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?"

10 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Breaking down barriers ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  2. Dude, chill by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Reasoned Debate? by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  4. Re:Reasoned Debate? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't want to be improved. Twitter embraces that. Facebook too.

  5. USENET by JoeRandomHacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone interested in designing a peer-to-peer analogue of USENET News?

  6. Re:Reasoned Debate? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:I stopped reading.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like a bug in your parser, you should upgrade.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  8. Re:Reasoned Debate? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  9. Re:Reasoned Debate? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:Reasoned Debate? by Larryish · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!