3 ms·

Very, very few average people actually use Twitter/X It's significants was always massively overstated in tech circles and various echo chambers.

by ffsm8 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago
With journalism having years ago devolved to quoting Twitter takes on air and in print, that is a strange thesis to make.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  Journalism was already dying when Twitter came to market, that makes your argument extremely weak. All news organizations have been hemorrhaging value since the Internet went mainstream. But besides that: today's journalists don't chase news, they chase gossip. And Twitter does indeed provide them with plenty of that. Very few average people are interested in such information however, even if various groups are hyper focused on it. It's still a gigantic group of people though, even if it's a tiny minority from the perspective of society
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I strongly disagree. > Very few average people are interested in such information, even if various groups are hyper focused on it. On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. Gossip is the distilled form of information, stripped free of complex ideas and difficult topics, refined to serve the single purpose most people care about: being a social object. That is, giving people something to talk about with other people. To bond over it, or argue over it - doesn't matter. For most people, the only thing that matters is relationships with other people - truth, or objectivity, or reality be damned. People who care about accuracy of their news either actually need it for their jobs, or are just nerds. Which is what I personally prefer to be, but that's still a small minority.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      > On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. I'd actually agree with that statement, but with a gigantic caveat: everyone loves "gossip", but only if it's about people in their own life. And Twitter only provides this gossip for celebrities. Let's do a thought experiment: let's say Taylor Swift decided to announce that she's pregnant on Twitter (random example). Now image you ask the first 100 people you encounter on the street. Journalists would be interested for sure, and yet... The people on the street won't care whatsoever.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        I still disagree with your caveat, which I mentioned in the previous reply: people are after social objects, so the gossip very much doesn't have to be about people in their own life - it just has to be about people they're paying attention to, or caring to gossip about. Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. For those above 30, Obama and Bush will also work. We may be past peak celebrity gossip, but politics always works. Which is why it's banned to talk about in polite company. (And yes, I'm counting talking about political issues as gossip too, because even if it's about multiple people or no one in particular, the level of understanding and quality of exchanged "knowledge" is the same as when conversing about random actors' extramarital affairs.) Otherwise, a big part in two people getting to know each other and bonding is in learning what topics they're both interested in gossiping about. What journalists are interested in as people doesn't really matter. Journalism is long past that, and 100% devoted to ad impressions now. Which means journalists (are told/allowed to) wite about things the paper expects will interest people. If they're writing a lot about celebrities, they're likely right that this will interest a lot of people. Meanwhile, social media - like Twitter - is algorithmically self-organizing for engagement, which means it's a prime tool to discover what most people care about (in a hooked up drug addict sense) in real-time.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        > Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. Significantly more care about Tylor Swift. I personally don't care what either of them post there. Nor has anyone I've worked with to date. You're living in a tech bubble
- rvba 2y ago
  Propagandists would create fake twitter accounts and then quote them, but nobody reads that.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Yes, nobody reads press anymore. Or you think the papers people read aren't writing propaganda?
- orwin 2y ago
  No-one who actually work for a living is on Twitter more than a day a week. Maybe some huge sport fans, but even them, they don't have time to spend on stupid, useless gossip.

Very, very few average people actually use Twitter/X It's significants was always massively overstated in tech circles and various echo chambers.

by ffsm8 2y ago

Very, very few average people actually use Twitter/X It's significants was always massively overstated in tech circles and various echo chambers.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

With journalism having years ago devolved to quoting Twitter takes on air and in print, that is a strange thesis to make.

ffsm8 2y ago
Journalism was already dying when Twitter came to market, that makes your argument extremely weak. All news organizations have been hemorrhaging value since the Internet went mainstream. But besides that: today's journalists don't chase news, they chase gossip. And Twitter does indeed provide them with plenty of that. Very few average people are interested in such information however, even if various groups are hyper focused on it. It's still a gigantic group of people though, even if it's a tiny minority from the perspective of society
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I strongly disagree. > Very few average people are interested in such information, even if various groups are hyper focused on it. On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. Gossip is the distilled form of information, stripped free of complex ideas and difficult topics, refined to serve the single purpose most people care about: being a social object. That is, giving people something to talk about with other people. To bond over it, or argue over it - doesn't matter. For most people, the only thing that matters is relationships with other people - truth, or objectivity, or reality be damned. People who care about accuracy of their news either actually need it for their jobs, or are just nerds. Which is what I personally prefer to be, but that's still a small minority.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    > On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. I'd actually agree with that statement, but with a gigantic caveat: everyone loves "gossip", but only if it's about people in their own life. And Twitter only provides this gossip for celebrities. Let's do a thought experiment: let's say Taylor Swift decided to announce that she's pregnant on Twitter (random example). Now image you ask the first 100 people you encounter on the street. Journalists would be interested for sure, and yet... The people on the street won't care whatsoever.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      I still disagree with your caveat, which I mentioned in the previous reply: people are after social objects, so the gossip very much doesn't have to be about people in their own life - it just has to be about people they're paying attention to, or caring to gossip about. Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. For those above 30, Obama and Bush will also work. We may be past peak celebrity gossip, but politics always works. Which is why it's banned to talk about in polite company. (And yes, I'm counting talking about political issues as gossip too, because even if it's about multiple people or no one in particular, the level of understanding and quality of exchanged "knowledge" is the same as when conversing about random actors' extramarital affairs.) Otherwise, a big part in two people getting to know each other and bonding is in learning what topics they're both interested in gossiping about. What journalists are interested in as people doesn't really matter. Journalism is long past that, and 100% devoted to ad impressions now. Which means journalists (are told/allowed to) wite about things the paper expects will interest people. If they're writing a lot about celebrities, they're likely right that this will interest a lot of people. Meanwhile, social media - like Twitter - is algorithmically self-organizing for engagement, which means it's a prime tool to discover what most people care about (in a hooked up drug addict sense) in real-time.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        > Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. Significantly more care about Tylor Swift. I personally don't care what either of them post there. Nor has anyone I've worked with to date. You're living in a tech bubble
rvba 2y ago
Propagandists would create fake twitter accounts and then quote them, but nobody reads that.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Yes, nobody reads press anymore. Or you think the papers people read aren't writing propaganda?
orwin 2y ago
No-one who actually work for a living is on Twitter more than a day a week. Maybe some huge sport fans, but even them, they don't have time to spend on stupid, useless gossip.