4 ms·

While I agree for the most part, I have an observation and a question: Social media, specifically microblogging networks like old Twitter, were uniquely effect

While I agree for the most part, I have an observation and a question: Social media, specifically microblogging networks like old Twitter, were uniquely effective at delivering near real-time breaking updates in ways that left older news delivery systems in the dust. I could do without the vapid comments, but this one aspect has real utility and I don't really know of a way to replicate that in other systems. I say this as an outsider that would only occasionally use the site to search for breaking news that hasn't hit other outlets yet. My question is about where you draw the line on what constitutes a social network as the edges get blurry. Are comment sections social media? Are sites like Reddit and hacker News? Blogs? Blog networks with social features like Tumblr?

adastra22 2y ago
Old Twitter was phenomenal for news discovery. I quit news cold turkey, and got my current events from Twitter for years. Despite what you might think, the results were actually less biased and more accurate than mainstream news. They key is being very selective about how you follow, and staying of the “For You” algorithmic feed. That ended with Elon’s acquisition. Not because of anything nefarious, but rather Elon just didn’t understand what he bought. He saw it as a meme and shitposting service. Which it was for a subset of users, I guess. But the changes he brought massively undermined its utility for elite and connected microblogging, and it became far less useful for that purpose. Now that he is incentivizing content creators, it has become a text version of instagram or TikTok—nothing but vapid influencers chasing engagement.
- beagle3 2y ago
  Can you elaborate? Personally, I was also very picky about who I follow, and also only use “Following” (never “For You”) and the only difference I felt with the Elon acquisition is less censorship — which is both good and bad — and makes it more useful as a news source.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    1. Getting rid of verified accounts made Twitter a lot less usable to actual society elites. The vast majority stopped using it the way they had before. The blue check mark’s value was not authentication of the account as claimed, but to other blue check marks it was a pre-filter on their feed (since they had access to the verified-only tab), so they could experience Twitter as a social network of big wigs only. Not very egalitarian and I admit to being disgusted by it at the time. In retrospect, it was genius and a net good. Society’s upper class (politicians, CEOs, celebrities, top journalists) spoke freely and frankly on Twitter, and we all got direct real-only access to those feeds. Not a bad setup. Now their Twitter accounts are managed by their PR team. 2. The new creator incentives have created a ton of people pushing out phony / insincere tweets, rage bait, memes, and stealing content. It has massively decreased signal to noise. I’m still on Twitter, but mostly out of habit and the few friends I met there that I can’t follow otherwise.
  - jgorn 2y ago
    Feel slightly qualified to comment as I've been on twitter since close to Day 1, and also exclusively use Following (despite more aggressive attempts to push the algo feed since Elons purchase) The #1 reason I had to leave Twitter is the degradation of replies. Prioritising blue ticks ruined any productive conversation in the comments. Much like HN is (imho) most valuable for the comments, old twitter was great for the expertise in the replies - where the cream rose to the top. Now it's impossible or takes a lot of scrolling to find useful dialogue. It's not perfect, but for now Bluesky is scratching that itch of smart commentary immediately after a post. That was enough to get me to completely move to the platform.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Does Bluesky have politicians, CEOs, and cultural icons direct posting their unfiltered takes like 2012 Twitter?
Dalewyn 2y ago
>Social media, specifically microblogging networks like old Twitter, were uniquely effective at delivering near real-time breaking updates in ways that left older news delivery systems in the dust. IRC did it long before some worthless derp even dared to coin the term "social media".
- beagle3 2y ago
  What was the largest IRC channel you lurked in (that didn’t have constant net splits?). I don’t think I ever passed 10K, and rarely passed 1K. IRC did it on an incredibly small scale, IME.
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
> Social media [..] were uniquely effective at delivering near real-time breaking updates > I don't really know of a way to replicate that in other systems Usenet, IRC, mailing lists, news websites, web forums, RSS feeds, etc. We had plenty of breaking news sources. It just wasn't as convenient as posting on twitter or looking at an endless trending feed. We've gained convenience, at the cost of our health. And ironically, what's become easier is the pushing of "breaking news" that isn't actually important, but will sure get eyeballs on screens and enraged replies. "Kayne said WHAT???" Who in the fuck cares? Why are we hearing about this in real time? Why are we allowing ourselves to be deluged in shit?

adastra22 2y ago

Old Twitter was phenomenal for news discovery. I quit news cold turkey, and got my current events from Twitter for years. Despite what you might think, the results were actually less biased and more accurate than mainstream news. They key is being very selective about how you follow, and staying of the “For You” algorithmic feed. That ended with Elon’s acquisition. Not because of anything nefarious, but rather Elon just didn’t understand what he bought. He saw it as a meme and shitposting service. Which it was for a subset of users, I guess. But the changes he brought massively undermined its utility for elite and connected microblogging, and it became far less useful for that purpose. Now that he is incentivizing content creators, it has become a text version of instagram or TikTok—nothing but vapid influencers chasing engagement.

beagle3 2y ago
Can you elaborate? Personally, I was also very picky about who I follow, and also only use “Following” (never “For You”) and the only difference I felt with the Elon acquisition is less censorship — which is both good and bad — and makes it more useful as a news source.
- adastra22 2y ago
  1. Getting rid of verified accounts made Twitter a lot less usable to actual society elites. The vast majority stopped using it the way they had before. The blue check mark’s value was not authentication of the account as claimed, but to other blue check marks it was a pre-filter on their feed (since they had access to the verified-only tab), so they could experience Twitter as a social network of big wigs only. Not very egalitarian and I admit to being disgusted by it at the time. In retrospect, it was genius and a net good. Society’s upper class (politicians, CEOs, celebrities, top journalists) spoke freely and frankly on Twitter, and we all got direct real-only access to those feeds. Not a bad setup. Now their Twitter accounts are managed by their PR team. 2. The new creator incentives have created a ton of people pushing out phony / insincere tweets, rage bait, memes, and stealing content. It has massively decreased signal to noise. I’m still on Twitter, but mostly out of habit and the few friends I met there that I can’t follow otherwise.
- jgorn 2y ago
  Feel slightly qualified to comment as I've been on twitter since close to Day 1, and also exclusively use Following (despite more aggressive attempts to push the algo feed since Elons purchase) The #1 reason I had to leave Twitter is the degradation of replies. Prioritising blue ticks ruined any productive conversation in the comments. Much like HN is (imho) most valuable for the comments, old twitter was great for the expertise in the replies - where the cream rose to the top. Now it's impossible or takes a lot of scrolling to find useful dialogue. It's not perfect, but for now Bluesky is scratching that itch of smart commentary immediately after a post. That was enough to get me to completely move to the platform.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Does Bluesky have politicians, CEOs, and cultural icons direct posting their unfiltered takes like 2012 Twitter?

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Social media, specifically microblogging networks like old Twitter, were uniquely effective at delivering near real-time breaking updates in ways that left older news delivery systems in the dust. IRC did it long before some worthless derp even dared to coin the term "social media".

beagle3 2y ago
What was the largest IRC channel you lurked in (that didn’t have constant net splits?). I don’t think I ever passed 10K, and rarely passed 1K. IRC did it on an incredibly small scale, IME.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

> Social media [..] were uniquely effective at delivering near real-time breaking updates > I don't really know of a way to replicate that in other systems Usenet, IRC, mailing lists, news websites, web forums, RSS feeds, etc. We had plenty of breaking news sources. It just wasn't as convenient as posting on twitter or looking at an endless trending feed. We've gained convenience, at the cost of our health. And ironically, what's become easier is the pushing of "breaking news" that isn't actually important, but will sure get eyeballs on screens and enraged replies. "Kayne said WHAT???" Who in the fuck cares? Why are we hearing about this in real time? Why are we allowing ourselves to be deluged in shit?