3 ms·

I agree largely with what you wrote but have a small disagreement. I don't actually think the character count has that big of an effect. I've seen plenty of sel

I agree largely with what you wrote but have a small disagreement. I don't actually think the character count has that big of an effect. I've seen plenty of self-righteous posts on places like here (HN) and the LessWrong forums that just use more words to do the same thing. I think the kind of person that's energized to comment online generally feels more strongly about the issue than most lurkers. This means that online conversations are dominated by the most passionate, most invested, and often least interested in impartiality. This post [1] comes to mind. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...

PaulHoule 2y ago
You’re right that people can write hateful, divisive and othering content with many words. The trouble with the short content platforms is that you can’t do anything else.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Interesting point, I'm inclined to agree. I'm curious now about how many Likes and Reposts a thread on Bluesky gets vs a compact emotional response. I run a firehose ingester so maybe I'll test this out. EDIT: I realize you specifically called out politics here and that makes me even more inclined to agree.
- somethoughts 2y ago
  I agree - short form content doesn't leave enough space to have a nuanced arguement and conversely it leaves a lot of space open for misinterpretation and encourages hot takes and mic drops over expression of cohesive thoughts.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > The trouble with the short content platforms is that you can’t do anything else. I'd agree MBP are poor media for nuanced debate but can work well for info broadcasting. Pre-echochamber Twitter was an excellent venue for disseminating important news - news that actual news orgs were too distracted or deferential to publish.
- jmye 2y ago
  I think you can but you will get no interaction. No one (relatively, not literally) cares about “nice” or informative - they care about things that make them angry or otherwise emotive. I’d also add that no one (again, relatively) reads anything, anymore. A couple of paragraphs and you’ll see your engagement drop off a cliff. But a quick, “witty” slap? A stupid pun thread on Reddit? Easy money. I think your point is generally right - not trying to disagree, but I think these platforms are simply effective tools to mirror back their users and what their users want, rather than the inherent, specific problem themselves. That is, it’s not Twitter that’s the problem - it’s that Twitter users really like the behaviors Twitter rewards.
- wruza 2y ago
  You can 1/n but no one’s gonna read that. The “trouble” is not with the platform but with the reader selection it provides. The greater auditory doesn’t want to read you, because there’s too many you. That’s why it filters itself into short messaging. Too much of “hey listen to my thousand words”, all with varying depth, coherence and clariry, per reader perspective. It’s not your, platforms or readers failure, that’s how humans work. There’s a natural limit to every specific level of community. Expecting everyone to dive deep into each others thoughts at scale is too idealistic.

PaulHoule 2y ago

You’re right that people can write hateful, divisive and othering content with many words. The trouble with the short content platforms is that you can’t do anything else.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Interesting point, I'm inclined to agree. I'm curious now about how many Likes and Reposts a thread on Bluesky gets vs a compact emotional response. I run a firehose ingester so maybe I'll test this out. EDIT: I realize you specifically called out politics here and that makes me even more inclined to agree.
somethoughts 2y ago
I agree - short form content doesn't leave enough space to have a nuanced arguement and conversely it leaves a lot of space open for misinterpretation and encourages hot takes and mic drops over expression of cohesive thoughts.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> The trouble with the short content platforms is that you can’t do anything else. I'd agree MBP are poor media for nuanced debate but can work well for info broadcasting. Pre-echochamber Twitter was an excellent venue for disseminating important news - news that actual news orgs were too distracted or deferential to publish.
jmye 2y ago
I think you can but you will get no interaction. No one (relatively, not literally) cares about “nice” or informative - they care about things that make them angry or otherwise emotive. I’d also add that no one (again, relatively) reads anything, anymore. A couple of paragraphs and you’ll see your engagement drop off a cliff. But a quick, “witty” slap? A stupid pun thread on Reddit? Easy money. I think your point is generally right - not trying to disagree, but I think these platforms are simply effective tools to mirror back their users and what their users want, rather than the inherent, specific problem themselves. That is, it’s not Twitter that’s the problem - it’s that Twitter users really like the behaviors Twitter rewards.
wruza 2y ago
You can 1/n but no one’s gonna read that. The “trouble” is not with the platform but with the reader selection it provides. The greater auditory doesn’t want to read you, because there’s too many you. That’s why it filters itself into short messaging. Too much of “hey listen to my thousand words”, all with varying depth, coherence and clariry, per reader perspective. It’s not your, platforms or readers failure, that’s how humans work. There’s a natural limit to every specific level of community. Expecting everyone to dive deep into each others thoughts at scale is too idealistic.