweet numbers for this disaster with previous disasters to show something like "people aren't talking about the real world on twitter as much." Instead the article is lamenting how twitter has changed into a psyop/influence network that you can't trust anymore. Perhaps we never should have trusted twitter or assigned it as much value as we did if "racist mobs" can move in and overwhelm a narrative so easily. The editor they interviewed pointed out that there were unsourced videos and conspiracy theories about the disaster so it really sounds like they were unhappy that twitter isn't primarily used by journalists who provide sources and receipts. Sure, that's a way people can use twitter but it's definitely not how most use twitter.
- dangus 3y ago
  To that point, I don’t feel like Jack Dorsey’s Twitter was totally absent of this kind of content. Maybe the skeleton crew Twitter is worse at moderation (and Elon Musk doesn’t care/actively wants disinformation that benefits his investors) but because this influence network existed back then the article didn’t feel terribly eye-opening.

by dangus 3y ago

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

>I thought the article was going to talk more about how Twitter isn’t really used for breaking news as ubiquitously anymore. Same, I was kind of expecting some kind of stats comparing tweet numbers for this disaster with previous disasters to show something like "people aren't talking about the real world on twitter as much." Instead the article is lamenting how twitter has changed into a psyop/influence network that you can't trust anymore. Perhaps we never should have trusted twitter or assigned it as much value as we did if "racist mobs" can move in and overwhelm a narrative so easily. The editor they interviewed pointed out that there were unsourced videos and conspiracy theories about the disaster so it really sounds like they were unhappy that twitter isn't primarily used by journalists who provide sources and receipts. Sure, that's a way people can use twitter but it's definitely not how most use twitter.

dangus 3y ago
To that point, I don’t feel like Jack Dorsey’s Twitter was totally absent of this kind of content. Maybe the skeleton crew Twitter is worse at moderation (and Elon Musk doesn’t care/actively wants disinformation that benefits his investors) but because this influence network existed back then the article didn’t feel terribly eye-opening.