Speaking of more control, why does everyone insist on trying to make my experience better? Why can't these "social" services let me be? Just give me a reverse chronological feed (newest item first, no sorting, no filtering) add some ads in between if you must but clearly mark them as sponsored content. There, done.
Why do they insist on optimizing everything for everyone. I don't want it. I don't need it. If you're reading this, please stop. Or at least give me an opt-out!
Social media is a business. You're there to generate content that engages people with the platform and increases its value, and those sites are designed to optimize you both as a content producer and a product.
And the shareholders do appreciate your willingness to do that for free.
That sounds terrible. If someone is socializing or doing business, they don't want to wade through graphic death and rape threats at the same time. Even if it were possible to make themselves desensitized, why would they want to? That sounds like a recipe for not letting anything affect them, even messages they want.
Totally. I'm kinda off topic, sorry. More the epic amounts of troll and fake accounts. I deleted my Twitter account at about 15k followers, the trolling and spam got too much. Point well taken! :)
Paying for an account also leads people to feel they're entitled to do whatever they like with it, which might be counterproductive to encouraging civility.
I’ve more commonly heard anecdotes to the opposite conclusion; receivers of free work often value it little and feel entitled to request improvements, while paying users value the service enough to pay.
Mother Jones is the most extreme left-wing publication I can think of.
This particular article is not much of an exception, and I have flagged it.
To address the point, though, I've been working on making my twitter feed better. I mute SJW's on sight. I've got an annoying hashtag and the words "Trump" and "Russians" muted as well.
I try to constructively engage when I run into someone I wouldn't mind following, but who is clearly at least temporarily being an Twitter activist in a way that I disagree with. I try to mostly tweet about programming topics, though.
But I've been talking with my friends about "the Twitter problem". We think it might be better to just quit following our Twitter accounts and go back to blogging and RSS feeds to stay on top of each other.
> Mother Jones is the most extreme left-wing publication I can think of.
Eh, Mother Jones editorial position is somewhere between the center of the neoliberal faction and the center of the social democratic faction of the Democratic Party, somewhere in the center-left. If they are the most left-wing publication you can think of, you either have a very narrow or right-leaning exposure.
"I have an opinion. I am entitled to express it. You? Not so much. I don't want to hear your shit while I tout the value of free speech."
"I'm a privileged white male. Of course, I think it is totes normal to expect everyone else to kowtow to my comforts instead of me learning to not be a butt. I see zero correlation between my bad behavior and the invective aimed at me. LA LA LA not listening."*
In all seriousness, I am all for figuring out how to foster a more civil environment anywhere people interact socially. But these sorts of solutions are not it. In fact, they tend to be counterproductive.
* Not All Privileged White Males. Just, you know, the (hypocritical) assholes.
If you wanted to specifically design social media platforms to optimize for meanness and radicalization, I don't know if you could do any better than Twitter and, to a slightly lesser extent, Tumblr. In fact, I think a better term would be "antisocial media".
Start by making everything anonymous and easy to bot. Then add a length limit, thus eliminating all chance for nuance and optimizing for cheap slogans. Then make sure reposts and low-context replies are cheap, but high-context threaded discussions are expensive or impossible.
Twitter without replies or retweets would be considerably better. It would cover virtually all of the good use-cases of Twitter while eliminating the bad.
> Twitter without replies or retweets would be considerably better.
Twitter started out without replies and retweets. Both features were initially invented by users and only added to the UI after their use was already widespread.
24 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 23.4 ms ] threadWhy do they insist on optimizing everything for everyone. I don't want it. I don't need it. If you're reading this, please stop. Or at least give me an opt-out!
Why not? However, it sounds like your problem is that they're making it worse.
And the shareholders do appreciate your willingness to do that for free.
Billy Gates also famously pondered charging a fee for sending email to reduce spam.
Here is one example: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/01/14/take-a-gun-and-put-...
To address the point, though, I've been working on making my twitter feed better. I mute SJW's on sight. I've got an annoying hashtag and the words "Trump" and "Russians" muted as well.
I try to constructively engage when I run into someone I wouldn't mind following, but who is clearly at least temporarily being an Twitter activist in a way that I disagree with. I try to mostly tweet about programming topics, though.
But I've been talking with my friends about "the Twitter problem". We think it might be better to just quit following our Twitter accounts and go back to blogging and RSS feeds to stay on top of each other.
Eh, Mother Jones editorial position is somewhere between the center of the neoliberal faction and the center of the social democratic faction of the Democratic Party, somewhere in the center-left. If they are the most left-wing publication you can think of, you either have a very narrow or right-leaning exposure.
Here's a far more left-wing publication: http://revcom.us/revolution/current-en.html?1
Sites like Revcom are the infowars of the left. People in the center will categorise you as an extremist if you start quoting them.
"I have an opinion. I am entitled to express it. You? Not so much. I don't want to hear your shit while I tout the value of free speech."
"I'm a privileged white male. Of course, I think it is totes normal to expect everyone else to kowtow to my comforts instead of me learning to not be a butt. I see zero correlation between my bad behavior and the invective aimed at me. LA LA LA not listening."*
In all seriousness, I am all for figuring out how to foster a more civil environment anywhere people interact socially. But these sorts of solutions are not it. In fact, they tend to be counterproductive.
* Not All Privileged White Males. Just, you know, the (hypocritical) assholes.
Start by making everything anonymous and easy to bot. Then add a length limit, thus eliminating all chance for nuance and optimizing for cheap slogans. Then make sure reposts and low-context replies are cheap, but high-context threaded discussions are expensive or impossible.
Twitter without replies or retweets would be considerably better. It would cover virtually all of the good use-cases of Twitter while eliminating the bad.
Twitter started out without replies and retweets. Both features were initially invented by users and only added to the UI after their use was already widespread.