> You could make the same counter-argument about Facebook and Twitter. If you really think they're interchangeable, that just tells me that you don't value the things that many of their users do.
I don't think you could. Facebook doesn't offer an inferior product to Twitter, it offers products that are effectively the same, and come packaged with other products.
I really don't think many people value the 140-character limit, which is the only core difference between Twitter and Facebook feeds.
I can totally identify with the criticism that I don't value the same things as Twitter/Facebook users (I don't have accounts on either service). But I think I'm capable of empathizing with them and extrapolating what they value from each product.
> Facebook is in no way an improvement unless you lock it down to friends-only.
This is definitely not true. As lunatic as they may seem, many of the people in these online mobs are at least somewhat reasonable, and if they were able to see context (for example, a comment or edit on the original post) it would pretty seriously attenuate the virality of stuff like this. Twitter is drive-by conversation: there's practically no possibility for context, for clarification, etc. Hell half the time I'm exposed to Twitter, I end up looking at fragments of conversation whose context is pretty damn painful to nail down. A shitty interface like that is a hell of a lot more efficient at instigating mobs over misunderstandings.
> Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets: most of my friends have increased their twitter usage.
So your friends are using twitter more and you just assume everyone else does too? Have you considered that people who have other opinions exist and theirs is as valid as yours?
I truly don’t think so. The vast majority of people I know in Europe and Asia use Facebook, not Twitter. Only my USA acquaintances use Twitter all the time.
> Every single criticism that one can level against Facebook applies to Twitter ten times over
Eh, I disagree. Sure, Facebook and Twitter can both be used to spread disinformation, to foment divisiveness, to addict their users to low-quality scrolling. Facebook, however, allows secret distribution of misinformation at scale, does a much better job of censoring at scale (i.e. they censor leftist views for users on the right and vice-versa), seems much more interested in the elimination of privacy as a concept, and seems much more interested in connecting me with people I don't want to connect with.
On twitter I can curate my feed so it's high signal-to-noise ratio. On Facebook I have to put up with the nonsensical political opinions of people I'm related to, used to go to school with, and used to work with. I left my hometown for good reasons.
> Can anybody make a good argument as to why Twitter (in its current form) isn’t a major detriment to society?
Basically no one actually uses twitter. I only know one person in real life who uses twitter.
Twitter's problem is that 'media types' really like twitter, for one reason or another, and tend to blow everything that happens there out of proportion for off-platform engagement.
Personally, I really like twitter. I carefully curate my Twitter experience to follow people I'm interested in, mute people and words I don't care for (it's great never having to see "NFT" on twitter!), and block people who are actively harmful. I'm left with a pretty positive experience that has good community and funny jokes. That's how I use it.
> Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you need to seriously reframe your perspective if you think it is the cure-all for delivering news to constituents.
NO! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that this is why Twitter is a de facto public square. I am not advocating that Twitter should be a public square. Frustrating to see a strawman of this sorts. You have completely and utterly misunderstood my points. Basically, 180 degrees opposite of what I was trying to say, may be a failure of mine to be less precise but jeez.
The observation that Twitter has become a public square is undenieable (this is different from advocating Twitter to be a public square. I actually wish it wasn't).
> Twitter is where people who are or will be powerful, influential, or impactful get their information, form their opinions, and often debate really important topics.
Anecdotal counter point: I'll be powerful and influential one day, and I'm not using Twitter at all.
On a more serious note, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that powerful people form their opinions from information on Twitter.
> Twitter is the greatest social platform ever built. Period.
For you. Not necessarily everyone else. Just saying this because the post is titled that everyone is wrong, so I expected some facts, not just "cuz I said so"
> No other platform gives me a chance to talk to people like...
Tweeting at celebrities (and hoping they tweet back) is not really a conversation.
--
Don't get me wrong, I like Twitter, but not for these reasons.
> The only reason people are using Twitter instead of Gab is that the marketplace prefers the lightly-moderated Twitter to the complete free-for-all of Gab.
No. The reason people are using Twitter is because most other people are using Twitter. The network effect is very real and very strong on social media.
If you wanted to protest something, would you go to the least populated public space that people are gathering, or the most populated?
We have allowed the most highly populated places where people share ideas, to be controlled by a private company. That is not in the spirit of freedom of speech in the slightest.
> Twitter on the other hand is just pure toxic garbage which seems made to intentionally divide people and incite hatred and eventually violence.
That's also my impression. I mostly use FB for my neighborhood, hiking, biking, bird watching or any kind of nature related groups. It's been mostly pleasant experience for me. I think you can use FB without lowering yourself in all that outrage and drama. It's absolutely doable.
Twitter, OTOH, is a cesspool. I feel the whole platform was designed to congregate the worst of humanity and to bring out the worst in any decent person. It's almost impossible to use Twitter without causing emotional harm to yourself or the others. I find it interesting that FB gets so much hate from media, but Twitter seems to be a media-darling.
>I have the same problem as you with Twitter. Nobody I know is on it, and when I've used it it's value is not at all apparent to me. Every time I try to use the platform it seems like a waste of time.
That's the whole idea. Twitter isn't meant to be productive -- just a fun waste of time, reading not so important news, gossip, and quips.
> Twitter has by far become a more egregious platform for society
I don't really see how that cam be true when only 20% of so of the population actually use Twitter. It's very small beans compared to Facebook, or YouTube for that matter.
Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users.
I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation.
I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.
I'm part of several communities in both Facebook and Twitter, so I fail to see your point.
This is actually why most people use Facebook/Twitter nowadays.
reply