Twitter faces existential threat from world's richest techbro
- Reference: 1650362470
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/04/19/twitter_faces_existential_threat_from/
- Source link:
As with all things Musk, there are multiple ways to look at his latest move. It could be exactly what he says it is: a $43 billion bid for a $37 billion company which he feels is woefully underperforming. It could be a power move after he bought nine per cent of Twitter and first did – then didn't – get a seat on the board, under circumstances not entirely transparent and which may have breached [2]US financial trading laws .
Or it could be a move to inflate Twitter's stock prior to divesting. Musk is no stranger to using Twitter as part of his fiscal engineering, and the [3]Feds are no strangers to slapping him down as a result.
[4]
Let's take Musk at his word, and assume he can see ways of making Twitter a money machine. It's certainly not one at the moment. Launched fifteen years ago, it only made its first profit in 2019. So can it become one, and is he the right person for the job?
Twitter preps poison pill to preclude Elon Musk's purchase plan [5]READ MORE
Twitter suffers from the basic contradiction of social media: the better it is at capturing attention, the harder it is to commercialize.
The headline number of more than 200 million monthly users across the globe means very little. There is no one Twitter community – there are hundreds and thousands. If you are a lawyer, you will be in legal Twitter. An anthropologist, in anthropology Twitter. Journalists and politicians love it, of course, so news Twitter and politics Twitter give the platform genuine importance.
[6]
[7]
All active Twitter users have their own unique, self-curated experience – a mix of their professional and personal interests, of supportive and provocative views, of trusted news sources and entertaining blabbermouths. Ideas, memes, gossip – synthesized, filtered and digested – are the common currency.
Twitter is a rainforest ecosystem of creatures interacting and feeding off each other. Like complex ecosystems, it is highly sensitive to pollution and change. One of Twitter's most cherished features is not the platform's ability to insert promoted commercial tweets into user's timelines, it's the ability to block them if they're annoying. Good advertising – lively, well thought out commercial Twitter accounts – are welcome. But the bad, crass and inappropriate can be screened. Great for users, terrible for revenue.
[8]
As for evolution, the users do that at their own rate. The [9]hashtag wasn't Twitter's idea . Twitter's constant attempts to innovate for profit – Fleets, Spaces, Periscope, Vine – are routinely ignored to death. Useful innovations – polls, embedded photos, link shortening – are accepted if they're not compulsory. Annoyances are rejected.
It would be a bold move indeed to put Elon Musk in charge of such a rainforest. Delicately balanced complex systems are not a good match for someone who sells flamethrowers for fun and reacts with [10]profane fury to criticism of his sometimes daft ideas . Being the world's richest person insulates one from consequence and emboldens self-promotion. He has Big Ideas – for Mars, underground transport and brain implants – that often turn out to be Bad Ideas.
[11]Any fool can write a language: It takes compilers to save the world
[12]The first step to data privacy is admitting you have a problem, Google
[13]114 billion transistors, one big meh. Apple's M1 Ultra wake-up call
[14]Russia is the advanced persistent threat that just triggered. Ready?
Musk is more complex than hardened detractors or rabid fanboys admit. He has the mix of rancid and progessive views with which [15]techbros are comfortable . Here is a man who would sing the praises of the rainforest's amazing variety of exotic creatures and then maybe set about clearing all those dull trees blocking the view, replacing them with transparent robo-trees for Jungle 2.0.
The purpose of a rainforest, and the purpose of Twitter, is not to make a tonne of money. It is to exist, to survive, to evolve – to behave in ways that may or may not be useful. Shareholders may disagree.
Burning down the forest to farm cattle makes money in the short term, but is catastrophic in the long. Treating the forest with respect, learning how its interactions and biochemistry work in the hope of improving our own lives - and yes, perhaps making money that way - is both sustainable and enriching. It is not compatible with the idea that technology and capitalism are the answer to everything, and Musk with his degrees in engineering and finance is that creature more than any other.
[16]
Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich. Again, shareholders may disagree. Musk is capable of understanding such things, as his Open AI initiative shows, but that's not how he sees things here.
He would be a very bad match for the job of owning the service. At best, he'd see it as a giant toy box to try out grandiose ideas until he got bored. At worst, he would exploit it as an advertising platform to burn to the ground.
Elon, you have enough toys. Go and play among the stars, and let 200 million people get on with their lives online. ®
Get our [17]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/14/musk_twitter_takeover/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/12/elon-musk-twitter-lawsuit-shares
[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yl7cs81@c6X14bEYfCxPvwAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/16/twitter_poison_pill_musk/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yl7cs81@c6X14bEYfCxPvwAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yl7cs81@c6X14bEYfCxPvwAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yl7cs81@c6X14bEYfCxPvwAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/chris-messina-hashtag-inventor.html
[10] https://www.dw.com/en/teslas-elon-musk-apologizes-for-pedo-comment-on-thai-cave-rescuer/a-44682805
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/04/compiling_the_future/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/28/google_data_privacy/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/14/apple_m1_opinion_column/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/28/russia_information_security/
[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk#Destiny_and_religion
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yl7cs81@c6X14bEYfCxPvwAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Do what?
I'd like to see the SEC go after Musk since he violated the disclosure requirements one has to file when amassing large amounts of stock, as well as for violating his settlement with the SEC about using tweets to manipulate markets.
Bottom line is this is Musk wanting to be able to engage in intellectual masturbation by stroking his ego via tweets worshiped by his millions of sycophants unencumbered by Twitter's ethics rules. The fact that he'll also unleash Trump to continue destroying the democracy that allowed Musk to create his wealth is just icing on the cake for him. He's the classic rich guy who's wants to behave any way he wants and wraps himself in a shroud of libertarianism.
The correct analogy for Twitter isn't the rainforest; it's a rancid, fetid swamp inhabited by predators and parasites, and fed with a continuous stream of sewage and effluent from the Big $ interests surrounding it.
Fixed it for you.
Yes, but, as the article asserts, it's a "self-curated experience" so none of the sewage and effluent gets through.
(We need a Sarcasm icon)
a sarcasm icon
will this do?
I think you are describing most examples of social media.
@Lord Elpuss - regardless, it is still important. Whether we like it or not, it's difficult to argue that it doesn't have a signifant effect on today's world.
It’s important in the same way Donald Trump’s various social media excretions are ‘important’. Certain groups of people will always be bored and/or stupid enough to listen comment and regurgitate, but that doesn’t make it worth keeping. The world would be on balance a better place if it quietly disappeared.
While I understand and agree with your point, I'd rather have all the idiots localized and not roaming freely without a semblance of purpose.
I believe that stupid people doing stupid things is slightly better than stupid aimless people. In my view, the potential for stupid tops out once the idiot is engaged in an activity. From there, you can try to guide stupid to as close to benign as possible.
Though highly unlikely, it still remains a possibility that a group of twitdiots could be swayed toward reason.
However, my views tend to live in hope and die in despair.
Go back 25 years. If 0.1% of the population believed the world was flat, chances are that they would never meet someone with the same stupid opinion. Now, with Twitter, they find millions to agree with them.
Combine that with some sort of social angle, and those millions can shout down anyone who disagrees with them with the rest of us too scared to intervene.
It's not so much about "too scared" it's that rational people use rational means and look for rational explanations, which may be nuanced. The flat Earth/conspiracy nut jobs and the like have no need to behave in that way. They are impervious to such trivialities as evidence and logic. And psychologically a strongly held, confident opinion will be more powerful than a rational "on balance" one. We see this with vaccine reluctance. The rational arguments that vaccines are massively much safer than the virus and have been extensively tested and billions of people have used them doesn't convince some people nearly as much as being told confidently that the vaccine is an evil ploy by the politicians and those terrible big pharmers ( why's there no tractor icon?) to put them under mind control.
That's why I mentioned the social angle. "Can a woman have a p3n1s" would have been a music hall joke 10 years ago. Now the question scares labour politicians.
It’s important in the same way Donald Trump’s various social media excretions are ‘important’. Yep, that was what I was getting at, 'important' doesn't mean 'good' but we would be naive to ignore the power of the platform (politicians don't use it for fun) and that Elon might wish to exploit it for more than he is currently able to.
Yes definitely a significant effect, that I agree with..
It's just that it's a negative effect....
I’m sorry but I have to disagree. If Twitter was only ‘a rancid, fetid swamp inhabited by predators and parasites, and fed with a continuous stream of sewage and effluent from the Big $ interests surrounding it’ then it would be easy. Just delete your account and never go back.
The problem is that it’s also amazing in certain corners. I’m not an archeologist as mentioned in the article but I’m sure eminent archeologists have very useful disclosures and debates on Twitter that us mere-mortals can listen to and learn from, if we wanted.
I’m some times active on Twitter because in my area it just so happens that 90% of the experts are on Twitter and it’s a great way to read swift and well-thought through analysis of recent developments. Straight from the horse’s mouth without a journalist in between who may not fully understand the matter or needs to dumb it down for their general audience.
If you stay away from popular culture and politics (seriously, 99% of people have an opinion that is not worthy of being heard by anyone else) then Twitter can be amazing.
I now only dip into Twitter when there is a relevant development and I want to gauge expert opinion. I occasionally stick around for a week or so but invariably get very depressed about the state of the world. I have largely switched from Twitter to [1]Mastodon and follow a bunch of the same media on there. On the whole Mastodon is a much nicer experience than Twitter but the big problem is that most of the valuable experts are not on Mastodon. So, even though it’s technically at least as good as (if not better than) Twitter, it lacks some of the value that Twitter has. And until a major exodus from Twitter to Mastodon ( [2]perhaps with a bit of help from Musk ) I suspect it will remain that way.
[1] https://joinmastodon.org/
[2] https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/108079650359688993
Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
The myth of big tech altruism rears its head again. Of course twitter's job is to make people rich - they just aren't quite expert enough at that yet.
Re: Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
I think plenty of tech companies start with altruistic intentions. The problem is that sooner or later big $$$ rears its head, and then the noble ideals inevitably start to become corrupted.
Re: Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
If censoring [read: banning, silencing] everyone who disagrees with "the woke" is "altruistic" or a "noble idea" over which a tech company were founded, then that company DESERVES to "go broke" and SHOULD abandon such "noble ideas" or "altruism" in favor of WHAT THE CUSTOMERS WANT.
Then again, if the original altruism were "do no evil", they'd be like GOOGLE...
Re: Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
At least part of which is that to grow, even to the point of survival, the money bags have to be brought in. Beancounters and professional investors. And all they see is money. That's assuming that there was genuine altruism to start with. I'm pretty sure that Amazon always had a game plan beyond flogging cheap books. And Gates' Microsoft was always about commoditising tech. Anyone think Apple was different?
Re: Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
Accepting a financial loss over the altruism of being "woke" is what Big Tech is often about, these days... or like what many have said, "Get Woke, Go BROKE!"
I prefer the TRULY open platform WITHOUT the woke-style "moderation" [read: censorship], that we all probably assume Musk wants for it, minus the "woke hysteria" about Nazis and hate speech (which is how 'the left' tries to MANIPULATE people into FEELING, not thinking, that Musk wants Tw[a,i]tter to become 'that').
icon, because, facepalm. the purpose of a company is to MAKE MONEY.
Re: Twitter's job is to be Twitter – not to make people rich
icon, because, facepalm. the purpose of a company is to MAKE MONEY.
Making a profit may well be an ancillary purpose of a company, and not its primary purpose. The continued existence of a company might require that it makes a profit, but that existence can be directed towards other ends, as used to be documented (before the Companies Act 2006) in the ' [1]Object clause ' of Memoranda of Association.
The primacy of making a profit, or maximising a profit has long been debated.
[2]Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance: The Purpose of the Corporation
[3]William Cohen, reporting on Peter Drucker's view: The Purpose of Business Is Not To Make A Profit
[Drucker] considered profit (as opposed to profit maximization) even more important for society than for an individual business.
...
Profit and profitability are absolute requirements.
...
However, this does not mean that profit is the basic purpose of a business. Profitability really is an essential ingredient by itself which might be better spoken of in terms of an optimal, rather than a maximum size. In support of this thesis, Drucker noted that the primary test of any business is not the maximization of profit, but the achievement of sufficient profit to allow for the risks of the financial activity of the business, and thus to avoid catastrophic loss leading to failure.
The issue is not whether businesses require profits to assure long-term survival (evidently they do), but whether profit maximization is the primary purpose of a business, and there are good arguments for it not being.
[1] https://askanacademic.com/law/what-is-an-objects-clause-company-law-125/
[2] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/04/11/the-purpose-of-the-corporation/
[3] https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/columns/the-purpose-of-business-is-not-to-make-a-profi
Existential threat.
Clearly the author of this opinion piece "cares". Most of us don't give a toss.
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
Perfect. As someone who gave the finger to MySpace when it was the latest 'big thing', Fecalbook, Twatter and the rest could do the mental health of the world a big favour by shutting up shop today.
His holiness Musk will f'up Twitter and allow "TheRealDonald' and 'MTG' back on it just to prove to the Right wing loonies in the USA that he's a good ole guy (really).
If he takes over Twatter then it will be doomed. Millions will get peed off and move to other platforms.
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
Explain to me, please, why was banning Trump a GOOD thing for Tw[a,i]tter?
And, why is ENDING (apparently) POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BANS *BAD* for them?
Without opposing ideas, there really is NO discussion. If Tw[a,i]tter wants a platform that has actual DISCUSSION on it, instead of being an echo chamber for "the left" and "the woke" (which really IS boring), they will HAVE to end their (alleged) "high school clique group" and "this is OUR country club" EXCLUSIONARY and DISCRIMINATORY policies.
Signed: "The Kind of Riff Raff" they do not want on their golf course
(this is another way of saying that they just might be SNOBS, in case that was not obvious, heh heh heh)
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
Exactly the reason that Trump's 'Truth Social' failed to get off the ground - no discussion, just an echo chamber for Trumpists
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
As far as I can tell, it didn't get off the ground because it's technically poor. iOS only and huge queues to get in. People love echo chambers, so it's not that.
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
Rich white men - the world's most discriminated against and censored minority, and also the most sensitive little plants ever discovered. Not allowed to shout 'fire' in a theatre. Can't lie without getting fact checked. Can't get their tik-tok based research published by 'mainstream media'.
Remind us all who owns 'the media'? Is Rupert Murdoch really a deep-fake put up by the worker's socialist anarchists' people's collective of Tooting?
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
"And, why is ENDING (apparently) POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BANS *BAD* for them?"
It's not bad for Twitter as such, it's only bad for those that want to push their ideologies unchallenged or those with political gains to be achieved...
True democracy gives everyone a voice regardless of how stupid, evil or disagreeable that that might be.
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
True democracy gives everyone a voice regardless of how stupid, evil or disagreeable that that might be.
I though that was anarchy's goal?
Re: true democracy
Surely the issue at hand is not one of 'voice' it is of amplification? True democracy should (arguably?) give everyone an equal voice. The problem comes when some voices are able to shout loudly and drown out the quiet [majority?]. Any publishing/media allows ideas to be amplified, and with it comes the inherent danger that the person behind the media is pursuing their own agenda (or Vladimir's), and an existential danger that their end-game is the abolition of democracy and it's replacement by oligarchy/dictatorship/theocracy/one party rule etc. So limits on 'free speech' might be a necessary inoculation against loss of democracy.
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
Can't be bothered to argue as I know when I'm 'talking to the hand' but have a read of Yishan Wong's (ex reddit CEO) take on social media
https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
I don't think many people have a problem with genuine adult discourse and discussion. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people would welcome it. There was no discussion with Trump though, just an endless stream of infantile rants and lies.
Ultimately, however, he was banned for inciting violence which is not only against Twitter's policies, but also illegal in the US.
As for discriminatory policies, an internal audit did find that Twitter was discriminating by unfairly promoting right-wing tweets over those from the left:
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
Re: Most of us don't give a toss.
A tolerant society does not have to tolerate that which threatens its existence. Trump is an idiotic, dangerous traitor who used the worst dregs of society to try to overthrow a democratically elected government. He used Twitter to engage in vitreolic attacks on individuals and the government, and those attacks stoked physical harms.
Complete freedom of speech should not be permitted. By all means state your case and question those in power particularly. But dangerous behavior should not be tolerated. The problem is that there is no reasonable discussion. You either follow Trump and accept any garbage he spews or you are the enemy subject to his vitreol and the physical dangers of his moronic followers.
Allowing Trump on Twitter would be bad for Twitter in the long term, because the silent majority of at least minimally sane people would convince advertisers (whose ads make up 88% of Twitter's income) to leave or face boycotts. And yes, boycotts are just as acceptable expressions of freedom as speech is. No, I don't just want to avoid hearing Trump; I don't want him to have a platform on which to spout lies and hatred that cause direct harm to people. No, his right to spew danger does not take precedence over lives of the capitol police offices killed and injured on the day, and shortly after, of his traitors attack on government.
Trump belongs in the sewer. He wants to be on Twitter\Facebook etc, because he can't reach the millions he wants on other apps. Dedicated free-speech, Nazi-leaning platforms never succeed because the majority of people are not extremists.
Wow
This is a delusional and fear driven article. The people like this that are are afraid of musk owning twitter are simply afraid of free speech in the “town square”.
Re: Wow
Anyone who doesn't fear Musk's brand of Free Speech is a fool - or Elon Musk.
Re: Wow
There’s nothing wrong with Musk’s brand of free speech; as long as it doesn’t become the only brand of free speech.
Re: Wow
BoysOnTheLoose: Account created on 04/19/2022, and only one post. This one.
I would've thought that Elon's PR minions would've hired a less stupid Rent-A-Troll company.
Or maybe we're already in the Web 3.0 Trolls-On-Demand JIT era: stupid, obvious and proud of it.
It would be great if Musk was able to scoop that dump up and turn it into an ethically moderated, free speech platform. Poorly educated people see "free speech" and immediately think something will become an unregulated far-right landfill, when we all know popular social media platforms are quite the opposite. The far-left is afraid their precious grooming ground is going to be regulated and their insane ideas and arguments questioned. Musk leveling the playing on Twitter is a safer alternative to Antifa and the Proud Boys yelling at each other, attacking private citizens, and burning down private businesses.
As with others, I can't see Twitter as being comparable in any way with a rain forest. It's true that when a brand gets taken away from its originators it's apt to go down the tubes. And, do you know, in the case of Twitter, I couldn't care less.
You couldn't care less
I can think of nothing that would make me care more...
And can we please have a sarcasm icon, and perhaps a think about it icon?
Think of it as static vs dynamic. Or myths vs reality. Clear cutting rainforests is somewhat bad from a biodiversity or bioprospecting PoV. But a while ago, some Bbc chap bought a chunk of rainforest to preserve it. He wasn't exactly an outdoors type, and took a while to notice trees were growing rather evenly, and a local pointed out his 'pristine, virgin rainforest' was only 100 or so years old and man-made.
There's been other fun stuff, like forest clearing exposing archaeological remains. Pre-Spanish conquest, natives had large popoulations & cities, which had extensive agriculture to support that. Then a combination of conquest, forced resettlement and disease lead to those cities being abandoned and nature reclaiming the farmland.
Which gets interesting from a climate perspective, ie if those land use changes had any impact on climate. Which was probably changing anyway given famines across S.America and Mesoamerica.
And like Twitter, depending on ideological stance. Both can be pretty toxic, so banning people with the wrong views, or satellites like OCO-2 showing the rainforests are very large CO2 emitters. Which I guess are both signs of extensive biological activity, but rainforests are arguably more useful than 97% of all tweets.
But such is politics. It's popcorn worthy to watch Twitter defenders claiming Musk is a threat to 'free speech' because Musk might not let them ban people they disagree with.
Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
One does occasionally find older documentaries on YouTube where people were interviewed at length, without much interruption from the interviewer, and these people would often, and sometimes unexpectedly, speak intelligently. The comments from YouTube viewers on these videos are generally very positive, and they often 'long for' these past times. These old documentaries and news articles are not from the self-appointed 'gold standard' of television and documentaries - the BBC. These are older American programs.
Compare that with now. I occasionally look at news clips on YouTube. American news is unwatchable nonsense: two people presenting, one saying a sentence then the other. 2 to 3 second soundbites from a person pertinent to the report. Cut. Cut. Cut. Cut. Cut. Cut. Cut. They must have a mantra: do not give the viewers more than 3 seconds without a cut.
And this leads me to Twitterland. I have never visited the Twitter web site. I have seen references to Tweets, of course. But so what? The idea that complex ideas can be expressed in a few words used to be called a simplistic view. Some things are easy, but they are usually of no consequence. I breathed some air today. Well thanks for telling me. You have enriched my life. What makes some people think that we hang on a sentence they or their speech (is one sentence a speech?) writer cobbled together. Twitter is the pinnacle of soundbite crap. It is grease in the wheels, it is gruel for the stupid masses. I wish that people would wake up an throw Twitter in the bin.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
Twitter allows "threads", a chain of sequential Tweets. So there's no such limit really. Long rants, and even well thought through arguments can and do exist there. Sadly writing isn't the same as reading. When I did twitter it was hard not to notice that as a thread progressed the number of people interacting ("likes" etc) diminished. It would appear that for many people reading a single Tweet represented a major effort. Following a thread to its conclusion was just too far beyond them.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
Is the problem the medium or the consumer? My kids will rarely sit and watch a film or tv program without having their phone/tablet on hand. They just don't do long-form media anymore. It's all about rapid interaction which implies short messages.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
I agree with the point you are making - a lot of people are glued to their phones doing who knows what.
While I do meet people who are prepared to put in the time to learn something or do something well, I am occasionally shocked (shocked, I tell you) at how limited some people are with their knowledge. We seem to be growing a crop of numbskulls.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
Thank you for your reply. But see my point about the two presenters above - one sentence, one sentence, one sentence, one sentence. In such a format there is always the intention to make a soundbite. It's a ludicrous and stupid way to present something. I am definitely not waiting out for the next pearls of wisdom from Musk to be expressed on Twitter. But no doubt what passes for the 'free press' in the west these days will let me know anyway.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
Brevity can be 'the soul of wit'. I actually remove a LOT from my own posts and try to keep this in mind. So I'll edit out the examples I COULD have said and keep it short. As an example.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
" I have never visited the Twitter web site" - yet you still feel qualified to comment on a public forum about twitter? 10/10 for the weirdly apposite way you have reinforced the point that I guess you wanted to make.
Re: Twitter - the pinnacle of soundbite crap
If you had read a little further you would have seen my very next sentence: I have seen references to Tweets, of course.
Alas so-called news organisations and supposed reporters report on these tweets as though they are the new divine wisdom.
But the bad, crass and inappropriate can be screened. Great for users, terrible for revenue.
Which does rather beg the question as to why those types of ads exist.
Do what?
Someone's been inhaling this morning.