Now this is something that Elon Musk has definitely ruined. Twitter used to have an effective verification system, so you knew that the accounts you were followed were the real, official sources.
The only thing I use Twitter for is to follow Ukraine war bloggers. If I could find a better source of info I’d stop using it.
Our TV has gone away. When our old one broke ten years back we just… never replaced it. We have radios in our cars but I must admit we almost never listen to them, and I actually never thought of using them in the last couple of natural disasters we had.
We do have a local internet news site that we turn to in cases of emergency, but it updates maybe a couple of times a day. We also have text messaging for e.g. evacuation notices. But when we wanted to know what the most up-to-date hourly news was on how far the fire or floods had extended, it was Twitter.
To be fair I suppose we didn’t have to have that information. But it was nice to have it.
Agreed 100%. Let’s say I follow a Chicago sports team that was verified and they send out a Tweet. ‘We’re going to beat Los Angeles tonight and by the way, they put ketchup on their hot dogs.’ Ok, fine, good natured teasing.
Nowadays, in Elon’s Twitter, anyone can create an account and buy a blue check and tweet out horrific things pretending to be an official account of the Chicago sports team.
Twitter is pretty much what you want it to be.*
The OP mentions three categories of account they can conceive of following on Twitter: the famous - celebrities, politicians, athletes; breaking news; friends.
Personally, this misses out a huge category, which makes up the bulk of my Twitter feed - ordinary people with interesting or funny things to say. They’re everywhere! Most of the really interesting stuff I see comes not from news sites or celebrities but from people I follow commenting on these things, or talking about a book they’ve read, or getting into a conversation about something utterly obscure but fascinating I had no previous knowledge of, like - to pick some recent examples - cybernetics, “Everest regressions”, the role of public transports in economic regeneration**
If you follow interesting people, Twitter is interesting. If you folllow funny people, it’s funny. If you follow arty people, it’s arty. If you follow boring or witless or angry or banal people then it’s boring, witless, angry and banal. But that’s on you - there’s an unfollow button.
How do you find those people? It’s an organic process. Back in teh day, people consciously supported the building of the network - there was Follow Friday #ff where people took the time to recommend interesting people they followed to their followers. That’s less common now and Twitter - even pre-Musk - have been attempting to replace this algorithmically by promoting Tweets that good engagement. This isn’t as good, frankly, but you can still find interesting people if you look.
Another question, of course, is if you’re on Twitter to read or write. Maybe you are an interesting person!
*I concede this can sometimes feel like its in conflict what the owners want it to be
**Man, people have *opinons about that
Also, there’s some news you don’t get from websites. For example, I’d never know about “The George Osborne Email”* if not for Twitter which would be tragic because it’s hilarious.
*Sorry, you will have to Google for specifics but: George Osborne is a very rich former Tory Chancellor (i.e. Sec of Treasury) who is about to get married for the second time - yesterday an email was sent to all his wedding guests and numerous news outlets detailing at some length a number of unprintable allegations about his private life, any one of which would make the wedding ceremony rather awkward but collectively make the whole thing car-crash mortifying for everyone involved, even the caterers. I’d never see this on the news because it’s the sort of thing you need more than one source for, but I don’t need the allegations to be true for the existence of the email to be incredibly amusing, so that’s fine.
No.
It was good for weather alerts and road closures, if one’s brain stopped working and forgot how to use the radio or the web. There are even “browsers” that parse text only, such as Lynx! And there exist radios and transmitters!
A child’s Playskool toy was useful, but regrettable to use it it was. Some dingus platform that was normalized, in a most inappropriate fashion.
Fuck Twitter, and whatever. I know my favorite local metereologist has a Twitter, but his station also has a web page, and they even have a radio station, AFAIK.
Yeah, sure, I’ll miss hearing what the latest from underground comedians have to say. I think it’ll be just fine, not being a shut-in and also not having a Twitter-capable-only “phone.”
I mean, I’m sure you will be fine of course, but here you are on a message board where random strangers post their thoughts on stuff - the distinction between that and Twitter is evidently clearer to you than to me.
Apparently.
But take away my Facebook feed and it’s nuclear!
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, except to make a claim, obliquely, that the Playskool Twitter was more than the sum of its parts.
You seem determined to despise Social Media. Go right ahead. Nobody is forcing you to like it.
Well, considering I’m posting here, and spent three hours just now on a group chat on Facebook, in addition to having, before that, a two hour Zoom video conference, that seems to be a reasonable opinion.
Let’s cut that down by a third: I’m posting here, aren’t I?
What’s that got to do with Playskool Intertube Twitter?
Except what I just said two posts prior?
I don’t know what the Playskool Twitter is. But to reiterate, if you find the people you’re following uninteresting or annoying you are allowed to stop following them! Find someone interesting and follow them! No-one walks into a restaurant, orders food they know they hate, and then complains about the chef.
Okay, so you only dislike one specific type of Social Media. I am very confused, but nonetheless, it doesn’t matter if you like it or not. Other people found something in it that served their needs. Be happy for them. Or disappointed that they’ve now lost that after it got taken over by a talentless narcissistic idiot.
Exactly. It’s no big deal, so “we” don’t need it.
What’s the problem?
I think what they’re saying is that your comments don’t make any sense. We don’t know what you mean by “Playskool Intertube Twitter”. It’s clearly an insult, but for what purpose?
To make the point very plain that there’s not much need for Twitter.
There are other platforms.
I’m surprised by the vitriol directed at my extremely simple comment. I assure you it was the simplest comment I could have made that was true.
And, if it needs explaining, the Playskool epithet is meant to say that Twitter is the lowest form of communication possible.
Like a pun.
Or a TikTok, but in words.
No problem, but you seem to have some view that Twitter is inherently incapable of providing interesting/amusing/informative/worthwhile material. Not just that you personally haven’t been able to find it, but that the nature of Twitter means such content just can’t exist. (At least, I think that’s what you mean by “Playskool Intertube Twitter” but I’m afraid it’s not entirely clear).
If that is what you’re saying, I find it surprising because my experience of Twitter is so different. I do find it a source of interesting, engaging, novel, stimulating stuff that I wouldn’t find elsewhere. Why is that, do you think?
Several people expressed confusion, clearly it wasn’t plain. And of course no one “needs” Twitter. It doesn’t provide food and housing, or even oxygen.
Sarah Langs is one of MLB’s researchers and statisticians. She communicates primarily via Twitter. As a baseball fan, following her enhances my enjoyment of the game. Nothing she posts would be all that useful in an article on a website. I like finding out in near real-time how some particular event holds up in the broader scope of the game.
I also enjoy following her real life struggle with ALS. She’s an inspiring person whose day-to-day accomplishments are a marvel. Without Twitter, that window would have been closed.
Personally, I hope a competitor arises and sweeps Twitter under the rug with a different system not run by Musk (Threads seems promising). But until that happens, it will continue being a very useful tool.
Not at all. I think I said that I’ve found Twitter very good for local news reports, as well as some amusing comments by favored celebrities, particularly those whose content is not widely distributed.
However, it’s just a toy! It’s a funny pet trick. I mean, c’mon! It’s an advertising company selling stuff.
My point is more like: “lighten up, Francis!” Not directed at you, but what’s the big deal? It’s a toy platform!
It’s a pet rock, or a six-pack of M*A*S*H beer.
Still got the web, still got the radio.
Yes, but my point is that this is wrong. I find it a source of really stimulating material that I wouldn’t find elsewhere. In a way that goes far beyond local news reports or amusing comments by favoured celebrities. I mean, maybe that’s just me being some kind of fool. Or maybe there is good stuff there and you haven’t found it, largely because you’ve made the perfectly fair decision not to bother looking for it.