[HN Gopher] Goodbye, Fleets ___________________________________________________________________ Goodbye, Fleets Author : mattyb Score : 266 points Date : 2021-07-14 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.twitter.com) | whywhywhywhy wrote: | The lack of innovation at Twitter, Instagram and Facebook is | utterly baffling and points to a serious culture problem. | | Feels there are rooms of people now just being paid to clone | successful features from other apps and only after those apps | have carved their place in the market, literally become followers | rather than trailblazers. | | In just a few years Instagram is going to seem completely old hat | to anyone who didn't grow up with it, my 10 year old niece has a | TikTok account where she makes weird minecraft and among us | memes, she has over 2000 followers, I've never even heard her | mention Instagram, not sure she even knows it exists. | | Think Twitter will be relevant for longer just because there are | less companies trying to compete but honestly the app that was | mostly about reading short form text thinks the future of their | platform is half being a voice chatroom? Why? Because Clubhouse | the new hotness a few months ago? Again just panicking to clone | other services as a feature within their app who cares if it | makes sense or complements the platform, lets just pray our | existing users opt for doing their voice chat in our app rather | than going to that new app. | | I'll admit IG managed to clone snapchat stories successfully and | pretty much kill off Snapchat, but reels? IGTV? I no longer have | any idea where I'm supposed to put my focus or post my content in | that app. | colinmhayes wrote: | Established social media companies innovating is how you get | new reddit. I think the facebook strategy of not changing | successful platforms and continually building/buying new ones | makes the most sense. | nerfhammer wrote: | I've been thinking of it in terms of convergence, maybe they're | all converging on the identical "optimal" social network. | pjc50 wrote: | Someone had a "history of MUD sites" in which they describe a | two year lifecycle of popularity. I think the same applies to | social media on about ten years; there's a _cohort_ of people | who join in the first few years, because the site creates a | different community that isn 't served elsewhere. Then it | reaches saturation, slow decay, drama, and gradually exodus to | the hotter new things. | | Hence all the desperate cloning of new platform features. | dbbk wrote: | I actually quite like the lack of innovation on Twitter. It | takes an enormous amount of restraint to keep saying no, and | stick to a small, simple vision. | | I would hate a hypothetical Twitter that turns into another | Facebook amalgamation of 75 products. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | >It takes an enormous amount of restraint to keep saying no, | and stick to a small, simple vision | | They literally just cloned Clubhouse and are going to put it | at the top of your feed because it was the cool new app for | like 3 weeks last year..... How is that restraint? | dbbk wrote: | They're certainly picking it up more recently with Fleets | and Spaces. My point was I was quite happy with the status | quo before. | miguelrochefort wrote: | Looks like we've still got: | | - Snapchat Stories | | - YouTube Stories (Google) | | - LinkedIn Stories (Microsoft) | | - Instagram Stories (Facebook) | | - WeChat Time Capsule (Tencent) | | - Weibo Stories (Alibaba) | | - Naver Snow | | https://miguelrochefort.com/blog/tech-giant/#65-stories-35 | cpeterso wrote: | And Chrome's Web Stories: | | https://stories.google/ | throw_m239339 wrote: | Never heard of all these services? How comes? It's like Poly | that closed in June. Never heard of that until I heard it was | closing: | | https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/poly-browse- | discov... | | Is there a full list of active services provided by Google | (or other big tech) somewhere? | miguelrochefort wrote: | > Is there a full list of active services provided by | Google (or other big tech) somewhere? | | I'm only aware of the opposite: https://killedbygoogle.com/ | bdcravens wrote: | How long before companies start dropping their "TikTok" mode | everyone rushed to implement? | jwithington wrote: | Finally I can view profile pictures again. | [deleted] | simonsarris wrote: | That's really too bad. I don't tweet much, maybe once a day, but | I really liked using fleets, and lots of people told me they | loved seeing them, in DM or @'ing: | https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1415370626303504389 | | I want my timeline to be mostly thoughts and nice photography | that people can go look at as they please, and I don't want to | pollute it or waste follower's time with one-off stuff (like | making pasta every night, or some weird looking bug, or funny | sign, etc). Fleets allowed for that really well. I think its a | mistake to look at how Big Accounts are using them and make | decisions from there. | AdrianB1 wrote: | What is a baseline for tweets per day per regular user? One | tweet per day means 365 per year, it looks huge to some people. | simonsarris wrote: | I'm not sure about regular user, there's a huge spread. I see | most big accounts tweet 5-10+ a day. 10x that for media | people. | | Paul Graham tweets about once per every other waking hour | (though sometimes not for days). Patrick Collison tweets | every 2-3 days. | bogwog wrote: | For real, my tweet rate is less than once per year, yet I | still regularly use the app just to follow some interesting | people. | tsimionescu wrote: | Is Twitter actually used outside the US? | | Here in Romania, where we rputinely import most aspects of US | culture, it's almost entirely outside popular consciousness. | Politicians and stars are certainly not using it - they're on | Facebook and Instagram, and YT or Spotify for music. | | How is it in the rest of the world? | thrdbndndn wrote: | The country that used the Twitter most isn't even the US. | Turkey, Japan, UK, etc. all use it more (per capita). | | From my personal experience, Twitter is undoubtedly HUGE in | Japan. Everyone and its dog use it, not to mention all the | companies, personalities, etc. | astrange wrote: | It's very popular in Japan. Otherwise, journalists and celebs | worldwide use it, which means crazy people yelling at | journalists about politics somehow now run the news media. | rconti wrote: | As an American working in tech, I know there are other tech | folks on Twitter, but it feels like it's primarily used by | celebrities, politicians, academics, and journalists. | hiidrew wrote: | My biggest issue with their design was the horrible flow of | clicking on someone's profile pic from a tweet that has a Fleet | up, would pull up the Fleet instead of their profile | | In general, I'd like to turn off stories on every social platform | I'm on. By far the most addictive design for me. | mtnGoat wrote: | i dont tweet, despite having an account registered in '08 because | quite frankly its a very toxic and argumentative environment, | with a lot of noise, nonsense and bots galore. | | adding features without cleaning house isnt going to bring new | tweeters into the fold, we left and dont participate because of | the culture on that platform. | | same reason FB is having issues growing, i would imagine. | andy_ppp wrote: | Big tech companies especially Twitter and Google have zero | longevity when it comes to new products. How about they add | subscriptions to Fleets before giving up, I've enjoyed a few | really great conversations there and it's a decent product like | much of Twitter it just needs some love in terms of features and | how they work. For example why on Earth am I not allowed to | _read_ someone's _public_ tweets when blocked. Twitter is kind of | the definition of getting lucky over being brilliant IMO, how it | doesn't have an edit function yet is beyond me. | rogerclark wrote: | If I block you, I want it to prevent you from reading my | tweets. Obviously you can use a logged-out browser window, but | that extra step is supposed to be annoying enough to prevent | most non-psycho people from reading your stuff. | andy_ppp wrote: | Why do you care if I read your stuff that's public on the | Internet, surely we should all be trying to understand each | other's point of view more not less? | renewiltord wrote: | To prevent context collapse. Some people are unable to | understand what I say and take offence. That could be | because of the way I'm saying it or because of them. Either | way, I don't care. I would like to expend energy on my | audience. Ideally, I can talk to my audience and to no one | else. | andy_ppp wrote: | Great, make your account private then... or do you want | all the benefits of a completely public account without | any of the costs? I'm not suggesting blocked people | should be able to interact with your content, just that | they can still read it. This applies especially to | information being disseminated by government. | renewiltord wrote: | I mean, I could just as well say "Log out of your account | then". That will negate the effect of the block. | okcomputerrrr wrote: | twitter is way better than most social platforms in terms of | being open and be able to view the content with out logging in. | I think the main purpose of blocking is to prevent you from | engaging with the said user / tweet. if you really don't want | your tweets to be made public you can make the account private | and only allow your followers | andy_ppp wrote: | That's exactly my point, I should still be able to hear what | someone I disagree with says and even agree or understand | their thinking on occasion. Blocking seems like an extremely | blunt tool. | rmetzler wrote: | Are you really asking, why Twitter doesn't allow to edit tweets | after publishing them? I think this is a feature, it means you | can't change what you wrote. If this would be possible after | you get responses, you could change the meaning of these | responses. | andy_ppp wrote: | If you use your imagination you can still edit tweets and | also have them be immutable. Loads of systems have an edit | history or alternatively just a means to delete and recreate | a tweet in the first 5 minutes after publication. There are | probably other even better ways to solve this. | adolph wrote: | Or you could clone HN with a single-threaded UI. | andy_ppp wrote: | But you can anonymously edit your messages on HN? | adolph wrote: | Oh, you must be looking for a Wikipedia clone then. | andy_ppp wrote: | Much shorter articles and only one editor... | FalconSensei wrote: | As I said on Twitter: I just want them to make me able to block | my likes (and replies) from appearing on other people's | timelines. | fleddr wrote: | "We'll explore more ways to address what holds people back from | participating on Twitter." | | Perhaps I can help. | | Twitter is always angry. You'll find the most idiotic, extreme, | harmful statements from both sides of the political spectrum. | Worse, Twitter actively rewards it. The more unhinged and | controversial, the more engagement you get. | | The replies will be equally angry. Any attempt to add nuance or | reason is futile. Because the damage is already done in the form | of retweets, likes, quotes. | | Hence, the unreasonables run Twitter. And they have normalized a | lot of absolutely pathetic behavior. Taking things out of context | and applying the worst faith interpretation of it, willingly. | Sub-tweeting, screenshotting, exposing private conversations, | speaking badly of others within their bubble, and sometimes this | triggering further attacks or even cancellations. | | This culture of perpetual outrage, hate-addiction even, and the | many childish behaviors that come with it, are born at Twitter. | | After a Twitter session, one feels miserable and depressed. There | is nothing delightful, nothing new you learned, no new friend you | met. It's horror. Like the news, but then 10 times worse. | | Wait, sometimes there's non-hateful tweets too. 99% of them are | self-congratulatory or stupid. Something like: "My 3 year old | just commented that an intersectional approach in politics is | most effective". | | Attention starved, completely made up. Yet for sure it will get | thousands of likes. Both hate and idiocracy are richly rewarded. | | To stay in line with the ever narrowing Twitter culture, one has | to use it at least 6 hours per day. Otherwise, you might miss | that word you used your entire life suddenly being problematic. | Could even be a particular emoij. Anything triggers outrage. | Anything at all. It seems the entire point of Twitter: maximizing | outrage perpetually. | | It's a Twitter thing and a Twitter thing only. I've never | experienced it with such intensity anywhere else, and I'm merely | lurking. The reason I hate it so much is that it goes beyond just | a website sucking, its effects are cultural. | bqe wrote: | I think the simplest solution to this would be to simply hide | comment/retweet/like counts. It will be possible to sort of | figure this out from the engagement, but it won't be easy to | figure out if a tweet is popular or wildly popular. | idownvoted wrote: | Gee, who would have thought the culture on Twitter is experienced | as hostile by some (ie all normal people). | | Never once in the last years have I opened the app without | closing it 10 mins max later in exasperation of disgust. | | It really brings out the worst people, it brings out the worst | _in_ people as some of the worst people ,,bring out" Twitter. | rhacker wrote: | Feel free to respond with get over it, but BLOG.twitter.com HAHA. | thrower123 wrote: | Maybe just blindly copying what your competitors are doing isn't | the greatest strategic plan. | pmulard wrote: | I use twitter daily and fleets was nothing more than an annoyance | to me. I would click on someone's profile picture to view their | profile, and it would automatically make me view their fleets | instead. Even after watching them (or skipping through to the | end), I would click it again and it would still take me to their | fleets. Getting to their profile took several taps on tiny | sections of the screen instead. The UX was pretty terrible imo | and made me frustrated more than anything. | | I like the idea of fleets, but I think it was implemented poorly. | They just copied the same 'story' format that's been recycled | 100x over. I think an alternative exists out there, twitter will | just have to be a little more creative. | molasses wrote: | Never seen the option in compose for a fleet? How do you do one? | charcircuit wrote: | Hit the add button in the area where other people's fleets show | up. | dnissley wrote: | It was a mobile app only feature | throwawayswede wrote: | Sure, like this wasn't just a grab at the quick growing market of | social voice chat apps like clubhouse last year. What a bullshit | org. | | Twitter management is synonymous with incompetence. | udfalkso wrote: | They should just have been normal tweets that disappear after X | hours. No special location, no visual treatment, etc. Just | ephemeral tweets that don't stick around forever on your profile. | | That would have gotten people tweeting when they might have been | afraid to otherwise. That would have been the appropriate | equivalent of the features they were inspired by on other | platforms. | [deleted] | [deleted] | aidaman wrote: | That was a trashcan. Glad they are getting rid of it. | spoonjim wrote: | > Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties that | hold people back from Tweeting | | Those anxieties are driven by the fact that every week someone | destroys their career or even life with a single Tweet. In the | worst cases, people have been driven to suicide by the backlash | to a Tweet of theirs. Unless you are an aspiring celebrity trying | to build a career or get a book deal from your Twitter persona, | the rational move on Twitter is to not play. | | Twitter has the levers to fix this -- they can reduce the | exposure of highly viral Tweets, especially by non-celebrities | (i.e. people without a lot of existing followers). However that | would greatly harm Twitter's business model because people love | mobbing on someone and punching them in the face. So the answer | to, "why are people hesistant to Tweet?" is that Twitter has | decided that it's in its best interests to encourage a highly | toxic form of entertainment on its platform. | fleddr wrote: | In typical Twitter fashion, all of the horror you describe its | users would call "accountability". | | But yes, when people are afraid to use their own name, auto- | delete tweets, and do all of this for not getting in trouble | for middle-of-the-road views, you know you're in an extreme | place. | figassis wrote: | I think there is a limit to how much this type of microblogging | can grow. Some people are just not into broadcasting every | thought. Also, the immediate fallout of many tweet missteps as | well as cancel culture is sure to hold many back. | Brendinooo wrote: | I never saw Fleets. Were they made available to everyone? I use | Twitter primarily on the desktop, but I don't think I saw it on | the iPad app either. | FalconSensei wrote: | it's mobile app only. They are on the top, like instagram | stories | Tycho wrote: | It was incredibly annoying how it took up significant real estate | at the top of the screen and there was no way to disable the | feature. Good riddance. | charcircuit wrote: | It didn't though. It took up 1/8th of the screen and it wasn't | sticky. If you scroll down it's off the screen. Is it really | that big of a deal that you can't see an extra tweet when you | are all caught up? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Kudos to Twitter for pulling the plug on a high profile feature | that wasn't working out. | | I saw some reasonably interesting Fleets at first, but it quickly | devolved into a low-effort self promotion feature as they noted: | | > Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties that | hold people back from Tweeting, Fleets are mostly used by people | who are already Tweeting to amplify their own Tweets | | Eventually I stopped clicking on them because I knew I'd see the | Tweets during my normal scrolling anyway. I suppose this problem | is inherent to Twitter, where Tweets are already low effort | enough that they didn't need another feature for rapid-fire, low- | effort content. Contrast with Instagram where people's posts are | generally well thought out, but their stories are made for rapid- | fire content. | | Twitter didn't have the same divergence, so Fleets and Tweets | became the same content in different formats. And of course, the | Twitter self-promoters took full advantage of a feature that let | them bubble their content to the literal top of people's feeds. | btown wrote: | The one thing that Fleets had going for them, that I think | Twitter needs more than anything, is the fact that they are | _fleeting_. Many people, myself included, are afraid to tweet | something inane on main, lest we forget to delete it (or lest | it be archived by a crawler), and have it taken out of context | years later in a way that might damage our careers. | | But it doesn't follow that "something is fleeting, therefore it | is deserving of the rarest real estate on the screen." And the | read-between-the-lines reason is that now it's Spaces that are | more deserving of that real estate. "Ephemeral Tweets" are | something that should be experimented with separately, perhaps | as an option on a normal tweet and prioritized within the | algorithmic timeline itself... but reusing the Fleets branding | and presentation probably isn't the right way to do it! | mdoms wrote: | Most fleets in my timeline were solely to make fun of fleets. | cpeterso wrote: | The feature name "Fleets" was terrible. I know it was a pun on | "fleeting tweet", but the word "fleet" just makes me think of a | fleet of ships. | cableshaft wrote: | I just heard of it today and I assumed the same, like it was a | fleet of people getting together or something, not 'fleeting'. | charcircuit wrote: | and tweets makes me think of birds it really doesn't matter | [deleted] | colesantiago wrote: | Why did Twitter kill Vine? | | This is why pretty much why TikTok exists and filled that space | very quickly. | yoursunny wrote: | I see Fleets as a thing that takes up a row in the Twitter mobile | app, but I never clicked it. Now I hope Facebook says goodbye to | Stories. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Oh, finally. Who knows, maybe we'll soon get rid of stories in | WhatsApp, too! | bigdang wrote: | One thing I never understood about Twitter, and what keeps me | from tweeting, is why on earth everyone needs to see how many | likes, replies, and retweets my tweet has? I will never be a | Twitter influencer, and have no desire to be. I just want to | tweet one-off learnings or thoughts I have without the awkward | struggle of trying to compete with others. | renewiltord wrote: | If it helps if you can't see them, then you can use Ublock | Origin and block on ##div[aria-label$=" | like"] ##div[aria-label$=" likes"] | | And you will probably kill off that bar below your tweets. | Saint_Genet wrote: | If you think people are held back from tweeting by anxiety, how | would you ever come to the conclusion that videos are the | solution? | cratermoon wrote: | Yeah this explanation smells. Reading between the lines, I'd | say that twitter fell prey to a couple of bad predictions. The | widely-maligned "pivot to video" that ended up being based on | FB fudging the numbers for how much engagement video got, and | the idea that duplicating the success of IG or TikTok is just | about enabling 30 second video snippets. | adolph wrote: | _Vine was an American social networking short-form video | hosting service where users could share six-second-long, | looping video clips. It was founded in June 2012; American | microblogging website Twitter acquired it in October 2012, | before its official release on January 24, 2013._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_(service) | erehweb wrote: | Inflated FB video numbers have been known for a long while | now - references to it in Sep 2016 | https://www.facebook.com/business/news/facebook-video- | metric... | bogwog wrote: | The contrast on that text makes me feel like they don't | want anyone to actually read it. | the_reformation wrote: | I think the idea was the anxiety was that tweets aren't | ephemeral enough. | LeoPanthera wrote: | Fleets are not videos. They can include videos, optionally. | renewiltord wrote: | What makes a fleet a fleet isn't a video, it's that it's | transient. You can make a text fleet. Or could. | | If you've never used a fleet and have read the post, you can | use the text from it "Most Fleets include media" to conclude | that there exist fleets that do not include media. Video is a | form of media. You can then conclude through pure syllogism | that fleets do not require video. | [deleted] | irq-1 wrote: | > Most Fleets include media - people enjoy quickly sharing photos | and videos to add to the discussion on Twitter. Soon, we'll test | updates to the Tweet composer and camera to incorporate features | from the Fleets composer - like the full-screen camera, text | formatting options, and GIF stickers. | | So more like TikTok and less thoughtful. Twitter became big | because people (sometimes) expressed coherent thoughts and used | it for serious issues like the Arab Spring and #timesup. | | It's much harder to foster conversation but this feels like an | 'Innovators Dilemma' moment for Twitter: either go low and be a | poor TikTok or go high and be something different. | mrRandomGuy wrote: | Why would I want to _watch_ someone's fleeting thoughts when | their written tweets serve literally the same purpose? | jaqalopes wrote: | ... we hardly knew ye! | yakshaving_jgt wrote: | > Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties that | hold people back from Tweeting | | Did Fleets address the problem of political extremists using | Twitter to go after people's livelihoods? | mcintyre1994 wrote: | They probably do actually - they disappear after a short time | and you can't link to them. | par wrote: | > Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties that | hold people back from Tweeting, Fleets are mostly used by people | who are already Tweeting to amplify their own Tweets | | this is exactly my problem with Twitter. It's an even bigger echo | chamber than FB. As much as I try, I can't seem to escape the | oversaturated bubble of a handful of extremely loud mouthed | tweeters and their ardent followers. Mix in the toxic | conversations, and it's definitely not a place I feel comfortable | discussing anything. | CharlesW wrote: | > _It 's an even bigger echo chamber than FB._ | | The trick is to block early and often. The feed is what you | make it. | arkitaip wrote: | This simply doesn't work. I've tried every tool and trick | available and sooner than later the feed becomes filled with | drama, politics and random noise. Partly because humans are | inherently social and political, partly because Twitter will | throw random tweets and topics at you. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | I'm on at least my 15th account. Speaking as something with | a barely-serviceable love-hate relationship with the | service... You have to add people slowly, and be quick to | unfollow if you notice a disturbance in the force. Even | though I'm keen on programming and related topics, I don't | follow a lot of very-popular IT-type folks because of the | drama they bring, ESPECIALLY "infosec" Twitter. I've | noticed that's a bubble among bubbles. I love a lot of the | folks in that bubble, but I won't follow them because The | Algorithm gets heavily weighted with them. | Raineer wrote: | Hah - I was hoping I wasn't the only one doing this. In | addition to just not being good at "viral twitter", I | never have any followers because I nuke-and-pave probably | one a year with a new account. | | As you called out, most of what I follow is infosec | twitter. And the drama ratio is high. I'll follow someone | because they do genuinely create a couple excellent | technical posts or links, only to find out they are trash | and I spend the next month hearing about it. | ggreer wrote: | I can't block the topics that Twitter constantly recommends. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | This is it, no matter what words you mute, no matter how | much you block/mute users. Twitter considers it of the | utmost importance that they get to push content, politics | and news they consider important in a 3rd of the screen, | always. | | The last thing I care about in the world is what employees | at Twitter consider valuable to put in the "What's | happening" column. | | Twitter could do with taking a page out of TikTok's and | oldschool Reddit's book at making their app about me and my | interests and passions rather than being a megaphone for a | few insufferable bluechecks and twitter employees that I | struggle to hear my interests from under the cacophony of | things I do not care about. | taytus wrote: | > As much as I try, I can't seem to escape the oversaturated | bubble | | Pro tip: Mute words and people. | | I can't tell you how much better my experience has been since I | started growing my muted words list. | astrange wrote: | You can't mute anything in a link though, so it can't be used | to block spam or people who reply to everything with their | gofundme. | RankingMember wrote: | Thanks for pointing out that muting words was even an option! | That seems like a super useful feature. | papito wrote: | I don't understand how it's even usable if you follow hundreds, | let alone thousands of people. | zarriak wrote: | You really just need to follow one good Twitter account and | they will usually retweet other people who are interesting and | usually share a characteristic that led you to followed the | original account. | umeshunni wrote: | Got it, so build a bigger echo chamber. | hluska wrote: | Or be judicious about who you give attention to. Over the | last couple of years, I've made a concerted effort to | follow smart people who I don't agree with. Sometimes this | has proven that I'm wrong and other times, it's made me | feel more secure in my own beliefs. | | There's a difference between smart and toxic. Some smart | people are toxic. Others are smart and passionate. If you | work to follow people like that and work harder to read | their words with an open mind, great things can happen. | hackmiester wrote: | By this standard, any social group is an echo chamber. | PascLeRasc wrote: | Who cares? Friend groups are an echo chamber too. | TillE wrote: | Yeah I dunno why people on HN seem to struggle with Twitter | so much. You choose who to follow! It's entirely under your | control. | | If someone starts being annoying, unfollow them. It's really | simple. | robryan wrote: | It is hard to escape, a lot of the people who occasionally post | interesting things are also the ones that post 20 times a day. | jimkleiber wrote: | Sometimes I get the impression that Twitter is like an un- | moderated comments section, where people comment on comments. | | Almost like an infinitely connected comments sections, bringing | many of the challenges of the once-isolated comments sections. | DaniloDias wrote: | I currently look at Twitter as a destination for socially | approved statements. | | Twitter is a place where you are either celebrated for having | approved perspectives or risk professional destruction. | | New users can only be craven popularity chasers. Old users | either conform or quit. Why would anyone play in that sandbox | if you have any respect for diverse opinions? | fleddr wrote: | Yet the difference between socially approved on Twitter and | in the real world is massive. | | I imagine that quite a few Twitter-socially approved | statements would raise a lot of eyebrows in the real world. | for being plain weird, nonsensical, or the listener simply | not able to understand it at all. | | I imagine a subset of things said on Twitter and/or tactics | used will make you wake up in the hospital when applied to | the real world. | | This is why hardcore Twitter users tend to be so shocked when | the election results come in and learn that a vast majority | of people do not support their view. | insin wrote: | If you're using Twitter on a desktop browser, I made an | extension which by default removes everything but what the | people you're following are actually saying or commenting on, | and automatically switches you back to the chronological | timeline when Twitter tries to move you back to the algorithmic | timeline: | | https://github.com/insin/tweak-new-twitter#tweak-new-twitter | ziml77 wrote: | I found this extension last year and I love it! Thank you for | making it. | | No more bullshit injected into by feed or forced upon my | eyeballs from the right column and everything stays in the | correct order. Twitter is vastly improved by your extension. | leviathant wrote: | Be selective in who you follow, and if you're following someone | who shares interesting thoughts but retweets too much, you can | turn off their retweets. That in combination with being | judicious on the block button makes Twitter one of my favorite | social networks. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Absolutely don't use the block button, they can tell you've | blocked them and it can open yourself up to harassment. Use | mute instead. | nyuszika7h wrote: | You can also unfollow them, or soft block (block and then | unblock, which forces them to unfollow you), which are both | noticeable but not as bad as a hard block. | markdown wrote: | > you can turn off their retweets. | | How does one do this? | leviathant wrote: | Navigate to the profile of the account you'd like to stop | seeing retweets from. Click the circular icon with three | horizontal dots to the right of their profile picture. | Select the first option in this menu labeled "Turn off | Retweets." | duxup wrote: | I found pruning and cultivating collections of 'good' twitter | accounts just too much work for what it was worth. | | The accounts are all run by human (well I hope they are) and | all prone to the same problems that make me not like Twitter | ... | | At least most folks maintain some focus on the topic / | decorum on their blog or in a random article. Most seem | incapable of ignoring the attention you get from being a jerk | or typical twitter drama and etc. | cameronh90 wrote: | I am careful but Twitter still shows tweets that people I'm | following have liked. And they always seem to be the most | enraging tweets (presumably with great engagement). | | Basically I want my Twitter to be a politics-free zone, but I | can't help it if some of the people I follow occasionally | like political tweets. | | Also, today it has been sending me a push notification to the | same race politics tweet repeatedly even after I keep | dismissing it. The author isn't anyone I follow and the tweet | wasn't liked by anyone I follow - Twitter is desperately | trying to get me to see it though. | Notorious_BLT wrote: | I believe you can add "suggest_activity_tweet" to your | muted words under Privacy and Safety. I'm fairly certain | this still works. | coldpie wrote: | Yes, I really wish there was a way to turn that off. I | personally use Twitter almost exclusively through a 3rd | party Android app (Twidere) which just shows me my timeline | in chronological order and nothing else. Seems most of the | problems with Twitter comes from it not just doing that. | camyule wrote: | Switch to "latest" view instead of "home" and you receive a | chronological timeline without seeing the liked tweets. I | can't imagine using Twitter without this. See the | instructions on how to switch on this Twitter support | article: https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter- | timeline | leviathant wrote: | Yes! I forgot to include this particular step. | | I've heard that viewing Twitter exclusively through the | Lists feature also removes a bunch of cruft, but things | aren't so bad for me that I've had to try that out. | delecti wrote: | Change your timeline to "latest" from "home", and you will | stop seeing tweets liked by people you follow. | tills13 wrote: | I agree with you but don't all the actions you mention turn | Twitter into an even larger, more strict echo chamber? | leviathant wrote: | To continue the analogy, I might say that rather than | creating a larger echo chamber, it's moving into a well- | tuning studio space. An echo chamber is cacophonous, a | well-tuned room improves clarity by reducing excessive | concentration of individual frequencies. | | Arguably, the curative approach lets me hear higher quality | content from folks who have different perspectives than me, | compared to just leaving the floodgates open. | jjj123 wrote: | I'm not sure you can make that assumption. | | Part of what makes these social networks echo chambers are | the unconscious ways we navigate them: how long we linger | on a post, stay in the site, etc. I'm not sure whether | conscious decisions like being judicious with the follow | and block buttons would pull you into more of an echo | chamber than the algorithm does, especially if you're | selecting for things other than "this captures my short- | term attention span." | browningstreet wrote: | I add people to Lists and then let some of their tweets get | pushed into my timeline. Another way to manage over-tweet- | ers. Didn't know about blocking re-tweets though. Off to do | that to a few people. | jdeibele wrote: | I use lists. I found https://github.com/KrauseFx/twitter- | unfollow which moves all of your follows to a private list. | Then move people from the private list to a topic list. | | I also use Tweetbot on my Mac, which allows me to filter | retweets. That means I only see what people say. I do use | another filter on my National Basketball Association list to | block a certain keyword. | | The downsides of Tweetbot is that it doesn't support everything | that Twitter offers (polls, probably fleets, etc.) and is about | $10. | underwires wrote: | yep, I use lists and it helps a lot with this. Twitter got a | lot better for me when I put all the hot take tweeters into a | list and unfollowed them, then only check that list when I | feel like going there. Which is not often | topicseed wrote: | I had the same issue and for me it was about "Topics" I | followed (e.g., computer programming). They were surfacing | nonsensical self-absorbed tweets so I unfollowed these topics, | and since then, my feed is a lot better. | JohnFen wrote: | I agree. Twitter is too unpleasant (for me) to use. | | I know there are ways of actively managing it to reduce the | toxicity, but that's a lot more work than it's worth to me. | | At least as far as what keeps me off Twitter, Fleets missed the | point entirely. | rst wrote: | You're describing what the algorithm tends to promote -- | turning it off (the "latest tweets" feed) may give you a bit | more variety. | thallavajhula wrote: | Twitter is great when it comes to transparency. I love how they | included this | | >Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties that | hold people back from Tweeting, Fleets are mostly used by people | who are already Tweeting to amplify their own Tweets and talk | directly with others. We'll explore more ways to address what | holds people back from participating on Twitter. And for the | people who already are Tweeting, we're focused on making this | better for you. | | It's always nice to know why an experiment/project failed. They | didn't have to explain it, but they did and I thought it was a | nice touch. | gumby wrote: | > Although we built Fleets to address some of the anxieties | that hold people back from Tweeting, Fleets are mostly used by | people who are already Tweeting... | | That makes sense in retrospect. I have a twitter account but | have only used it a handful of times when it was the only way | to complain to a company (!). I read tweets only when someone | links to them. | | Perhaps something even more lightweight would have attracted me | but I'd never even heard of this product. | | It's a difficult problem to publicize an addition to a service | to those non-users who aren't actively looking for features. | riffic wrote: | > Twitter is great when it comes to transparency | | Are you kidding? This is an incredibly opaque and user-hostile | company. | mdoms wrote: | Perhaps people are anxious about tweeting because a single | tweet can ruin your life? | AdrianB1 wrote: | That is the reason most of my colleagues and I have no | account there, never had, never will. Same for FB, Instagram, | etc., the only exception is LinkedIn where nobody is posting | anything. | theshrike79 wrote: | This is why I purge my old tweets automatically. | | Nothing good has ever come from someone digging up old edgy | tweets. | berniemadoff69 wrote: | archive.org scoops up all kinds of tweets - deleting them | isn't really a safe way to get rid of it, just fyi | thereare5lights wrote: | Do those archive let you search for tweets? | berniemadoff69 wrote: | sort of - if you search the wayback machine for something | like http://twitter.com/username/* - it will list all the | tweets it has - and then a user can download everything | and search locally. so, it's not as simple as searching | by keyword, but it might be something to be aware about, | if you are concerned for that kind of thing | notJim wrote: | The pseudonymous alt is the way to go for this, unless | you're mostly using twitter for things related to work. I | bet some of your colleagues have alts :) | salt-thrower wrote: | You're being downvoted, presumably because of the idea that | "if you don't say anything stupid, you'll be fine." And yet | acceptably edgy jokes from 10 years ago can easily become | dumpster fires of controversy today. There's simply no reason | to engage in it unless you treat every social media post as | something you would say to all future employers. Including | private chats. | | EDIT to add: I feel like we are have seen a shift in how | social media is perceived by society. It used to be an | extension of the internet forum days, where there was a | reasonable expectation of anonymity and an employer scouring | your online persona was considered a breach of trust. But now | as more and more public discourse happens online, and places | like Facebook enforce using real names, that veil of | perceived anonymity (even if it was an illusion at the time) | has completely fallen. | stalfosknight wrote: | This right here is why I just lurk on social media. | | There are too many examples of a forgotten offhand remark, a | harmless off-color joke, or that one time you had a bad day | and thought you were just venting to the handful of close | friends who are the only people you think even know about | your Twitter account coming back many years later to bite you | in the ass when a future potential employer (or goodness | forbid the media) decide to go spelunking in your personal | social media and essentially treat that version of you from | 11 years ago as the same person you are today. | | Twitter makes it way too hard to mass delete old tweets or | otherwise exercise fine control over whats on there. | | With social media, the only way to win is not to play. | josephorjoe wrote: | Completely agree. | | The last warning I needed was one time >10 years ago while | listening to a song I really liked I just posted one of the | lines from the song on facebook. | | A friend of mine saw it and assumed it was a commentary on | a political event that had happened that day (it wasn't) | and assumed that it meant I held a certain political | opinion because of this (I didn't) and then was suspicious | of my claims that posting the song lyric meant nothing more | than i was enjoying the song and felt like sharing. | | Since then I always assume anything I reveal online will be | taken out of context and held against me, if not | immediately, some day... | dionidium wrote: | I tweet and I really enjoy it. I get a ton of value out of | it. | | But I think about deleting my account every day, because it's | an enormous risk for normal people. | ruined wrote: | tweets can't ruin your life any more than talking out loud | anywhere else. | | the long searchable record is certainly convenient for | digging dirt, but public speech is public speech. | josephorjoe wrote: | your first point (tweeting is as safe as talking) is | entirely invalidated by your second (long searchable record | helps find statements to criticize people for) | | as for your third point, undocumented public speech (no | audio or video recordings and no effective note taking) is | vastly different from creating public documents (anything | on the open internet). | salt-thrower wrote: | The searchable digital record is the key difference. | Statements out loud to one or more people are often: A) | tailored to that audience, B) carry much more context than | a piece of text on a screen, and C) are a way of growing | and exploring new ideas without the commitment of recording | them to an easily searchable record for the rest of time. | The long-term ramifications of saying something stupid in a | conversation that isn't recorded are far less severe than | they would be if every word you said was recorded and | searchable forever. | | A tweet is really more like submitting an article to a | publication of record with your name and face attached to | it. But, the ease with which twitter allows people to post | makes it seem more like an ephemeral conversation. Anyone | who has been burned by a stupid joke tweet from 10 years | ago learned that lesson the hard way. | fullshark wrote: | Easy to find "bad tweets", easy to immediately publicize | the "bad tweets" to the entire planet almost instantly, | easy to have it trusted that the bad thing was said as the | twitter timestamp exists and a bunch of trusted people | talking about a screenshot if you delete it confirms it's | genuine, not to mention most people don't use twitter | imaging themselves giving a rehearsed speech in a public | square, merely as a way to share their amusing thoughts to | the planet for some immediate validation, the dynamic is | pretty different. | ruined wrote: | >most people don't use twitter [imagining?] themselves | giving a rehearsed speech in a public square, merely as a | way to share their amusing thoughts to the planet for | some immediate validation | | and there's the problem. | | like any tool, speech is dangerous if you don't respect | its power and follow some basic safety rules. | salt-thrower wrote: | Yup. I mentioned this in another comment but one of the | key problems is the discrepancy between the impact tweets | really have, and the ease with which Twitter allows you | to post them. | | Any social media is designed to maximize engagement, so | there is almost no friction between "I have a thought and | I want validation for it" and hitting that submit button. | | In reality, you should think of a tweet like submitting | an article to the New York Times op-ed section with your | full name and face attached to it. It has the potential | to be there forever, and for people to judge you based on | it for the rest of your professional life. So tread | carefully. | px43 wrote: | Please point to one person whose life was ruined from a | single tweet, and who didn't deserve it. | | Yes, it exposes unapologetic racists and misogynists. That's | a good thing. People who genuinely learn from their fuckups | are generally called out, but their lives are hardly | "ruined". | telotortium wrote: | David Shor - he was impulsively fired by his firm last June | for just a tweet linking to academic research (I think by a | black academic) that argued that violent protests following | the MLK assassination reduced the share of Democratic | support in the following presidential election, while non- | violent protests increase Democratic support: | https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/21340308/david-shor-omar- | wasow.... David Shor is a committed socialist and | Democratic data scientist, but that was not enough to | protect him from accusations of racism in the post-George- | Floyd period. | | I think he's done okay for himself after his firing, but | being summarily fired for supposed racism always poses a | high risk of long-term negative career impact, no matter | how trivial the supposed deed was that precipitated the | firing - David Shor wasn't even making an edgy joke, or | implying anything negative about minorities. | px43 wrote: | In the responses I read through on twitter, no one | accused him of racism. People were upset that in the wake | of a tragedy he seemed to only care about getting blue | votes, which is pretty insensitive. Also, just like you | said, he's doing fine now. | | The claim that tweets are ruining lives gets repeated | over and over again, but it's a complete myth. It's a | conflation of actual actual racists and nazis getting | outed and ostracized, and people getting mildly called | out for doing something dumb, but those are never the | same people. | fossuser wrote: | Being able to set retention would make me feel better about | tweeting. | | You can do some of this with third party tools, but it'd be | nice to have it built in. I stopped liking Tweets though | because it's actually impossible to remove more than 3k old | likes. I was eventually able to do so, but it required | contacting their DPO office and having them reset the cache | each time so I could remove them in batches (entire process of | reaching out, getting a response, and iterating took 6weeks- | ish). | | Limiting quote-tweets would also help people since most of the | abuse comes from quote-tweeting rather than replies (which you | can already limit). | | I'm not twitter famous so I mostly only experience the good | aspects of twitter. | | If you have a highly curated feed and make an effort to | interact pleasantly with in-good-faith people it can be a | really great place. It requires aggressive blocking and | intentionally not following hostile people though. Some better | blocking tools would probably also be helpful (block everyone | who liked this tweet, etc.) | | I'd also love a YouTube Premium style twitter where I could pay | $10/month for no ads. | | It's cool they have the culture to ship something big like this | and decide to pivot - I think that's a pretty good sign. | tadzik_ wrote: | > I'd also love a YouTube Premium style twitter where I could | pay $10/month for no ads | | tweetdeck.twitter.com is their first-party client that | doesn't have ads (and also gives you an actual chronological | feed and some other niceties). | | Interestingly, it also never implemented Fleets. | chrisofspades wrote: | Wow, I completely forgot about tweetdeck. Thanks for the | reminder. | vorpalhex wrote: | > block everyone who liked this tweet | | It'd be more efficient to have a twitter mode where you can | only ever tweet, and not read anything other people tweet. | fossuser wrote: | And also no value? | | I'm guessing this is primarily snark, but there are a lot | of tweets that are pretty good signal of bad behavior. I'm | not talking about some nuanced difference in opinion. For | the tweets I'm talking about knocking out everyone that | liked it wouldn't be a big deal. | | Sure some may use this to craft an echo chamber for | themselves, but they're already doing that anyway - and a | lot of people 'hate follow' to stir up abuse intentionally | to drive traffic. These people wouldn't find this tool | valuable because they feed off of the nastiness to drive | engagement and grow their audience. | skinnymuch wrote: | I use likes to auto bookmark tweets to pinboard. | Obviously I could figure out another workflow for this. | But right now it's super simple. It would be nice to not | "like" tweets I don't like myself but want to bookmark. | Wonder if there is a low code way way around this. | throw_m239339 wrote: | What's the state of Twitter API these days? Can some company | really build their own app on top of Twitter feeds? | isiahl wrote: | You can but they heavily limit the amount of access tokens | your app can generate, artificially limiting the amount of | users your app can have. | vosper wrote: | You certainly can if you're a paying customer of their data | services. Source: work for a paying customer. | quaintdev wrote: | What I do | | 1. Bookmark instead of liking tweet if info is worth coming | back to. | | 2. Retweet if I totally agree and want to share my view with | my followers | | 3. Add people to different curated lists instead of following | them. | | Twitter has some excellent feed curation tools but not many | people are aware about them. | FalconSensei wrote: | I second bookmarking. It's bad that they don't export it on | the data export, and you can't scroll down after a certain | limit, but at least it's private. And they seem to be | planning on adding API support for bookmarks, so in the | future we can just export it that way | pjc50 wrote: | > anxieties that hold people back from Tweeting | | Have they, like, asked people? | | Also, do they need more people to tweet? It's not like the | platform is short of content. Isn't there a role for the | comfortable lurker? | paxys wrote: | Twitter started off as a low-effort life blog, and is now | almost entirely a platform for amplifying celebrities and | politicians. It definitely needs more normal people tweeting | about normal things. | jl6 wrote: | Twitter has loads of normal people tweeting about normal | things, but they are down in the very, very long tail, and | ~nobody follows them. Into the void they scream. | mombul wrote: | Also, who's going to feel less anxiety when filming | themselves vs. typing? | astrange wrote: | The idea worked for Instagram, where the aesthetic for | regular posts ended up so forced nobody wanted to just make | random everyday posts anymore. | | For Twitter I didn't see the use, though posting a Fleet | does bother people less than spamming, they're too hard to | make without ending up ugly. | | I'd rather see a change where the search doesn't let you | stalk random people by searching for what they posted 3 | years ago... | jimkleiber wrote: | Makes me think (and shudder) about how one could make | filters for text. I partially regret saying this and also | still curious :-) | isiahl wrote: | Microsoft already did it, it was called Word Art | gumby wrote: | They have to change; their market cap is much lower than the | other "majors" and actually the usage level (and subscriber | base) is lower too. | | It's like the inverse of reddit: reddit has a very high Alexa | score yet is invisible in the public media; Twitter is | discussed endlessly by the nattering nabobs, called before | congress etc, yet has trouble monetizing their infamy. | bachmeier wrote: | I think there's a real concern on Twitter's end with the | conversation being dominated by those who are "good with | Twitter". That's a big problem because it's kind of a | snoozefest to read tweets by a small in-group that you don't | know and that won't interact with you. Twitter serves no | purpose without interaction. | partiallypro wrote: | Which IMO is why Twitter allowing users to lock their | replies is actually damaging to Twitter. Now people just | Quote Tweet it instead of replying. | bachmeier wrote: | I understand the motivation behind allowing users to lock | replies, but you don't need Twitter for that type of | content. Twitter sucks for just about anything other than | interaction. | enos_feedler wrote: | What should I use instead of Twitter to just keep up with | what people are talking about in my topics of interest? | manojlds wrote: | Yes, they would definitely want more people to Tweet. | [deleted] | dheera wrote: | I didn't even know about "Fleets", maybe that was part of the | problem. | ChrisArchitect wrote: | Yeah I actually really respect that they axed something within | a timely span, posted about their thoughts, and well, lately | the Twitter team has been killing it as far as deploying | features and long talked about stuff, so it's all good. The | idea of Fleets, whether it was inspired by Stories etc, was | another way to engage users and it did have some usefulness. I | love the 24hr disappearing thing on IG and I liked it similarly | here. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | The glaring omission is a time limited typo edit window. Just | ducking ship it already. | notatoad wrote: | They did, like a month ago. You gotta pay for it though... | | https://ibb.co/S6WNLvt | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | wut da duck? | renewiltord wrote: | It's a feature like Gmail Undo Send. The tweet remains | unposted until the edit window has been exited. | chmod775 wrote: | I would think that a big problem here is to _only_ allow | correcting typos, not changing meaning of a tweet - which | would suck for a public, fast-paced platform like twitter. | | This isn't as simple as counting the number of changed | characters, especially when you have to consider at least | dozens, better hundreds, of languages. | | But then again you can already cram about ten times as much | meaning into a single tweet if you write in Chinese or | Japanese, so maybe they just don't care. | saurik wrote: | Instead of rendering it as hidden or even as an edit | history, render it with an "inline diff" (using the kind | of algorithm you see Wikipedia do, or GitHub within a | line) as a cross-out of the old content and the next | content next to it... changing a lot of text like that | would be extremely noisy and obvious--to the point where | it wouldn't accomplish any evil goal and would also just | be generally discouraged by its nature--and yet would | fully solve the vast majority of cases that we want to | satisfy. | kyrofa wrote: | I don't think it needs to be that in-your-face. I believe | an inline "this tweet has been edited" link to a revision | history or diff would thwart most abuse. | kyrofa wrote: | > I would think that a big problem here is to only allow | correcting typos, not changing meaning of a tweet - which | would suck for a public, fast-paced platform like | twitter. | | I feel like GitHub already solved that problem by showing | an edit history on comments. Twitter could do the same | thing. | | Even easier: don't actually publish tweets for 60 | seconds, during which time they can be edited. | afavour wrote: | Facebook already has similar edit functionality and I'm | curious how many users click through to see the edits. | I'll be the number is not high. | | The speed Twitter moves I think a lot more people are | going to mash the retweet button than the "see edits" | button. | pantalaimon wrote: | Also will all the retweets be edited as well or do you | retweet a snapshot? | isiahl wrote: | Facebooks edit history is also hidden in grey text next | to the timestamp. I bet putting a "This tweet has been | edited" notice actually inline with the content would be | effective. | kyrofa wrote: | Exactly my thought. | zerocrates wrote: | Having a time where it's not actually posted would work | fine but probably not be super effective: after all, you | already have an unlimited amount of time to look at the | message sitting on your screen before you actually send | it. It's just often very hard to read your own writing | for typos. Still it would be a step forward. You could | even make it opt-in. | pantalaimon wrote: | How about a preview then? | kyrofa wrote: | Haha, I swear every time I wish I could edit a tweet it's | within 5 minutes after I post it. To be fair, at least | with my incredibly limited followers, that's soon enough | I can just delete it and post it again without losing too | much engagement, but still. I'm just not patient enough | to proof-read properly, apparently. | xeromal wrote: | No one would actually look at that though. You need to | cater to the masses or make it exceedingly obvious | kyrofa wrote: | It would make it easy to call out anything nefarious, | though. | sg47 wrote: | Wondering if you can implement it as a redirect. Instead of | editing the original, the tweet redirects to the modified | version but the original still shows up as a quote tweet or | as a reply (with all replies to the original tweet under | that reply) | Gaelan wrote: | I wonder if there are technical issues here? It wouldn't be | too surprising if "tweets are immutable" (and therefore | safe to aggressively cache) is an assumption baked into a | lot of their code. | staticassertion wrote: | I could imagine that, though I think there are likely | many efficient ways to implement immutable edits, | especially if: | | a) You're constraining the time-to-edit b) You're | constrained to a single edit | | But it could be a lot of work to ensure that it's a | consistent experience since you'd have to untangle the | "cache this thing for-literally-ever" expectations that | may exist. | dfabulich wrote: | It's not just technical. Jack doesn't want it. | https://www.wired.com/story/jack-dorsey-wont-get-edit- | tweet-... | | > _Dorsey was unusually direct: "The answer is no," he | says._ | | > _"The reason there 's no edit button [and] there hasn't | been an edit button traditionally is we started as an SMS | text messaging service," explains Dorsey. "So as you all | know, when you send a text, you can't really take it | back. We wanted to preserve that vibe and that feeling in | the early days."_ | user-the-name wrote: | Jack really is just a blithering idiot. There are plenty | of reasons you could give for not adding this feature, | but that one, that's probably the worst. | pantalaimon wrote: | Why though? It's bad enough when online news sites edit | their articles and a later version carries some different | information with no or little hint that it was edited. | user-the-name wrote: | I mean, yes, that is one good argument for not having an | edit button. | | But it is not the reason Jack gave. | blowski wrote: | ...and I like when people aren't constantly cynical and | critical of everything, so thanks for finding something | positive here. | cratermoon wrote: | > Twitter is great when it comes to transparency | | Pull the other leg. | npunt wrote: | I didn't love Fleets personally, the medium was mismatched to | Twitter's niche of a public social network. Ephemeral media is | ideally paired with a small/private network to maximize personal | expression. | | The next question is will LinkedIn kill Stories? I'd guess | they're probably noticing similar low usage levels, but | operationally they might not be as open to killing experiments | quickly. | jacobmischka wrote: | > Our Fleet ads test, which concluded as planned last month, was | one of our first explorations of full-screen, vertical format | ads. We're taking a close look at learnings to assess how these | ads perform on Twitter. | | Glad I stopped using twitter a few months ago. | sharkweek wrote: | IMO this should be the default feature of Twitter. | | I can't think of anything I'd be SUPER embarrassed of in my | Twitter history, but context is important and something I might | have Tweeted 10 years ago would look bad today, maybe. | | Still, I make it a point to delete all my tweets after they're a | week old or so. Not interested in my random musings living on for | all of digital eternity. | Zababa wrote: | > Still, I make it a point to delete all my tweets after | they're a week old or so. | | I do the exact same thing, I think it's the only sane way to | use twitter. | WoodenChair wrote: | In my opinion, there are a few issues with this strategy: | | - Your Tweets may be archived on another site anyway | | - You may delete a Tweet that others hold onto for spite | (screenshot, archiver, etc.) and then you don't have the | surrounding Tweets to link to in order to show context | | - If your good Tweets get linked to/embedded from other sources | then those links will go bad | | I've found the only safe strategy with social media/society is | just to be very careful/clear/explicit with what you Tweet in | the first place so that it can't be taken out of context. | Perhaps that's unfortunate, but that's reality. | vosper wrote: | > Your Tweets may be archived on another site anyway | | Or in the databases of one of their data stream customers, or | in the database of someone that customer made the data | available or on-sold it to. If you're a Twitter customer | you're supposed to read and apply their stream of updates and | deletes to your database, so that when someone deletes a | tweet in Twitter you delete it too, but in practice Twitter | doesn't seem to care or enforce that this happens. It's also | just a lot from a technical perspective, the volume of these | changes is large. | | The only reasonable behaviour is to assume that your | government (local police, military, whoever - probably | multiple separate agencies) has all your tweets, forever. Not | because they hacked Twitter or had the NSA tap the lines - | they just bought the data from someone Twitter sold it to. | Twitter probably doesn't even know who these down-stream | buyers are. | | (I know for a fact this is happening) | quanticle wrote: | > _I 've found the only safe strategy with social | media/society is just to be very careful/clear/explicit with | what you Tweet in the first place so that it can't be taken | out of context._ | | Twitter, as a medium, is anti-context. The UI, the character | limit, the behavior of the most prominent voices on the | platform, everything encourages you to post hot takes that | require as little context as possible to drive engagement. | | Being "careful/clear/explicit about what you Tweet in the | first place so that it can't be taken out of context" is | equivalent to not Tweeting at all. | WoodenChair wrote: | > everything encourages you to post hot takes that require | as little context as possible to drive engagement. | | > Being "careful/clear/explicit about what you Tweet in the | first place so that it can't be taken out of context" is | equivalent to not Tweeting at all. | | No, I don't think it's the same as not Tweeting at all. In | my experience it just requires self control (which we all | lack sometimes and mess up as I certainly have). I _mostly_ | use Twitter to tell my friends and my small number of | followers what I 'm working on and my opinions on things | related to domains I have some education or experience in | (software, economics, education, etc.). You can use Twitter | for mostly professional and anodyne topics. Saying the | constraints of the platform encourage you to post hot takes | is like saying the constraints of modern working life | encourage you to eat junk food. It's true, but it is by no | means forced. | mdoms wrote: | I use Tweet Delete[0] to auto-delete my tweets older than a | month. I see no value in keeping old tweets around, especially | compared to the risk that I inadvertently become briefly well- | known and some wokes decide to trawl my timeline, take some | tweet from 12 years ago out of context and convince my employer | that I'm racist or something. Seen it happen too many times. | | [0] https://tweetdelete.net/ | AzzieElbab wrote: | deleting tweets is somewhat pointless when you consider | existence of things like wayback machine. | jdlyga wrote: | Today I learned that there was a feature called Fleets. | p4bl0 wrote: | Same here, and I still don't really understand what it was. | Even though I've been on twitter for almost 14 years. | | EDIT: it seems it was some kind of "stories" like they are | called on other platforms, the feature was only available | within the mobile apps (I've never used the apps I use the | mobile website, this explains why I've never heard of fleets | before). | andrewmcwatters wrote: | Maybe someone can correct me, but I don't recall ever seeing a | website fundamentally change itself or evolve and grow whereas I | have seen time and time again something entirely new coming out | and being the thing people use instead. | | If you compared Twitter today to Twitter's first tweet, it's the | same thing. Nothing's changed with the site itself; I can see | people talk about how they ate a sandwich then and still today. | uDontKnowMe wrote: | Reddit started out as a text-based discussion forum for use on | desktop and has slowly morphed into endless-scroll-of- | images/gifs/streams on mobile. | firloop wrote: | Instagram copying Snapchat's Stories is the canonical example | of this working, which makes sense that Twitter tried Stories | as well. | bloudermilk wrote: | I use Twitter basically every day and never even knew this | existed. What are Fleets? | charcircuit wrote: | It's at the top of your timeline. People can make tweets that | last 24 hours. | yodelshady wrote: | My resistance to tweeting is a) even 280 characters isn't even | for almost any useful content, b) hate mobs. | | Put simply: if you wanted the most intelligent view that opposed | yours on a subject, would you _ever_ use Twitter? | | I humbly suggest social media could work better, based on a | variant of reddit's "place" pixel art stunt: | | 1) you post freely and anonymously, but others can hide your post | freely and anonymously as well. | | 2) if you want to restore your post, just click a button to do | so. No one individual could hide a post twice. | | 3) if it's hidden again, you'll have to retype it. My bet is - | most low-effort trolling won't go this far, but those who | strongly believe in a controversial opinion will. | | 4) maybe escalate further with time delays, CAPTCHAs, etc - but | ultimately, if you're definitely human and you really care, the | post's visibility should become immutable. | latexr wrote: | > most low-effort trolling won't go this far | | Quite the contrary, my bet is trolls would have a field day | with your proposed system. Why make inflammatory post when you | can instead annoy people by hiding their posts and making them | retype everything? | | It doesn't matter how "strongly [you] believe in a | controversial opinion", having to keep fighting to keep your | post up would tire anyone. | | My prediction is the outcome of such a system would be the | opposite of what you envision: only the most boring | inconsequential opinions would stay up. | kzrdude wrote: | Maybe I'd be in the target group (rarely say anything), but I | didn't know that it existed. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-14 23:00 UTC)