Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theory]

How can a form of communication be universally bad?  Do you think the existence of SMS messages is equally bad for humanity? 

It's like people who protest too much against Facebook.  No one forces you to do anything with it. Facebook is whatever what you choose to make of it.   

[Teproc]

Right, you have this idea that Twitter is about people posting pictures of their food, that's fine. Some people do that, sure. That's not even close to what I and many people use Twitter for. Like many things, it's an excellent tool but because some people use it "frivolously" (which, frankly, there's nothing wrong with that either), it gets derided.

It's like saying the Internet is bad because it's all about trolling in the comments or something.

I think your analogy is backwards. Internet is a great tool that is often misused. Twitter is a horrible tool that it is eventually used in a good way. Maybe comments on videos (or some other places) are a bad tool either.

Twitter is more like the atom bomb. Sure, you can probably find an armageddon-like nice usage for it, but its existence is mostly bad for humanity.

You seem to have an awful lot of confidence of what Twitter it for someone who doesn't use it.

Sorry, that's kind of a specious argument, but I feel like you are letting your perception of it be shaped by clichés.

[silverspawn]

It's like people who protest too much against Facebook.  No one forces you to do anything with it. Facebook is whatever what you choose to make of it.

I don't think this way of arguing works. Maybe for this case, but not in general. Noone forces people to kill themselves because of what they believe. In fact, objectively, there is no reason why anyone should have a problem with what anyone else believes (unless part of what he believes in is that he has to fight people who believe in it). Still, I can say that religions are bad for humanity, because people keep killing themselves over them. A thing that's often misused can still be a bad thing because of that, even if it's not inherently bad for everyone.

For facebook, you could make the argument that people aren't very bright and post too much stuff there, which comes back to hurt them later (like intimate pictures or something, it was just a phase, but later others can still find that about them). I don't really know to which extent this is true though, so I'm not saying FB is bad or anything.

[Eevee]

People are arguing facebook is bad because their news feed is stupid. Hey, guess what, facebook offers plenty of tools for customizing your news feed. I genuinely like reading mine.

[soulnet]

How can a form of communication be universally bad?  Do you think the existence of SMS messages is equally bad for humanity? 

It's like people who protest too much against Facebook.  No one forces you to do anything with it. Facebook is whatever what you choose to make of it.

I don't think SMSs are bad for humanity.

And Facebook is not whatever I choose to make of it, nor is Twitter, (and nor is Rebuild, as long as there is no ban-list or similar), for the reasons I explained before: they get picked up by media and mentioned in conversations all the time and their influence in shaping the society is significant. And there is no escaping the society.

Nothing in the public sphere is really what you choose to make of it, but rather, what the society picks up. The problem is that those companies for an oligopoly, much like media companies. Would you say that TV or press is what I choose to make of it? Theoretically, I could choose not to read the press or watch TV, but it will still pop-out everywhere, much like the ****ing birdie or the worse f-word.

You seem to have an awful lot of confidence of what Twitter it for someone who doesn't use it.

Sorry, that's kind of a specious argument, but I feel like you are letting your perception of it be shaped by clichés.

The fact that I don't want to use Twitter does not mean I don't know what it is. And, as I said several times before, twitter does appear everywhere even if I don't want to use it. So, I don't want to use twitter, but unfortunately, they are forcing it on me.

[soulnet]

I feel like I already said this elsewhere, but I have a general problem with social networking: their usage gives too much power to a single company that controls all communications through them. I prefer communications to be open-protocol and carried out by several companies if they need some centralization. Notice that phone, SMS, e-mail, jabber, are all like that. I can choose to switch providers if I don't like mine and not loose my access to the network.

[jsh357]

I love Twitter, because of it I am best buds with E-list celebrities talking about their dogs and begging me to watch their videos. 

[WalrusMcFishSr]

soulnet, how about stuff like the Arab spring, when protestors used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to organize themselves and spread the message? Is this a legitimate non-atom bomb use of Twitter?

Mind you, I don't really care for social media either, but that just means I ignore them most of the time. I think your statements are quite hyperbolic.

[Teproc]

I think the impact of social media in general and Twitter in particular on our society is a net positive, but that's not a particularly popular opinion I suppose.

[enfynet]

I find it odd that anonymous people can often find more information about someone without needing a Facebook or twitter account than people who have one.

[soulnet]

soulnet, how about stuff like the Arab spring, when protestors used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to organize themselves and spread the message? Is this a legitimate non-atom bomb use of Twitter?

Yes it is. I have no real information about the impact, but, would they have not used other platforms like email, newgroups, IRC, should twitter have not been the de facto standard at the time?

Also, I have heard accusations on twitter selling information to some Country's oppressive regime. This was only rumors, and it was several years back, so please forgive my lack of sources. This is a random stuff thread after all.

[Titandrake]

soulnet, how about stuff like the Arab spring, when protestors used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to organize themselves and spread the message? Is this a legitimate non-atom bomb use of Twitter?

Yes it is. I have no real information about the impact, but, would they have not used other platforms like email, newgroups, IRC, should twitter have not been the de facto standard at the time?

I'm sure they did in the past. Twitter and Facebook both have optimized mobile experiences, email/IRC less so, and working well on smartphones helps a lot when you're not necessarily going to have access to a laptop/desktop all the time.

i.e. someone organizes a protest, it goes south, now even people en route to said protest can find out about this. Plus, given that people are likely using their phones as cameras to record everything, working well on mobile is a big plus in that direction.

[soulnet]

i.e. someone organizes a protest, it goes south, now even people en route to said protest can find out about this. Plus, given that people are likely using their phones as cameras to record everything, working well on mobile is a big plus in that direction.

I am not an expert, but I would be surprised if there weren't good tools for using email on smartphones.

Maybe we should go ahead and do the opposite of twitter: make an easy accessible social network with rules that make the posts tend towards being informative and relevant instead of frivolous.

[enfynet]

Have you ever joined an ongoing conversation? Most of the discussion is often frivolous.

[Kirian]

Maybe we should go ahead and do the opposite of twitter: make an easy accessible social network with rules that make the posts tend towards being informative and relevant instead of frivolous.

We call those sites "news."  Most (all?) of the posts on this site are frivolous.

[Teproc]

Yeah, I'm not sure why stuff being frivolous is bad. Most of what humanity does is frivolous.

[soulnet]

It's not that frivolity is bad in itself. Opt-in or opt-out frivolity boards are fine. The problem is that twitter spreads frivolity in other stuff, like news shows and printed press. It is making politics be even more about appearances than about actual discussion.

[Teproc]

WHy is that Twitter's fault ? Isn't it a problem of news shows and the printed press relaying it ?

[soulnet]

WHy is that Twitter's fault ? Isn't it a problem of news shows and the printed press relaying it ?

Twitter promotes its usage as a news source as one of its top 3 uses:

Welcome to Twitter.

Connect with your friends — and other fascinating people. Get in-the-moment updates on the things that interest you. And watch events unfold, in real time, from every angle.

[Teproc]

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue any of these 3 items as being "tweet pictures of food !".

[2.71828.....]

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue any of these 3 items as being "tweet pictures of food !".

woah, now.  Pictures go on instagram  (another lovely social media tool)

[soulnet]

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue any of these 3 items as being "tweet pictures of food !".

You asked how it was twitter's fault that media picks up twits. I just answered that. Then it seems you decided I was actually saying something else.

[ashersky]

Someone change the thread title.

[Witherweaver]

[Teproc]

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue any of these 3 items as being "tweet pictures of food !".

You asked how it was twitter's fault that media picks up twits. I just answered that. Then it seems you decided I was actually saying something else.

Nah, I just misread.