Thread by @textfiles

Swift and I disagree

https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/1320960752803598336

I'm not an engineering major, nor a library sciences major, and definitely not an archivist major - I'm a mass communications major with a concentration in film studies and production. That means I both know how mediums work and engage in those mediums.

Taken as a medium, Twitter is a complete and utter failure for what it was originally used for, which was a tiny chat system that allowed quick dabbles of text between a closed group of people. Every time twitter expanded that, they hit wild success AND utter misunderstanding.

Here we are, 13+ years later, and Twitter is, for the moment, one of the most critical communication channels active today, and unlike a lot of similar mass communication has ZERO functional theory and ZERO self-reflection built into it.

Every time I'm exposed unintentionally to Jack and/or Biz's school of thought about what Twitter "is" or what it is "for" or how they intend to 'maintain or improve it", it's like looking at the front of the bus and it's being driven by a robot clown

Regardless, follower count is a measurement of how many people are subscribing to you, either automatically or not. Some of it is bought/paid for (of course) and some is reflective of a new account or other factors. But ignoring it is silly.

There are accounts with tiny followers whose entire one-issue terror campaigns are to shit-bomb every single tweet along with whatever flicks off their rat-brains. Someone mentions blue carbuncles? george23948230948234 is in there with his blue carbuncle hot take

Taken in a media criticism way: Johnny Carson or Tom Brokaw has a follower count of millions, someone shouting at the TV has a follower count of single or double digits. OK, that's the way of the world. And Brokaw/Carson may invite comment.

Those comments flood in, but you would normally have them fly in the mailbox, and staff would read them, and generate a general report of what people are saying. Or someone really gets through and they're invited on to speak.

Twitter gives them space over the original show.

Now, before we get into the weeds about "free speech" and "every voice needs to be heard", yes, that's all very interesting. But imagine radio where anyone who pressed a button could yell over the music/dj or a TV show where your webcam shots blast over the news. That's twitter.

Twitter wants/needs engagement. That's how they make money. Let's talk quickly about Enron.

Every quarter, Enron would fire the 20% worst performing sales people, leaving the top 80%. The goal was to end up with supersalesmen.

They didn't GET supersalesmen. They got people who could stay in the top 80% of a quarterly performance cull. They got sociopaths. They got inhumane moral-free instigators of every extra-legal manipulation of markets to ensure staying above the bloodbath.

Twitter wants engagement, and what they got was rage, anger and shouting. Because that gets attention and that gets response. If, right after a person speaks up about hope and freedom, a person gets to stand up and scream "FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU", Twitter REWARDS it.

Jams it right to the top of the replies. Gets the most eyeballs who just head what someone tweets. Forces the original tweeter into an untenable position - respond to the morass, seem aloof and uncaring, or expect anything they say to turn into a barfight in an orphanage.

In this Mad Max-like situation where we are fending for ourselves with only the thinnest cooking sheet of protection, it helps to take time to use whatever information you have at your disposal. Or walk away from the entire environment, which many, many have done.

And in this situation, swifty, if someone rocking 16 followers after 10 years comes into my mentions, I'm gonna have to run the starfleet scanner and assume:

- They're not broadcasters
- They do not build audience
- They are here to drop something in and move on

before you recoil in horror, I also know someone with thousands of followers (or hundreds of thousands):

- They ARE broadcasters
- Engaging people is their bread and butter
- They are packing a lot of solipsistic heat
- Their is their wheelhouse

Since twitter has lazed itself into this position and is loathe to improve meaningfully except when forced (the "limit replies" functionality still has the plastic wrap on it), I'm going to have to make decisions and interpret what's going on, block frequently, summarize.

So no, we're going to disagree here, and every time you engage with me to discuss it, on this flawed and stupid broadcast medium, you will roll more in the tar and we will both be worse for it.

Welcome to twitter