The Twitter

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 Is it the precursor for a flounce?  

Yes. Just like the several other times you mentioned it. Nothing to do with somebody mentioning it the other day, but it’s a big ol’ meltdown. On the money again. 

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Fuck this, I’ve had enough. I’m leaving. 

I'd rather you didn't. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

I'd rather you didn't. 

Well, that’s lucky. 

[Bjornebye]

14 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Well, that’s lucky. 

Phew. 

[Rico1304]

19 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Phew. 

I mean, how’d we cope without him?

 

(Is it just how we coped when he had a tantrum last time.  Someone more technically minded would have a GIF of a fat kid screwing its fingers into its eyes whilst bawling). 

[Karl_b]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Isn’t it just like a TV channel where you get to choose what you watch? 

Not really. A lot of what you see on Twitter is defined by algorithms and is designed to increase interactions with the site. The highest level of engagement is with content that makes you angry, that prompts you to respond in an swift, rash, unempathetic way. I take the point about 'shit' forms of other media, absolutely. However, it's still to some extent curated and considered in a way that social media isn't. The death of traditional journalism is directly related to social media, they've had to adapt and it, for the most part, has been detrimental. Fundamentally, I guess the platforms aren't flawed but the governance, regulations and economics around them are so much so that it's resulted in a broken system that is having profound effects on our lives.

 

This isn't aimed directly aimed at you Rico, just a chance to add to my further "fuck social media" posts. I know that in reality sacking off social media isn't going to happen, we're too far down the rabbit hole. What Jaron Lanier argues for (in the book @Section_31 mentioned earlier in the thread) is a subscription system for social media but one where, as the content generators, users would also have the opportunity to earn money from them. 

 

I highly recommend giving it a read. I'm not saying I buy in to it 100% and there's definitely an element on confirmation bias with me, as I've said before I've already ditched social media, but it certainly articulated my instinctive concerns about it.

[Karl_b]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Isn’t it just like a TV channel where you get to choose what you watch? 

Edit - fucked it.

[Karl_b]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Isn’t it just like a TV channel where you get to choose what you watch? 

Edit - fucked it.

[Karl_b]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Isn’t it just like a TV channel where you get to choose what you watch? 

Edit - fucked it.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Karl_b said:

Not really. A lot of what you see on Twitter is defined by algorithms and is designed to increase interactions with the site. The highest level of engagement is with content that makes you angry, that prompts you to respond in an swift, rash, unempathetic way. I take the point about 'shit' forms of other media, absolutely. However, it's still to some extent curated and considered in a way that social media isn't. The death of traditional journalism is directly related to social media, they've had to adapt and it, for the most part, has been detrimental. Fundamentally, I guess the platforms aren't flawed but the governance, regulations and economics around them are so much so that it's resulted in a broken system that is having profound effects on our lives.

 

This isn't aimed directly aimed at you Rico, just a chance to add to my further "fuck social media" posts. I know that in reality sacking off social media isn't going to happen, we're too far down the rabbit hole. What Jaron Lanier argues for (in the book @Section_31 mentioned earlier in the thread) is a subscription system for social media but one where, as the content generators, users would also have the opportunity to earn money from them. 

 

I highly recommend giving it a read. I'm not saying I buy in to it 100% and there's definitely an element on confirmation bias with me, as I've said before I've already ditched social media, but it certainly articulated my instinctive concerns about it.

I disagree. It’s 100% defined by who you follow. Literally nothing else. 

[Rico1304]

All right; I get the message. 

[Karl_b]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

I disagree. It’s 100% defined by who you follow. Literally nothing else. 

No, it isn't. You're arguing against facts mate, this is coming directly from the people that created the platforms. 

 

PS - I completely fucked that up posting it four times!

[Tony Moanero]

Just now, Karl_b said:

No, it isn't. You're arguing against facts mate, this is coming directly from the people that created the platforms. 

 

PS - I completely fucked that up posting it four times!

Repped for posting on the GF during the match.

[Karl_b]

1 minute ago, Tony Moanero said:

Repped for posting on the GF during the match.

The only reason I did it.

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, Karl_b said:

No, it isn't. You're arguing against facts mate, this is coming directly from the people that created the platforms. 

 

PS - I completely fucked that up posting it four times!

I don’t think I am. The broad brush approach may be that, and a 40% success rate might mean continued growth but if you are interested in tortoises and only follow tortoise accounts you aren’t going to see the hate. Plus - take out the bots, which they could do in an instant, and it’d be a cleaner environment. 

[Karl_b]

But the broad brush approach is the problem, the issues I'm outlining are widespread, societal issues. You're wrong on this, it's fundamentally how the platforms are built, run and sold to customers (we're the product, by the way). Of course there are always going to be people that use it in a sensible way and who, frankly, fucking love tortoises. Most people don't and most people don't realise how they are being manipulated. 

 

Sorry, just another point on the differences between new/social media and old media/journalism is context. An individual has little to no idea of the context in which others use social media. The algorithms are so user specific that everyone's feed is different and not just because of who they choose to follow, although clearly that's paramount too. Without that context, without that shared experience of content (which is why it isn't comparable to TV, etc) and without understanding what people see and feel we're losing our ability to empathise, we reduce people to soundbites that get clicks and generate content. That content is better for the tech companies if it's divisie, inflammatory and causes more reactions.

 

Tech companies are taking some steps to address this but the infrastructure wasn't there to begin with, Pandora's Box is already open.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Karl_b said:

But the broad brush approach is the problem, the issues I'm outlining are widespread, societal issues. You're wrong on this, it's fundamentally how the platforms are built, run and sold to customers (we're the product, by the way). Of course there are always going to be people that use it in a sensible way and who, frankly, fucking love tortoises. Most people don't and most people don't realise how they are being manipulated. 

 

Sorry, just another point on the differences between new/social media and old media/journalism is context. An individual has little to no idea of the context in which others use social media. The algorithms are so user specific that everyone's feed is different and not just because of who they choose to follow, although clearly that's paramount too. Without that context, without that shared experience of content (which is why it isn't comparable to TV, etc) and without understanding what people see and feel we're losing our ability to empathise, we reduce people to soundbites that get clicks and generate content. That content is better for the tech companies if it's divisie, inflammatory and causes more reactions.

 

Tech companies are taking some steps to address this but the infrastructure wasn't there to begin with, Pandora's Box is already open.

We are always the product if it’s free.  But look at the % output by % users. A tiny proportion of users produce a huge proportion of the content. 
 

I agree that the brightest minds in the world are working on making us ‘sticky’ to these platforms.  

[Rico1304]

I suppose a great example is the last election.  Loads of the left were expecting a Labour win, at worst a hung parliament- all because they followed people with the same ideas. 

[Bjornebye]

Edit: Fucked it

[Bruce Spanner]

34 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I disagree. It’s 100% defined by who you follow. Literally nothing else. 

It isn’t though, Rico.

 

You are presented with ‘content’ your social media profile would engage with. They are data harvesters first and foremost, social media platforms secondly.

 

Thats why it’s free to use, they sell you and me routinely. 

[Karl_b]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I suppose a great example is the last election.  Loads of the left were expecting a Labour win, at worst a hung parliament- all because they followed people with the same ideas. 

Ah see, this proves my point - I knew Labour would lose and I'm not on social media!

 

Conversely, there's evidence that elections are being swung on favour of "the right" because theirs is the message that generates the most clicks, it generates headlines and it therefore manipulates what people see and the spiral starts. It's dragging people to the extremes of the political, social, economic and emotional spectrums.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

16 hours ago, Hank Moody said:

I find it equally hilarious that you attempt to paint it as ‘ridicule for listening to podcasts and reading twitter’, when it’s nothing of the sort. The ridicule is for getting your info from these sources exclusively and then blatantly parroting the opinions like an unthinking drone. I wish you understood the difference. 

Make a podcast for him to explain.

[VladimirIlyich]

13 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

I suppose a great example is the last election.  Loads of the left were expecting a Labour win, at worst a hung parliament- all because they followed people with the same ideas. 

You are mixing up the word 'expect' with 'hope.' 

[VladimirIlyich]

Is Hank Moody the former NV? His posting style seems different.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Is Hank Moody the former NV? His posting style seems different.

Yeah, it’s me. I had Hank Moody as my name for a couple of months years ago. Somebody reminded me of it the other day, so I changed my name. I’ll change it back later if I remember.