Twitter is a poor place

TheAlkaizer

Game Designer
Well, given that the statement that he was good at social media AND investing, we are okay then. It isn't great when you leave off half of what someone says, and call them disingenuous for the lack.
Given that what I covered is neither social medias nor just straight investing, I don't see the problem. I didn't leave half of it. He didn't just pump his inherited wealth like most wealth investors do. As I said, what he does and does well is much more strategic in nature.
His only actual areas of expertise are getting big mad on social media at people who criticize him in any way, and investing inherited wealth.
Since I didn’t say that, this seems an odd reply.
My reply is a proposition that he's also an expert at lateral thinking, moving and managing assets and technologies between different business domains to get and advantage. So I'm saying that what you listed are not his only actual areas of expertise. I don't see how it's disconnected.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gradine

Final Form (they/them)
Twitter, like most forms of online communication, is a perfectly fine and occasionally fantastic medium that is crowded with bad faith actors using the medium to stoke hatred and bigotry and spread misinformation; as well as a slew of good faith actors who have been manipulated into insisting on absolutely purity of ethics, morality, and politics.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
Twitter is, from a design and communication perspective, really awful. It's a firehose of thoughts from individuals you're following all interleaved together with no rhyme or reason and no way to impose any order onto them (at least not built in to Twitter directly - you used to be able to find 3rd party apps that would at least try to give you a decent user experience, I don't know if they still exist). The algorithm that they organize tweets with is not just opaque, it seems to be designed to be nonsense and to also raise people's blood pressure.

The only reason to be on Twitter as a platform is for the people who are using it. The actual tech and user interface of Twitter is a trashfire. The only thing that made it even remotely usable to me was by being very loose with the block button and just blocking anyone who was a jerk in public on it, and even then actually finding anything on the app/site is aggravating - the only thing it's good for is "empty calorie one-way 'discussion'" - it doesn't do depth on a topic well, it's not great about breadth, and honestly even the comedy on the site is mostly some variation of the same joke over and over again (i.e. pointing at something happening in the world and saying some variation on "can you believe this nonsense?"). And eventually I realized that I got absolutely nothing off of Twitter but aggravation. I'm now Twitter free for over a year and I can honestly say my life is much better off now than it was before I logged off.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Given that what I covered is neither social medias nor just straight investing, I don't see the problem. I didn't leave half of it. He didn't just pump his inherited wealth like most wealth investors do. As I said, what he does and does well is much more strategic in nature.
If that was your intent, you communicated it very poorly.

You literally said
He's not my favorite person, but it's disingenous to say he's only good at social medias.
This statement does not say what you seem to think it says.

It's also really bad form to accuse me of disingenuousness just because you disagree with my assessment.
My reply is a proposition that he's also an expert at lateral thinking, moving and managing assets and technologies between different business domains to get and advantage.
And there is very little evidence supporting this idea. He bought his way into being called a "founder" of a company he didn't have any part in founding, and wasn't even one of the initial investors in, and then bought out the actual founders so he could position himself as "the guy who started Tesla Motors". He then hired some actual engineers (I've met a few, btw, and a couple fabricators of various skillsets. He's a terrible boss.) to make a rocket company, and then let his various engineers talk shop with eachother and share ideas.

Paypal is the closest he's ever come to actually coming up with anything especially interesting.


So I'm saying that what you listed are not his only actual areas of expertise. I don't see how it's disconnected.
What you said is that I was being dishonest (that's really what the word means) by saying a thing that I objectively did not say.

And I'm not as polite as Umbran, so I'll just come out and say it. He is not an engineer. He's a rich guy that likes tech.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Twitter, like most forms of online communication, is a perfectly fine and occasionally fantastic medium that is crowded with bad faith actors using the medium to stoke hatred and bigotry and spread misinformation; as well as a slew of good faith actors who have been manipulated into insisting on absolutely purity of ethics, morality, and politics.
It's just gonna get worse, unfortunately.

Twitter lacked the guts to kick out the nazis before, now it's owned by a guy who buys into the "sunlight as disinfectant" nonsense, and who will kick his critics off the platform while reinstating the account of a seditious former POTUS who primarily uses the platform to harass people and encourage violence.

I used to have some small hope for twitter. We'd be better off with Bezos owning it, and I speak as someone who views Bezos as someone whose influence on our nation is almost exclusively negative.
 

Social media is reach, so there is a trade off, but I basically pulled off twitter, scaled back my other social media tremendously, and what a difference it made in terms of restoring my writing, my reading, my thinking, etc. Not to mention my state of mind. Everyone is different but I definitely found stuff like twitter destroyed my ability to think, read and write in ways that were invisible to me. That said, there is that trade off: you definitely lose reach if you do that, and reach is something that genuinely matters if you are publishing or just trying to secure employment in a creative field.
 


Jer

Legend
Supporter
But, from an engagement perspective, it is apparently freaking awesome.

Which of these do you think actually gets them money?
I'm honestly skeptical of Twitter's financial future - it's the pet rock of the 21st century in a lot of ways. For all the talk of its importance, it's really only important because a whole lot of journalists use it to promote themselves. Facebook's (sorry - "Meta's") social media platforms are a lot more sticky and also they've put quite a bit of thought into always having a new one available as younger folks don't want to be on their parent's social network (though they got caught flat-footed with TikTok - Facebook/Meta is getting bloated).

I think the Twitter board is skeptical too - which is why once they figured out that Musk was serious and wasn't just trolling them (which, let's be honest, is a reasonable thing to think he might be doing) they jumped at the opportunity to sell it to him. Taking it private and making it's profitability his and his funders problem instead of theirs is probably a load off a lot of their minds.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I'm honestly skeptical of Twitter's financial future - it's the pet rock of the 21st century in a lot of ways. For all the talk of its importance, it's really only important because a whole lot of journalists use it to promote themselves.

6000 tweets per second, on broad average. About half a billion tweets every day.

There are not that many journalists on the planet.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
6000 tweets per second, on broad average. About half a billion tweets every day.

There are not that many journalists on the planet.
No - you're mistaking usage for importance. Twitter is important because journalists use it and promote it. Most folks use it as at best a timewaster and an unfiltered news feed (that last one being problematic and I guess "important" in the sense that it's a bad thing that is actively making the world a worse place). There are many social media platforms that if they disappeared tomorrow would dramatically impact the lives of everyone using them negatively - WhatsApp, for example, is devestating to people when it goes down because it's basically their main communications platform with friends and family when they're separated. Twitter could disappear tomorrow and nothing of value would be lost. It's an entertainment and advertising platform, and by definition that kind of thing is just not important.
 

Janx

Hero
What you are describing is someone who is using the medium for a purpose other than that intended. Twitter is for short comments, not long form discussion or prose. Sure, I can use the handle of a screwdriver as a hammer, but wouldn't it be better to just use a hammer?
Indeed.

I put my work on my blog. Then I write an intro text and post the link into my social media.

Like pretty much everybody else doing articles or what have you.

It works for me. I'm well over 4000 followers. Which isn't huge, but more than most.
 

Ryujin

Legend
Indeed.

I put my work on my blog. Then I write an intro text and post the link into my social media.

Like pretty much everybody else doing articles or what have you.

It works for me. I'm well over 4000 followers. Which isn't huge, but more than most.
Exactly. Twitter is like a preface, not a publication medium. It's a place for 280 character mental expulsions.
 

TheAlkaizer

Game Designer
This statement does not say what you seem to think it says.

It's also really bad form to accuse me of disingenuousness just because you disagree with my assessment.
Then what does it mean? My understanding is that being disingenuous is making statement or acting by putting aside relevant information that you do know. I guess it could be viewed as a form of dishonesty? Like I'd tell someone is disingenuous if they omit some relevant information that they clearly have knowledge of. That's my understanding, but again english is not my mother tongue, so I may not understand the nuance of the word.

And there is very little evidence supporting this idea. He bought his way into being called a "founder" of a company he didn't have any part in founding, and wasn't even one of the initial investors in, and then bought out the actual founders so he could position himself as "the guy who started Tesla Motors". He then hired some actual engineers (I've met a few, btw, and a couple fabricators of various skillsets. He's a terrible boss.) to make a rocket company, and then let his various engineers talk shop with eachother and share ideas.

Paypal is the closest he's ever come to actually coming up with anything especially interesting.

I agree with most of what you said. As I said, I'm not a fan of him. He was absolutely born in wealth and did not found most of the business he was in. I also disagree with many of the views he put out publicly, his latest bout concerning Twitter being a good example. But it's really interesting how he has the intelligence to think laterally and move knowledge, technology and resources from one domain to another. A lot of industries struggle with issues that have been figured out elsewhere, and someone that is able to have the right people meet and connect solutions to problems are highly valuable.
 

I mean, I think that's just the internet. And the world.
Pretty much. I remember individual online forums like this and Wizards.com back before these specialized social media products. As much as there are still toxic and troll-like behaviors going on, I think a bunch of it that used to be here up and left for Reddit and Twitter and such. Anonymity breeds nonbest behavior and worst impulses are rewarded.
No - you're mistaking usage for importance.
Some things are important because people think they are important, watch it or take part in it, and therefore lend their importance to the thing. If, as the politics that keep creeping through here are any indication, Twitter played a non-trivial part in political events of the past several years. People thought Twitter was important, watched it, and it swayed their actions/beliefs/voting patterns. That's importance. Any means by which a large number of people communicate, gather, form tribes, coalesce or reinforce ideas, or otherwise establish their beliefs, ideas, opinions, and allegiances is inherently important, regardless of any outside estimation of its' quality.

That said, I also question whether Twitter really has a long term business model. Of course I have the same question about FacebMeta and it's been going on for a decade and a half, and dead tree publishing has been "on its' deathbed" for a quarter century, etc...
 

Exactly. Twitter is like a preface, not a publication medium. It's a place for 280 character mental expulsions.
I've seen a number of folks who post what would have been a blog post on Twitter. This honestly feels like old man yelling at cloud or new media is evil.

Hell, I thought discord was a terrible place for discussion, then I realize it's basically a chatroom and then it all clicked into place.
 

Pretty much. I remember individual online forums like this and Wizards.com back before these specialized social media products. As much as there are still toxic and troll-like behaviors going on, I think a bunch of it that used to be here up and left for Reddit and Twitter and such. Anonymity breeds nonbest behavior and worst impulses are rewarded.

Some things are important because people think they are important, watch it or take part in it, and therefore lend their importance to the thing. If, as the politics that keep creeping through here are any indication, Twitter played a non-trivial part in political events of the past several years. People thought Twitter was important, watched it, and it swayed their actions/beliefs/voting patterns. That's importance. Any means by which a large number of people communicate, gather, form tribes, coalesce or reinforce ideas, or otherwise establish their beliefs, ideas, opinions, and allegiances is inherently important, regardless of any outside estimation of its' quality.

That said, I also question whether Twitter really has a long term business model. Of course I have the same question about FacebMeta and it's been going on for a decade and a half, and dead tree publishing has been "on its' deathbed" for a quarter century, etc...

There is a lot to say about a platform like Twitter. I don't think the platform is itself the issue, it is the importance we give it and how we use it. Also our understanding of how we are communicating there. One of the reasons I stopped with it, is because of its clear immediate effect on my ability to think. It was visibly impacting my memory and how well I could articulate ideas. But that is something I am sure I could also manage by just using twitter less. The bigger issue I think is twitter is new and like any new communication medium we are still very vulnerable to the way it can be exploited for rhetorical purposes (for instance, the structure of the character limit and how tweets work, really reward making a punchline rather than making a clear argument that leads to a solid conclusion: it is about winning over the crowd, whoever that crowd happens to be, with a quip or slice of wit). That can be a great platform for all kinds of creative communication. I think there is a learning curve where people need to understand how they are allowing themselves to be persuaded by humor and social pressure rather than a real presentation of ideas. At the moment, it tends to bring out the worst in people in my opinion, so I don't really want to be on there. Basically been off it for two years. A lot happier since I left.

All mediums take time for us to adjust to. Doesn't make the medium itself bad. Over time I think they lose their power: propaganda posters don't have the sway they once did, we can see how they manipulate quite clearly. And mediums always introduce changes (people used to tell and remember stories much differently before writing; a lot of unrest followed the widespread use of the printing press). Some of that will just be inevitable.

For right now though, I have just found the best thing for me, if I want to be productive with the things I love doing, is to unplug for the most part. Settle back into a pre-internet pace of life.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Then what does it mean? My understanding is that being disingenuous is making statement or acting by putting aside relevant information that you do know. I guess it could be viewed as a form of dishonesty? Like I'd tell someone is disingenuous if they omit some relevant information that they clearly have knowledge of. That's my understanding, but again english is not my mother tongue, so I may not understand the nuance of the word.
Right, thus you calling me dishonest for disagreeing with you. Which is bad form.
I agree with most of what you said. As I said, I'm not a fan of him. He was absolutely born in wealth and did not found most of the business he was in. I also disagree with many of the views he put out publicly, his latest bout concerning Twitter being a good example. But it's really interesting how he has the intelligence to think laterally and move knowledge, technology and resources from one domain to another. A lot of industries struggle with issues that have been figured out elsewhere, and someone that is able to have the right people meet and connect solutions to problems are highly valuable.
There is nothing valuable about Elon Musk. The world would be better if he'd been born middle class and gotten a job in fabricating or something. He's a net drain.

But more specifically, he didn't do anything innovative, he just took credit for what other people have done. That's it.
 

gamerprinter

Mapper/Publisher
Have you seen my posts of anything, anywhere - they don't call them walls of text for nothing. Any platform where character limit is one of the primary functions is not condusive to anything that I might post. So I've never used Twitter, I've never looked at it, and have no draw to look. Twitter is a complete non-issue with me. So whether Elon owns it or not, I have no opinion nor care...
 

Have you seen my posts of anything, anywhere - they don't call them walls of text for nothing. Any platform where character limit is one of the primary functions is not condusive to anything that I might post. So I've never used Twitter, I've never looked at it, and have no draw to look. Twitter is a complete non-issue with me. So whether Elon owns it or not, I have no opinion nor care...

I too tend towards wall of text. I think the specific politics and matter of who owns it is less relevant than how we use it as a society (as people noted journalists have it power by deciding Twitter conversations were important and meaningful). It is has become a bit of a media force multiplier I think is the issue
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top