7 ms·

> Personally I think politics are terrible on microblogging platforms for the reason that you can't say very much in 140 characters or even 1400 characters. I

by Gormo 2y ago

> Personally I think politics are terrible on microblogging platforms for the reason that you can't say very much in 140 characters or even 1400 characters. I think what you're saying here is not that politics are terrible on microblogging platforms, but that microblogging platforms are terrible, which is a pretty valid sentiment.

satvikpendem 2y ago
Not really, microblogging is great to get quick news or life updates from people you follow. Yes, if you're trying to engage in discussion then it's not that useful but that is not its only use case.
- Gormo 2y ago
  Quick news is usually poor-quality news, and "life updates from people you follow" is another way of saying "pointless trivia from people you don't know actually know".
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Again, not really. News can just be links to articles, or just headlines. The quickness of the news conveyed has no bearing on its quality. And life updates can be similar, for example a creator is making a new library I'd want to use, or updates an existing library I currently use, it's useful to know that information. If that's how you feel about updates from people then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
  - moomin 2y ago
    Honestly not true. At its best, Twitter educated me on many subjects including many non-political ones. And as for journalism, well I’m not sure much that I would recognise as high-quality has survived the economic pressures of the internet in any format.
safety1st 2y ago
I was surprised to learn recently that Rousseau, who is usually seen as a radical egalitarian, hated the democratization of publishing. [1] His reasoning was complex but a lot of it revolved around the simple fact that as you get more people publishing, the intellectual quality of the average published work goes down. I'm not ready to roll back the printing press, but in retrospect the digital era has proven him right about this. For instance his position kind of predicts Eternal September - the easier it gets to post online, the more numbskulls you have doing it. Microblogging is the ultimate expression of this and frequently the content you find on microblogging platforms is the absolute worst hot takes and generally the most vile stuff the moderation rules will permit because shock value generates impressions. It's every idiot on earth competing to be as flagrant and base as possible. We usually hold up free speech as a virtue in Western societies and there are a lot of good reasons for that, but I'm increasingly inclined to treat microblogging less like publishing, and more like alcohol/tobacco/gambling, like it's something people do but they know it's not good for them, they do it anyway because it's addictive and easy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ucJ29O1kM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ucJ29O1kM
- kristianc 2y ago
  That’s a pretty broad sweep (mis)characterization of Rousseau’s work. He was neither a radical egalitarian or hated the democratization of publishing. He argues for a society where people are both free and equal, but he recognized that some forms of inequality could coexist with freedom, provided they were rooted in merit or necessity, rather than arbitrary privilege. Also, when he talked about the Rights of Man, it wasn’t a rhetorical flourishes, he did mean man. It’s a mischaracterization too to say he hated the democratization of publishing. His own ideas gained traction precisely because publishing allowed them to reach broader audiences. His critiques of printing and arts weren’t aimed at access itself but at the unintended consequences that came with it.
  - safety1st 2y ago
    I really appreciate this comment as I always try to read the original authors but what little actual Rousseau I have read was over 20 years ago. I might be relying too much on short takes and what other people say about him. He is on the list for a proper reading eventually!

by Gormo 2y ago

satvikpendem 2y ago

Not really, microblogging is great to get quick news or life updates from people you follow. Yes, if you're trying to engage in discussion then it's not that useful but that is not its only use case.

Gormo 2y ago
Quick news is usually poor-quality news, and "life updates from people you follow" is another way of saying "pointless trivia from people you don't know actually know".
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Again, not really. News can just be links to articles, or just headlines. The quickness of the news conveyed has no bearing on its quality. And life updates can be similar, for example a creator is making a new library I'd want to use, or updates an existing library I currently use, it's useful to know that information. If that's how you feel about updates from people then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
- moomin 2y ago
  Honestly not true. At its best, Twitter educated me on many subjects including many non-political ones. And as for journalism, well I’m not sure much that I would recognise as high-quality has survived the economic pressures of the internet in any format.

safety1st 2y ago

I was surprised to learn recently that Rousseau, who is usually seen as a radical egalitarian, hated the democratization of publishing. [1] His reasoning was complex but a lot of it revolved around the simple fact that as you get more people publishing, the intellectual quality of the average published work goes down. I'm not ready to roll back the printing press, but in retrospect the digital era has proven him right about this. For instance his position kind of predicts Eternal September - the easier it gets to post online, the more numbskulls you have doing it. Microblogging is the ultimate expression of this and frequently the content you find on microblogging platforms is the absolute worst hot takes and generally the most vile stuff the moderation rules will permit because shock value generates impressions. It's every idiot on earth competing to be as flagrant and base as possible. We usually hold up free speech as a virtue in Western societies and there are a lot of good reasons for that, but I'm increasingly inclined to treat microblogging less like publishing, and more like alcohol/tobacco/gambling, like it's something people do but they know it's not good for them, they do it anyway because it's addictive and easy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ucJ29O1kM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ucJ29O1kM

kristianc 2y ago
That’s a pretty broad sweep (mis)characterization of Rousseau’s work. He was neither a radical egalitarian or hated the democratization of publishing. He argues for a society where people are both free and equal, but he recognized that some forms of inequality could coexist with freedom, provided they were rooted in merit or necessity, rather than arbitrary privilege. Also, when he talked about the Rights of Man, it wasn’t a rhetorical flourishes, he did mean man. It’s a mischaracterization too to say he hated the democratization of publishing. His own ideas gained traction precisely because publishing allowed them to reach broader audiences. His critiques of printing and arts weren’t aimed at access itself but at the unintended consequences that came with it.
- safety1st 2y ago
  I really appreciate this comment as I always try to read the original authors but what little actual Rousseau I have read was over 20 years ago. I might be relying too much on short takes and what other people say about him. He is on the list for a proper reading eventually!