Slashdot Mirror
Tim Berners-Lee: Stop Foaming At the Mouth, Twitter
nk497 writes "Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, has challenged users to improve social networks. He describes Twitter users as 'foaming at the mouth' and unwilling to retweet any update that wasn't offering an extreme opinion. 'How do you design a form of Twitter, how do you change the retweet system, so that Twitter will end up gathering a body of reasoned debate?' he asked. He noted that Facebook-style networks kept users within their existing friend groups, and didn't 'stretch' them to meet new people. Berners-Lee asked how can we 'make use of the web so it connects people together and breaks down barriers more than it builds them up.' Any ideas?"
Isn't nearly as easy to do as it is to say. The human race has sought out barriers to erect for as long as humans have been around. Even when people can't see one another physically, they will still seek out people with similar ideas and personality characteristics. You can force them into a large group of vary dissimilar people and in the end you'll find that group will still tend to segregate on some metric you didn't consider before.
I'm not endorsing that kind of action, but it is how we behave as a species.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Twitter is exactly what you make of it, for those who choose to follow you.
It is exactly not a means for you to procure a distribution network for your opinions, with followers acting as distribution nodes at your behest.
It isn't commanded, it is purely social. Those who wish to retweet your words will do so.
And there are no barriers that you do not introduce yourself. If someone you want to follow is there, you can follow them, even @-reply to them and, if the probabilities and their opinion are willing, get a reply or a retweet from them. (All the better if you aren't begging openly to be retweeted.)
Strong opinions affect a larger number of people. Weak or obvious ones don't induce the need to act. Sounds perfectly social to me.
In other words, if you want the news media, you know where to find it, and how it works.
Don't like it? Don't read it. No one is forcing little Timmy to read it. I've never had a twitter account or Facebook account and don't intend to. Of course, we could just "pass legislation" so that people can't say things we don't like. I'd rather just not click the fucking things personally.
Users will always self-select to what interests them: we can't, and shouldn't, stop that. But taking the example of political news, what we can do with a reasoned comment system like /. is create some semblance of debate -- imperfect and problematic -- but far superior to what we currently see on news websites. The NY Times has done a decent job of this actually. Not a system as good as /., where users have a bit more investment in sticking around and not trolling since modding is done by the community and sticks with you, as opposed to the invisible hand system of the NY Times.
With respect to TBL, he seems to be suggesting censorship. Twitter is designed to allow users to spew whatever arises in their minds, and to retransmit the ideas of others that you believe others should see. Who decides what's "reasoned debate" when it comes down to it?
It's been shown that human nature gravitates towards sensationalism. The craziest of rumors always travel the fastest and the furthest. The free speech model of Twitter, for better or for worse, only amplifies this tendency by making so much easier for it to happen.
Give everyone a soap box, and you get a lot of noise pollution.
In the US, at least, we as a society have become much more divisive, and no amount of technology is going to reflect differently.
Fuck you, asshole, who the fuck are you to call us divisive?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
People don't want to be improved. Twitter embraces that. Facebook too.
Anyone interested in designing a peer-to-peer analogue of USENET News?
It's an old internet tradition to take even mundane discussions, like your choice of editor, and turn them into a "holy war." This used to be done quite tongue-in-cheek but they've turned into actual holy wars by kids with a poor grasp of irony and even poorer reasoning skills. You can't debate with a religious fundamentalist who already knows The Truth.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Reasonable people tend to NOT FUCKING CARE about internet debate. Instead they concentrate on their lives.
My friend Lou Sensteberg-Stein says he slept with your...
Someone had to do it.
Sounds like a bug in your parser, you should upgrade.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Studies show that certainty is an emotion. Emotions are not arrived at through logical processes. People are not certain of what they know because it makes sense, they are certain of what they know because it feels good. Intellectual debate isn't intellectual. It is the same thing chimpanzees do, flinging poop at other chimps they don't like, only we use words.
And obviously, when I say "people" bunratty, I don't mean you or I. I mean those other buffoons, over there. No, not you either, you look smart enough. You know. The ones who disagree with us. Those guys are like chimps flinging poo.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You can see this on Slashdot too where people pounce on articles to post the established group-think for a quick '+5'
Really? And here I thought posts kvetching about how anybody who agrees with prevailing opinion is just practicing groupthink was an ideal example of Slashdot groupthink.
Breakfast served all day!
The character limit has quite a bit to do with it. Twitter by design can never be anything more than a bumper sticker fight. If you want a respectful and thoughtful debate, well, honestly one of the few I can even think of is that between Robert Nozick and John Rawls, and that was conducted with entire books.
As for group think, I can only offer the old platitude: be the change you want to see in the world. I won't positively mod stupidity even if its intent would be sympathetic to a position I hold. In fact, I get as much or more bothered by stupidity from "within" than "without" because I don't want some douche representing a good idea badly such that it turns people away.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
So then the Democrats are good. Right?
You sir are just another in a long line of people looking out for their own self interest.
You have nothing to add to this debate other than finger pointing at one side.
If you can not see, you can not be shown.
On the other side of this teacher debate you might start to ask why it is that in states where the teachers are paid the most correlate well
with states that have the worst education?
I am not saying that teachers should not be paid a decent market wage.
I am saying that seniority instead of merit based firing decisions can not but fail to produce good education.
Even though that would be best for the districts, schools and the students it is not done.
Why?
Because the union must protect its current members.
Teachers may care about students or not. Depending on the teacher.
Unions do not though care one bit about the students.
Republicans want more laws and regulations creating monopolies for their corporate puppet masters.
Democrats want more laws and regulations protecting private and public sector unions.
Republicans want a bigger government to serve corporations.
Democrats want a bigger government to serve unions.
Democrats and Republicans want Big Government to control the people.
I want a small government controlled by the people.
You choose your side. I will choose mine.
You better though understand the intentions of not just the other side but yours as well.
Damn!
Over the twitter limit.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
When people have knee-jerk reactions, agreeing with and liking what they already believe and rejecting what they don't want to believe, you can't have reasoned debate.
Glen Beck says differently, ASSHOLE!
Cynicism is vastly overrated. If people did not want to be better than they are they would not have invented gods in order to have something better to which to aspire.
Optimism is vastly unrealistic. Primitive humanity didn't invent gods for inspiration. They prayed repeatedly and fervently for food, shelter, and life after death. Gods are the ultimate expression of man's self-centered nature.