"Fortunately, the original small community ethos of the early Internet seems to be mounting a comeback in forms like podcasting, e-mail newsletters, Discord groups, and TalkNats.com-style discussion sites—all of which can offer a more homegrown and personal variety of online interaction. These efforts deserve our attention more than the spectacle of billion-dollar companies falling over themselves to force together as many people as possible. To make the online experience less hostile, we don’t need ever-more complicated algorithms deployed by ever-larger platforms. It’s enough to instead return to a conception of digital interaction that occurs on a much more human scale."
I don't know why he didn't put blogs in that set of things that have "the original small community ethos of the early Internet."
You want "human scale"? I'll give you human scale!
By the way, I strongly suspect that the real reason for saying "Who cares... whether or not Threads succeeds...?" is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding.
Posts
33 comments:
By the way, I strongly suspect that he real reason for saying "Who cares... whether or not Threads succeeds...?" is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding.
Exactly. The next move is to try and destroy X (Twitter) through regulations and lawfare.
Who cares about Twitter.
Says the guy with 200 followers
"We Don’t Need a New Twitter/It’s time to move beyond the flawed idea of a global conversation platform"
Translation: Zuckersperg's end-run to create an alternative to our favorite addiction didn't work so we want to take our ball and go home and oh yeah...so should all of you.
They're not even trying anymore.
I don't interact much with X, but I haven't looked at Threads at all. It's part of Facebook, so it's another aspect of this modern life that I couldn't be bothered with.
I'd blocked out the sun if it offended me
They are primarily concerned about losing their propaganda advantage. X is a platform where you can eke out what want unless what you want is total control of politically acceptable speech.
These [human-scale] efforts deserve our attention more than the spectacle of billion-dollar companies falling over themselves to force together as many people as possible.
Oh, so it's a feature, not a bug.
Who cares if Threads succeeds? = Threads has failed the mission, to reestablish the mean-girl paradise. The mean girls rushed to join Threads, but their chosen victims stayed on X (Twitter). Musk has created a giant diversion with the introduction of X, it's all that gets talked about.
Another question is why focus on Twitter and Threads. If your complaint is algorithmic decisions on content rather than looking and finding your own content, may I Introduce the author to YouTube?
The New Yorker conversations see, unauthentic to me. Almost like there was an agenda behind the focus aspect of their conversation that misses so much.
I suspect blogs are considered so passé, so...ancient, by our new AI standards, which is why they weren't listed among the small community platforms. But yes, in reality, blogs always have and still do offer a seemingly small community in which we feel like we're getting to know some of the regular commenters, as well as the blog host.
But don't worry. Nothing is as it seems. I am, for one, simply an early version AI. ChatTemujin (v 1.0).
"I don't know why he didn't put blogs in that set of things that have "the original small community ethos of the early Internet."
Ann, you are not being censored because Google knows you are not reaching people. It is counter-productive to censor people who have no influence, like this blog. "Influence" is defined as "number of people reading this blog." Which is almost nobody.
If you were influencing people, in a way opposed to the way Google wishes, they would be censoring you. But they know you are not influential.
"You want "human scale"? I'll give you human scale!"
Yes, you have. But with a national voice amplified by the late Rush Limbaugh.
Twitter ain't succeeding either. It took three days of excitement after EM's takeover to notice that it was worse than before. The arbitrariness before Musk that most of us expected to disappear has worsened.
Apropos Ann's query about the exclusion of blogs from the convo, much of the time I used to spend at Twitter (I doubt I'll ever refer to it as X) is now spent here.
Who cares...whether or not Threads succeeds?
Dat muddafuggin' Zukabug, he care. He mad now. Wantsa punch Musk, he say. I hear he been out in dat barn of his, aspearin' more sheep and lambs and calves dan ever, akickin' stuff and yellin' "fuck!" and "goddammit!" and like dat.
By the way, I strongly suspect that the real reason for saying "Who cares... whether or not Threads succeeds...?" is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding.
“By George she’s got I! By George she’s got it!”
— Professor Henry Higgins, “My Fair Lady”
"You want "human scale"? I'll give you human scale!"
But, to adapt the Althouse Theorem, people don't want what they claim to want. What progs want is not human scale but echo chambers they can control.
The human scale of this blog + comment section is real enough, and a real accomplishment, in form and substance. Thanks to Althouse.
"By the way, I strongly suspect that the real reason for saying "Who cares... whether or not Threads succeeds...?" is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding."
Correct. Prog lamentations about the human condition are always dressed-up political attacks, in this case against deplorable Elon.
What they really miss is the illusion of community created by censorship.
Yeah, some sour grapes in that formulation.
Find yourself somebody who loves you as much as journalists love Twitter (and apparently, it's knockoffs).
I bet Google is more than happy to use 20 years of blog and comments to train it's AI.
What is the relationship between algorithm-driven information dissemination and the operation of First Amendment-based free speech? Does algorithm-driven information have free speech rights?
What is the role of foreign-controlled algorithms on domestic US information dissemination? Do American-owned algorithms have some intrinsic superiority or privilege over foreign-owned algorithms?
Why Fox and not Beijing? How do you tell the difference?
So it's blogification that he's after, isn't it?
I think Althouse Blog identifies as influential.
And it has a great, and positive, influence on me.
"most peoples' hunger"? I'm not sure how you would fix it, but I'm pretty sure it's not right.
Wait, what? I was told by so many people not many weeks ago that Threads would kill Twitter/X! You mean they were all wrong? (They were also all Democrats as far as I can tell)
One does not communicate via social media, one presents! And others comment back. That is not a dialogue, it is a monologue with criticisms. Or propaganda with support in the comments.
That said, the platforms are excellent for joking among friends and strangers. My son asked me about a recent drug prescribed post-cancer, wanting details. I provided them, and added, "AND I'M NOT SHARING!" He posted that text on Discord, and his friends all immediately accused me of being a capitalist hoarder, with plaintive laments, "Why won't he share?" to the amusement of us all.
What progs want is not human scale but echo chambers they can control.
=========
Echo chambers need to have walls [that can close in] > but "Reality Trump" is not insdie
When I want clear explanation of cultural changes, I always turn to the New Yorker. It would never lie or mislead me.
Mark said...
"I bet Google is more than happy to use 20 years of blog and comments to train it's AI."
That makes me a fly in their ointment.
is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding.
what WAS Threads, anyway? Was that like My Life or something? When WAS this "Threads" thing?
Threads is not succeeding. At least not yet. Stranger things have happened.
The problem with social media is two-fold:
1. Big business figured out they could make money off of normal people trying to talk with other normal people, and abused it to the hilt (selling personal information, "monetization" for content, etc.).
2. Big business was taken over by fanatical activists who then decided their customers needed to be punished. This got worse when governments were taken over by fanatical activists and started strongarming the businesses.
The first part created corrupt monopolies and the second part created toxic environments and censorship.
Threads is basically the worst of #1 and #2 combined together with poor functionality.
is that it's apparent that Threads is not succeeding.
I was just wondering what ever happened to that facebook thing that was going to crush Elon. I could not for the life of me remember the name. threads! that's right.
No other internet service launch with such spectacular numbers! (ignoring the fact of a billion instagram users got forced into opting in, and the only way out was to cancel your instagram account. I concluded Holmes was right about the 'dog that didn't bark' was the answer. It must have been an udder failure.
Whaaa whaaaa. A lot of left wing ego defense coming from the hack writer of this piece.
Threads is a failure, always was going to be, and now this brat author is resorting to grade school tantrums because their spoiled Stalinist Zucker clown show didn't work
Any more sour grapes here and we could have a Bacchus festival to last a week.
i asked Google (well, DuckDuckGo)..
what ever happened to threads?
and i got:
Twitter's Rival Threads Is Already Unraveling
Time August 17, 202
Exactly six weeks later, Threads is fading fast. After peaking at around 50,000 daily active users on Android devices worldwide in early July, that number has steadily declined and is now hovering around 10 million, according to the digital intelligence platform Similarweb. That’s less than a tenth of X’s usership. According to Sensor Tower, Threads users spend just 2.4 minutes a day on the app, down more than 80% from its early July peak. Many celebrities and regular users are no longer posting on the app, while analysts contend that the platform lacks the cultural relevance or core communities to keep people engaged.
The Real Reason Threads Is Struggling To Hold Our Attention
Forbes Aug 16, 2023
It’s a bit too early to call the Meta launch of Threads a disaster, but it’s definitely hemorrhaging users and failing to capture any real social media momentum.
A recent report suggests the daily active user count has fallen by 79% after one month.
The real reason Threads appears to be dying already is that it is not useful. There’s nothing in the app that feels like you have to stick around.
Threads was the new kid on the block for about a second. That second has already faded away, it seems.
and then This one, that i thought was most best!
"You cannot win a nuclear war."
Apparently, there was some stupid as f*ck movie called "Threads" that was All About how we should all just SURRENDER to the USSR, because "You cannot win a nuclear war."
Post a Comment