3 ms·

I'm a little confused by this. Has the word "dead" come to mean "not actively pursued by money grubbers"? I swear I still haven't lost hope that some day tha

by pohl 17y ago

I'm a little confused by this. Has the word "dead" come to mean "not actively pursued by money grubbers"? I swear I still haven't lost hope that some day that word will appear in a tech headline to describe something that's actually going to fall into disuse. This article was worth it, though, because it had a link to an older criticism, by Seth, of twitter: "A highly ranked person is free to attack anyone lower down the ranks, as there's no way for the wronged party to effectively reply to the same readers." I hadn't thought about it that way. It makes sense now why the media is enamored with it: it allows an asymmetry similar to that of television and radio. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/07/twitter-is-a-suckers-game http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/07/twitter-is-...

raganwald 17y ago
+++++, Thanks, would read again! I thought the whole point of blogging when it appeared was that anybody could write and anybody would write. It wasn't restricted to those who could afford a printing press or a pulpit. The "A-list bloggers" aren't really bloggers in that sense, they're new media barons who happen to blog. If they move to twitter, they become new media barons who happen to twitter.
- MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
  And few if any of them abandon their blogs. They just try to get their readers to follow them in both mediums. Besides, nobody makes money of twitter directly. It's just a platform for sending people to your blog...where you make money.
jrockway 17y ago
Has the word "dead" come to mean "not actively pursued by money grubbers" In school, American kids learn that their opinions should masquerade as facts. Opinions are worthless, facts are irrefutable. So, you don't dislike something, you argue that it's objectively bad. (The reader can then infer that you dislike something, but is forced to agree with you, since "facts" are, by definition, true and irrefutable.) As a result, people are on the lookout for words that can convey their opinion, but sound objective without significant factual backing. "dead" is one of these words. People use it when they should simply say, "I see no future for ..." or "I don't like ...". But instead they say "dead" so that you have no choice but to agree with them; this thing is dead, there is no possible way you can continue to use or like it. It's not a matter of opinion -- it's dead! (Of course, "dead" means declining, or that the rate of increase in use is declining, or something like that. This makes it harder to argue against, as the meaning is so far away from what is actually being measured.) "dead" is dead.
- adrianwaj 17y ago
  Thus in reader agreement, once the writer has switched one with the other, the reader will also turn the presented opinion into their fact. Furthermore, any form of disagreement is less attractive as the reader is inclined to believe they have to argue with a fact, which is not attractive to do if they they presume the writer has done more research. Result: the reader is obliged to agree, and turn another's opinion into their own fact. Solution: - have writer frame their viewpoint with "I think." - have reader ask "prove it." - have reader be aware of mental state of writer

by pohl 17y ago

raganwald 17y ago

+++++, Thanks, would read again! I thought the whole point of blogging when it appeared was that anybody could write and anybody would write. It wasn't restricted to those who could afford a printing press or a pulpit. The "A-list bloggers" aren't really bloggers in that sense, they're new media barons who happen to blog. If they move to twitter, they become new media barons who happen to twitter.

MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
And few if any of them abandon their blogs. They just try to get their readers to follow them in both mediums. Besides, nobody makes money of twitter directly. It's just a platform for sending people to your blog...where you make money.

jrockway 17y ago

Has the word "dead" come to mean "not actively pursued by money grubbers" In school, American kids learn that their opinions should masquerade as facts. Opinions are worthless, facts are irrefutable. So, you don't dislike something, you argue that it's objectively bad. (The reader can then infer that you dislike something, but is forced to agree with you, since "facts" are, by definition, true and irrefutable.) As a result, people are on the lookout for words that can convey their opinion, but sound objective without significant factual backing. "dead" is one of these words. People use it when they should simply say, "I see no future for ..." or "I don't like ...". But instead they say "dead" so that you have no choice but to agree with them; this thing is dead, there is no possible way you can continue to use or like it. It's not a matter of opinion -- it's dead! (Of course, "dead" means declining, or that the rate of increase in use is declining, or something like that. This makes it harder to argue against, as the meaning is so far away from what is actually being measured.) "dead" is dead.

adrianwaj 17y ago
Thus in reader agreement, once the writer has switched one with the other, the reader will also turn the presented opinion into their fact. Furthermore, any form of disagreement is less attractive as the reader is inclined to believe they have to argue with a fact, which is not attractive to do if they they presume the writer has done more research. Result: the reader is obliged to agree, and turn another's opinion into their own fact. Solution: - have writer frame their viewpoint with "I think." - have reader ask "prove it." - have reader be aware of mental state of writer