GooberTheHat wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

But yes, I understand if one extra click (turns out it is only one) to read the whole thing is too onerous for you. Clicking a link at the end of something, in order to read what’s revealed is clearly a difficult thing and I offer you my deepest sympathies.

That one click could take you to a blog where the whole article could be written well, with paragraphs and formatting, images could be embedded into the article, along with any videos that support your story. You could even have a comment section below where everyone could discuss the article together, in one place, not spread out over 20 conversations on 20 tweets.

Yes, but then if you aren’t using pictures and videos, your entire argument is only a paragraph long and you’re already logged into a medium where people can discuss, and share, your thoughts, why take it to a blog?

If I click through to a blog and find a one or two paragraph argument, I tend to feel short-changed. If I’m going to a blog, I expect something longer and more considered. Finding an article that’s barely any longer than this post would be disappointing, for me at least.

Besides which, the simple fact that this is how people are choosing to share, and they are, to my mind means that you’re cutting yourself off from an awful lot of knowledge by not following Twitter links. Your choice, obviously, but I feel pretty uninformed without it.

@yoss: You feel uninformed without Twitter?!
Oh dear.

GooberTheHat wrote:

I follow them, but I find them less informative than they could be, and a more difficult way to digest that information than other mediums available.

The authors of these threads either have much more interesting and in depth information, which they can't convey adequately in a series of tweets, in which case a blog (or other similar medium) would be preferable. Or they don't, which means that their fairly superficial scratch the surface rambling on twitter doesn't effectively inform, so either leaves the reader feeling short changed and lacking information, or worse, of the opinion that they are suddenly aware of all the facts be cause they read a twitter thread and are therefore somehow now an expert on the subject.

I’ve learnt far more about the investigation into Trump, particularly about the legal processes and timelines from Abramson’s Twitter than pretty much every other source combined.

If you don’t read these threads, then what exactly are you basing your claim that they can’t adequately inform on?

Yossarian wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

I follow them, but I find them less informative than they could be, and a more difficult way to digest that information than other mediums available.

The authors of these threads either have much more interesting and in depth information, which they can't convey adequately in a series of tweets, in which case a blog (or other similar medium) would be preferable. Or they don't, which means that their fairly superficial scratch the surface rambling on twitter doesn't effectively inform, so either leaves the reader feeling short changed and lacking information, or worse, of the opinion that they are suddenly aware of all the facts be cause they read a twitter thread and are therefore somehow now an expert on the subject.

I’ve learnt far more about the investigation into Trump, particularly about the legal processes and timelines from Abramson’s Twitter than pretty much every other source combined.

If you don’t read these threads, then what exactly are you basing your claim that they can’t adequately inform on?

As it’s inconvenient to the writer, (and I’ve got no evidence for this), I reckon tweet threads are more succinct than an equivalent blog post would be. Which is good.

God, I'm so sorry for this.

Dante typoed. He meant:
“God: I’m so sorry for this”

Heh.

Johnson can't keep his fucking nose out of it can he? If May had any balls she'd fire him.

I think you give her too much credit.

The thing about social media metrics are that you’re largely measuring the unmeasurable. It’s an industry of making shit up and selling it to advertisers. Or at least selling meaningless numbers as if they’re valuable insights.

Knowing how many people saw your tweet/ad/post sounds great, but the reality of knowing how many people probably scrolled straight past without reading it sounds much less impressive and much less worth paying someone for.

Do you think that Twitter might be a bigger corp entity than Facebook? Facebook has the advantage of intertwined relationships, I guess.

Fuck you, Escape.

Andy wrote:

monkey wrote:

I follow a load of politics journalists and stuff and was reading a thread earlier where about three of them were all chipping in and having a conversation with each other, which isn’t a format you can get anywhere else really.

You’re right. There’s no way that could happen on TV or radio.

You don’t get to choose the people who are on tv and that you watch, the subjects are entirely generated by the broadcasters, you can’t instantly participate and so on.

Twitter was genuinely revolutionary when it launched, as an SMS based service that approximated a mixture of web forum and RSS feed concepts without needing a computer or a net connection.