6 ms·

Twitter is by far the best source of news and analysis currently. Outpaced only in some areas by niche, usually also crowd-sourced, sites like HN. A week ago t

by blfr 2y ago

Twitter is by far the best source of news and analysis currently. Outpaced only in some areas by niche, usually also crowd-sourced, sites like HN. A week ago twitter had pictures and videos from several angles of assasination attempt on Trump when media still reported "an incident." The difference is wild. Ditching twitter is like going back from old-school news tv to a telegraph. Anyway, I have strict tracking protection enabled and x.com loads fine. Firefox 128 on Ubuntu, official snap.

manuelmoreale 2y ago
I’m gonna take your words at face value and ask you a question: what do you gain in gettin access to that news a few minutes in advance?
- blfr 2y ago
  First, it was hours. Second, I'm there more for the tpot/schizo/alternative content. Most importantly though, it's not just a couple hours of difference, but the content is different: raw, with live comments (from the people you follow pulled up), memes, etc. It's the vibe you used to find on usenet and then blogosphere.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Ok so first it was a matter of timing. Now it's become a matter of vibes and type of content. I get what you're saying, don't get me wrong, I just don't think a site where news are commented by randos mixed with memes and trolls is an important site we have to bend over backwards to preserve. But maybe that's just me.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    What is schizo content
    - felixgallo 2y ago
      Twitter
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        Ok what is tpot content then? I genuinely have no idea what they meant by that
        manuelmoreale 2y ago
        Few links for you: TPOT: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat SCHIZO: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/schizoposting https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/schizoposting
        jrflowers 2y ago
        Wow, there really are so many words for 4chan
- plonk 2y ago
  Other media is frustrating because it's always heavily filtered, has an agenda, and always talks like a PR release. It's like they're trying to keep some image of a respectable paper and so have to write in that stupid title - subtitle that repeats the title - first paragraph that repeats the subtitle - 30 paragraphs in complete disorder, half of which are a waste of time format Edit: someone on Twitter obviously also has an agenda, but it's not hidden behind a supposedly impartial image (NYT, etc.), it's just some guy with known credentials posting opinions
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Here's the thing, I agree. But also, you do know that the various news sites have an agenda. It's a fact. And the way you work around it is by reading from multiple sources that have different agendas and form your own opinion based on that. The random Twitter user though? Who the fuck knows. He might be in just for the lols. Maybe they're just bored. Maybe they're actually knowledgeable. You just don't know.
    - brigandish 2y ago
      That was a good strategy before sites like Twitter existed. Now, I can watch live feeds and info coming in without any journalists filtering it for me, or actually have them adding info while I consume primary sources. For example, several times in my life I happen to have caught a live stream that was reported on wildly inaccurately by legacy news media. I happened to watch, for example, the "Covington kids"[0] stream because it was trending on Twitter that day. Knowledge of that reporting travesty should be enough to shake anyone from experiencing the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, and wouldn't have been dispelled by reading several news sites because just so many were involved. Frankly, it was a disgusting and irresponsible response by said journalists and organisations and should lead people to stop reading those publications in their entirety. That's not the only example, but the idea that powerful "truth seeking" organisations should try and destroy the lives of children because of an agenda and a MAGA hat is an indictment of those organisations. It led to death threats against children. I'm happy with choosing my own sources of trust, thanks, and it won't be to read from sources that do that kind of thing. I have a thing called basic morality, and encouraging violence against children is a line I'm not willing to cross. YMMV. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confront... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
- rinze 2y ago
  He can share them before you do and get more likes.
- nwhnwh 2y ago
  It is not just speed. The media don't show you everything and almost all of them are highly selective.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Twitter also doesn't show me everything, and content is algorithmically curated. And nothing is vetted. So why's that any better? Also, everything? Everything what? "The media" doesn't show me everything for obvious reasons. You can't digest everything. Because this is how "everything" looks like: https://firesky.tv https://firesky.tv
    - nwhnwh 2y ago
      I didn't mean everything literally.
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        Well if you didn’t mean that literally then I don’t see the point of your argument. Because then both don’t show you everything and both are selective in what they show you. It’s just a different model and a different set of incentives.
NewJazz 2y ago
So your definition of "best" news is fastest available?
- OhMeadhbh 2y ago
  everyone's got an angle, I suppose. getting your news 140 characters at a time is an odd angle, but sure, why not.
makeitdouble 2y ago
Is it news if you have no idea if it's true or not ? And I think it's all the more relevant as we can instantly generate plausible pictures and reporting only from vague knowledge of the circumstances.
isodev 2y ago
There was an earthquake the other day, people were talking about it on both Mastodon and Bluesky, twitter didn’t even have a mention until after it was over. Whatever it is on Twitter, it’s a very specific subset of news, usually the kind you also see on breaking news banners in other outlets. Twitter has long been abandoned by everyone of consequence.
- brigandish 2y ago
  There are earthquakes every day in many places, and many of them are inconsequential and hence don't get much of a mention. I know because I live in an earthquake zone and have checked Twitter before to find small earthquakes barely getting a mention because they are like mentioning light rain. Which earthquake in particular are you referring to?
troupo 2y ago
> Twitter is by far the best source of news and analysis currently. It no longer is that. The "For You" algorithm is just... bad. You get worse news than from the worst of the most biased/filtered/uncaring/whatever-your-definition-of-bad-is media.
Barrin92 2y ago
> when media still reported "an incident." The difference is wild. The difference is that the media goes to some lengths to make sure the footage they're showing is actually real. Every day on Twitter I see people posting alleged war footage from different conflict zones of the world, and in a non trivial, sometimes majority of cases it turns out the footage is either fake or from some unrelated conflict, or years old but presented as new. The person pointing that out usually has a tenth of the interactions than the original poster. Twitter is neither providing analysis or news but simply the media equivalent of pornography.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  This. Twitter is providing a deluge of unverified info. Discerning media is also getting this, like you, but they're only going to comment on "an incident" because they're expected to mostly have verified stuff first. So much of that deluge is fake war footage, fake narratives, spread by completely partisan uninformed actors. By the time you've discerned what actually happened and what was garbage, so have NYT, generally.

by blfr 2y ago

manuelmoreale 2y ago

I’m gonna take your words at face value and ask you a question: what do you gain in gettin access to that news a few minutes in advance?

blfr 2y ago
First, it was hours. Second, I'm there more for the tpot/schizo/alternative content. Most importantly though, it's not just a couple hours of difference, but the content is different: raw, with live comments (from the people you follow pulled up), memes, etc. It's the vibe you used to find on usenet and then blogosphere.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Ok so first it was a matter of timing. Now it's become a matter of vibes and type of content. I get what you're saying, don't get me wrong, I just don't think a site where news are commented by randos mixed with memes and trolls is an important site we have to bend over backwards to preserve. But maybe that's just me.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  What is schizo content
  - felixgallo 2y ago
    Twitter
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      Ok what is tpot content then? I genuinely have no idea what they meant by that
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        Few links for you: TPOT: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat SCHIZO: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/schizoposting https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/schizoposting
        jrflowers 2y ago
        Wow, there really are so many words for 4chan
plonk 2y ago
Other media is frustrating because it's always heavily filtered, has an agenda, and always talks like a PR release. It's like they're trying to keep some image of a respectable paper and so have to write in that stupid title - subtitle that repeats the title - first paragraph that repeats the subtitle - 30 paragraphs in complete disorder, half of which are a waste of time format Edit: someone on Twitter obviously also has an agenda, but it's not hidden behind a supposedly impartial image (NYT, etc.), it's just some guy with known credentials posting opinions
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Here's the thing, I agree. But also, you do know that the various news sites have an agenda. It's a fact. And the way you work around it is by reading from multiple sources that have different agendas and form your own opinion based on that. The random Twitter user though? Who the fuck knows. He might be in just for the lols. Maybe they're just bored. Maybe they're actually knowledgeable. You just don't know.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    That was a good strategy before sites like Twitter existed. Now, I can watch live feeds and info coming in without any journalists filtering it for me, or actually have them adding info while I consume primary sources. For example, several times in my life I happen to have caught a live stream that was reported on wildly inaccurately by legacy news media. I happened to watch, for example, the "Covington kids"[0] stream because it was trending on Twitter that day. Knowledge of that reporting travesty should be enough to shake anyone from experiencing the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, and wouldn't have been dispelled by reading several news sites because just so many were involved. Frankly, it was a disgusting and irresponsible response by said journalists and organisations and should lead people to stop reading those publications in their entirety. That's not the only example, but the idea that powerful "truth seeking" organisations should try and destroy the lives of children because of an agenda and a MAGA hat is an indictment of those organisations. It led to death threats against children. I'm happy with choosing my own sources of trust, thanks, and it won't be to read from sources that do that kind of thing. I have a thing called basic morality, and encouraging violence against children is a line I'm not willing to cross. YMMV. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confront... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
rinze 2y ago
He can share them before you do and get more likes.
nwhnwh 2y ago
It is not just speed. The media don't show you everything and almost all of them are highly selective.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Twitter also doesn't show me everything, and content is algorithmically curated. And nothing is vetted. So why's that any better? Also, everything? Everything what? "The media" doesn't show me everything for obvious reasons. You can't digest everything. Because this is how "everything" looks like: https://firesky.tv https://firesky.tv
  - nwhnwh 2y ago
    I didn't mean everything literally.
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      Well if you didn’t mean that literally then I don’t see the point of your argument. Because then both don’t show you everything and both are selective in what they show you. It’s just a different model and a different set of incentives.

NewJazz 2y ago

So your definition of "best" news is fastest available?

OhMeadhbh 2y ago
everyone's got an angle, I suppose. getting your news 140 characters at a time is an odd angle, but sure, why not.

makeitdouble 2y ago

Is it news if you have no idea if it's true or not ? And I think it's all the more relevant as we can instantly generate plausible pictures and reporting only from vague knowledge of the circumstances.

isodev 2y ago

There was an earthquake the other day, people were talking about it on both Mastodon and Bluesky, twitter didn’t even have a mention until after it was over. Whatever it is on Twitter, it’s a very specific subset of news, usually the kind you also see on breaking news banners in other outlets. Twitter has long been abandoned by everyone of consequence.

brigandish 2y ago
There are earthquakes every day in many places, and many of them are inconsequential and hence don't get much of a mention. I know because I live in an earthquake zone and have checked Twitter before to find small earthquakes barely getting a mention because they are like mentioning light rain. Which earthquake in particular are you referring to?

troupo 2y ago

> Twitter is by far the best source of news and analysis currently. It no longer is that. The "For You" algorithm is just... bad. You get worse news than from the worst of the most biased/filtered/uncaring/whatever-your-definition-of-bad-is media.

Barrin92 2y ago

> when media still reported "an incident." The difference is wild. The difference is that the media goes to some lengths to make sure the footage they're showing is actually real. Every day on Twitter I see people posting alleged war footage from different conflict zones of the world, and in a non trivial, sometimes majority of cases it turns out the footage is either fake or from some unrelated conflict, or years old but presented as new. The person pointing that out usually has a tenth of the interactions than the original poster. Twitter is neither providing analysis or news but simply the media equivalent of pornography.

reducesuffering 2y ago
This. Twitter is providing a deluge of unverified info. Discerning media is also getting this, like you, but they're only going to comment on "an incident" because they're expected to mostly have verified stuff first. So much of that deluge is fake war footage, fake narratives, spread by completely partisan uninformed actors. By the time you've discerned what actually happened and what was garbage, so have NYT, generally.