This is a personal tumbleblog, intended for random musings and snippets. I have a somewhat more structured travel and photo blog at disoriented.net, and a neglected vanity site at raingod.com.

Posts Tagged: Twitter

Text

I recently came across a post in which John Scalzi explains why he deleted his Klout account. To paraphrase his argument in my own words, Klout creates an artificial anxiety about your Klout score, which leads to you behaving in ways that are presumably in Klout’s interest, not yours.

I’m a little surprised that anyone takes Klout seriously, given that Klout scores are notably arbitrary. I signed up for Klout, looked at my score once and then immediately lost interest. Klout attempted to get me back by sending me emails I hadn’t asked for and from which I couldn’t unsubscribe (their software was broken) but eventually I managed to wriggle off their mailing list, and that was it as far as I was concerned.

Klout’s … let’s call it a psychic model … is a variant of what I call ‘leaderboard anxiety’. The idea is that some service sets up a metric by which you can evaluate your status. You are then supposed to obsess over this number and - the goal of the whole thing - keep coming back to the service to check on your score. Klout scores, Facebook friends, Twitter followers, Foursquare mayorships, Reddit karma, all work on the same principle: get more, improve your score, earn worthless badges, feel bad about yourself if you don’t ‘measure up’.

Closely related is ‘attention anxiety’. Again, there’s a ‘score’ to track, but this time it’s a local score linked to a specific action that you have taken: Tumblr reblogs, Twitter retweets, Facebook likes, upvotes on Digg or Reddit, Pinterest repins. You do something - tweet something witty, blog something insightful - and then you check back obsessively to find out how many people have liked or repeated what you said.

The infamous Zynga, maker of Facebook games, invented another anxiety to keep you coming back. Call it ‘tamagotchi anxiety’, or ‘spinning plates anxiety’. You have an unstable system - a Farmville farm - that requires constant attention. Unless you attend to it continuously, everything goes rapidly to hell, and your virtual pets reprove you pathetically for your heartlessness, tongues lolling and little x’s stamped on their tiny eyes. It’s rather like being a system administrator, but with less lifting heavy servers into racks.

These features aren’t accidental: they’re deliberately engineered and their common goal is to get you to keep coming back to the service and keep participating. Maybe if I do this, I can improve my Klout score. Maybe if I post a funnier tweet, more people will retweet it. It’s an artificial addiction based on our need for constant validation.

Anxieties aren’t the only tool social media has up its sleeve to keep us hooked. Another is what you might call “distraction satisfaction”. We’re drawn to look for new stimuli, for little crumbs of new information that give us something to think about or act on. Twitter and Facebook play on this. It’s very easy to think “I’ll just check my Twitter/Facebook/email/phone messages to see if anything new has come in; it’ll only take a second.” But of course it doesn’t just take a second. If there is something new, it leads us off down a procrastinatory rabbit hole. If there is nothing new, we’re left feeling dissatisfied, so we try again. If Twitter didn’t deliver, try Facebook. If Facebook didn’t deliver, there’s email, Reddit, Digg, text messages, Twitter again …

Catering to our natural urge to procrastinate might be a little more benign than deliberately inducing anxieties but it’s equally insidious. Moreover, the end goal is the same: to keep us coming back and to get us to participate. As a bonus, our own involvement makes the service more effective at dragging our friends into a similar spiral. As we send out our tweets and post our Instagram photos, we’re baiting the trap for others. When we mention someone’s Twitter handle, or tag them in a photo on Facebook, we’re passing out a little packet of distraction. The designers know this. Each new feature added to a social media service is designed not to increase the utility of the service for its users, but to increase the utility of its users to the service.

The lesson to take away? Social media is not your friend. You are being manipulated in ways that are harmful to you.

Speaking for myself, I’m mostly immune to leaderboard anxiety, but I do worry about how many people repost or retweet what I say (although based on my performance to date, I should just give up). And, I will admit it, I check my email and Twitter far more often than I should.

The odd thing is that following people on Twitter gives me a quite different anxiety, one that I don’t think has been designed by the social psychologists. It’s that all the people I follow seem to be doing such cool stuff - building web applications, staying on the cutting edge of their discipline, writing novels, taking photos, traveling to exotic places, making art. When I read about their projects and their successes, I start to feel anxious about how little I’m doing in comparison.

Maybe it’s because I spend too much time using social media …

Text

In the early days of Twitter - I guess all Twitter’s days are fairly early, actually - I used to run a somewhat controversial but popular parody account. I thought it was funny and so did lots of other people, but not everyone agreed. From time to time, someone who apparently didn’t get the joke would fire off an angry tweet about it, usually full of profanity and crude epithets.

This bothered me a little at first, because I was trying to walk a fine line, aiming for gallows humor without being actually offensive. If my tweets were making people really angry, I wasn’t doing it right. So when I saw one of these furious tweets, threatening to kick my adopted persona’s virtual ass, I would look at the tweet stream of the poster, trying to work out why they were so riled up.

The thing that I discovered was that in pretty much every case, the people who sent these things were … how shall I put this … “not the sharpest knives in the drawer”. Few of them seemed to have anything substantive to say, and when they did, their grammar and spelling left a lot to be desired. For many of them, Twitter just seemed to be an extension of their SMS chats, so that their streams consisted of little more than a string of @-names followed by one-word messages such as ‘lol’. There was a lot of anger, a lot of braggadocio and crude sexual boasting. Those who had political opinions trotted out the kind of thuggish expressions of knee-jerk patriotism and prejudice that are about tribalism rather than reason. They were the kind of people, in short, who might pick a political side in much the same way that they would pick a sports team, and express their support for it in the same way.

Once I realized that the people who didn’t get the joke were mostly cretins, I stopped worrying about them.

Fast forward to today: the outspoken atheist writer Christopher Hitchens has died, and the hashtag #godisnotgreat (and its twin #godisgreat) is doing the rounds on Twitter. Needless to say, the existence of this tag has sparked a furious reaction, and the counter-attack is going full force.

There have been many great thinkers who were people of faith. Even today, religion has its share of brilliant minds. Like Hitchens, I don’t agree with their conclusions, but there’s no denying the sheer intellectual horsepower they can bring to the debate. However, I think it’s safe to say that most of them are not on Twitter. The counter-charge against the late Mr Hitchens is being led by people who are, once again, not the swiftest armadillos on the highway.

Reactions to the #godisnotgreat tag include a variety of logical (or illogical) modes. Predictably, the argumentum ad baculum features prominently:

Mr_ICENATION
#GodIsNotGreat whoevee made this ^^^^ DIE!!!!!
12/16/11 7:49 AM

DELOFROZE
#GodIsNotGreat…WHO EVA MADE THIS A TRENDIN TOPIC …ILL PERSONALLY KILL EM MYSELF….GOD IS THE BEST THANG EVA MANE…AMEN
12/16/11 1:34 AM

YuGottaLovette
@theReasonists lol you need help & to go to church .. GOD will punish you lol. #GODISGREAT ..
12/16/11 5:07 AM

as does the argumentum ad populum:

JazzeRadioChica
RT @RealWizKhallifa: #GodIsNotGreat… He’s more than great! RT if you agree!
12/16/11 7:54 AM

SamMight69Her
#GodIsNotGreat because he’s the GREATEST Retweet If You Agree
12/16/11 1:08 AM

(‘SamMight69Her’? Really?)

The argumentum ad hominemis also popular:

tatishurtado12
You must be a fucking dumbass if you think that #godisnotgreat
12/16/11 8:04 AM

consuelolarsen1
@raynevandunem #godisnotgreat is a sad tweet. Sad people think so when life isn’t working out for them. #smh
12/16/11 8:23 AM

and the ignoratio elenchi also gets some airplay, as in:

MyLife_hisTory
Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called #GodIsNotGreat. now tell me you Christopher Hitchens fans, WHERE IS HE??? OH YEA 6 FEET UNDER!!
12/16/11 7:56 AM

Many of the arguments offered appear to be simple assertions offered without evidence (possibly classifiable as petitio principii):

MissesEricaKane
What kind of tt is #godisnotgreat… are you kidding? He is beyond greatness
12/16/11 8:05 AM

KushNdOJNigga
#godisnotgreat , he’s the greatest
12/16/11 8:15 AM

based_goddess23
who ever started this #GodIsNotGreat TT is an idiot. With out God you wouldn’t be here
12/16/11 8:20 AM

iserve_JESUS
#GodIsGreat JUST because he is….
12/16/11 7:59 AM

The following example is difficult to classify, but it could be seen as a kind of implicit ad hominem, tacked onto the end of a simple assertion.

kelo3adi
#GodIsGreat and anyone that doesn’t think so can stick their heads where the sun don’t shine
12/16/11 4:26 AM

Explicit examples of argumentum ad verecundiam are oddly rare:

AlexSagot
God is a rock, fortress, my strength. Life is found in Him, and can not be lived away from Him. #GodIsGreat Psalm 18:2
12/16/11 7:14 AM

although arguments that appeal to faith can be seen as an instance of this type:

claire_bear_98
“God is not great” the people who hashtagged this have not experienced my God!! #Godisgreat
12/16/11 8:03 AM

Some commenters don’t make any argument at all:

leslienewton3
@KandisSofyaNGGV Do yall see that trending topic #GodIsNotGreat dat shit just made me mad
12/16/11 8:08 AM

while others demonstrate that their beliefs are part of a complete package:

FratfricnMericn
I find out #Godisnotgreat is a trending topic? What the FUCK. This isn’t fucking Iraq or Russia or some shit, this is America!! #Godisgreat
12/16/11 4:59 AM

For this commenter, two unsupported axioms are joined by implication, which might be formally correct, but is not likely to convince anyone who questions either of the two axioms.

KenChris_
I’m smart cause #GodIsGreat
12/16/11 4:47 AM

Interestingly, God’s most important role in the lives of many believers appears to be that of ‘alarm clock’:

TBlount10
Thank you lord for waking me up this morning. #GodisGreat
12/16/11 7:00 AM

Acshawtie
#blessme dear lord,#GodIsGreat #thankful everyday he wakes me up.
12/16/11 7:23 AM

Artina_Nadroj
You woke up this morning, you should agree that #GodIsGreat
12/16/11 7:37 AM

Finally, one believer provides an example of a hitherto unknown logical form that can only be described as an argumentum ad what is this I don’t even:

BryceFregia
Hey atheist that are saying #GodIsNotGreat try watching a leg grow out and even, then try telling me that. Cause #GodIsAmazing
12/16/11 7:53 AM

There’s really not a great deal that anyone can say to that.

Text

An office building in New York caught fire this afternoon. My friend Noel snapped a picture and tweeted it

With New York more than a little jumpy just now, because of the anniversary of 9/11 and a consequent elevated threat-level, this could be something of a big deal. I recognized that one of the other buildings in the photo was the Metropolitan Life Tower, which gave me the rough location of the building. Additional tweets from other New Yorkers helped me narrow it down further, and Google Earth gave me a picture. I recognize the building - it’s hard by Union Square, on Madison - but I don’t know its name.

Another tweet cites Al-Jazeera reporting that the fire was caused by a transformer explosion. And another supplies the missing name - the Credit Suisse building. Another tweet points me to an Irish newspaper that puts all the pieces together. And we’re done here. Twenty-five minutes after Noel’s initial tweet, I have what is probably the full story. In an hour or so, I might be able to read about it from the big boys like CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times … if I still care to.

In the Twitter age, news can travel absurdly fast. The whole news cycle is being abbreviated: by the time the big corporate news sources have processed the story, it’ll already be old news.

Al-Jazeera and the Journal: well done for staying on top of this. The rest of you: try to keep up.

Text

Here’s a question for you: have you ever used Ping, Apple’s ‘social network for music’? OK, here’s another: are you still using it? Right, didn’t think so. Here’s a third question: do you have friends who use Foursquare, and flood your Twitter feed with constant updates on their location? Right. And do you have other friends who spend all day long retweeting everything that they see? Of course you do.

So why am I asking these questions? Because I think they reveal some problems with the micro-blogging ecosystem, and they might just have a common solution.

Let’s take Ping first. In its present form, Ping is probably not long for this world. Apple tried to create a social network in a walled garden, which is like opening an invitation-only shopping mall. If that wasn’t bad enough, Ping is a usability nightmare: it’s tucked away like an afterthought in a corner of the iTunes interface, hidden behind a set of menus that look as if they were slapped together by the summer intern on his last day. When it launched, you couldn’t even send pings about any song that wasn’t available in the iTunes Store (that restriction seems to have been lifted). Micro-blogging is all about responding to the impulse of the moment, but the way Ping is built it’s absolute death to spontaneity. For that reason alone, I think it’s doomed.

What Apple really wanted was Twitter. Twitter is there, it works. People have Twitter clients open on their desktops and they know how to use them. It takes a second to switch to your Twitter client and fire off whatever’s on your mind right now. (This is not always a good thing). Your friends are there, the bands you want to follow are there, everything that Apple wanted from Ping is already on Twitter. Ping should never have been a separate network: it should have been a layer over Twitter.

On Monday, Apple announced that iOS 5 will come with Twitter deeply hooked into it. You’ll be able to send tweets from the Camera app, from Safari, from Maps (feeling nervous yet, Foursquare?), and from third-party apps. There’s no mention of the Music application, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘walled garden’ version of Ping was eventually allowed to wither quietly away, only to be relaunched as what will be essentially a highly-specialized Twitter client.

The downside, of course, is that if Ping starts flooding Twitter with notifications, your Twitter timeline is going to become even more unreadable than it already is. You already have, I would guess, a handful of friends who flood you with Foursquare check-ins every time they cross the room or go outside for a cigarette. You probably also have at least one friend who automatically announces all their other online activity (Facebook status updates, Tumblr posts etc) on Twitter. Then there’s the Retweeter, who generates an apparently unending stream of retweets. And the chatterers, who use Twitter as a kind of public chatroom, having cosy little conversations that happen to be broadcast to everyone who follows them.

If you’ve been exposed to any of this behavior, you’ve probably longed for a way to filter all this stuff. You want to see what your friend X has to say, but you don’t want all his Foursquare checkins. You want to stay in touch with Y, but you could do without all her retweets. And so on. You want some of what each person chooses to announce, but not all of it.

So far, the only aspect of this that has been addressed are the retweets. If one of your friends is a problem retweeter, you can actually turn off their retweets, so that you only see their original messages. That’s an implicit recognition that a retweet is a different type of thing from an original.

Something similar happened on Facebook. People got so sick of being deluged with Farmville and Mafia Wars updates from their friends that Facebook provided a way to hide specific kinds of updates.

Maybe what we need is a more general notion of ‘typed tweets’. 

At present, Twitter and other micro-messaging systems serve as a channel for undifferentiated packets of information. Problems arise because this single channel carries not only low-volume, high-interest announcements (personal tweets) but also high-volume, low-interest information (music pings, location check-ins, chats, retweets, activity updates), and the interesting stuff is easily drowned out in the noise.

The first thing we need is a way to differentiate the different kinds of information. It’s too much to hope that your garrulous friend will tag their latest ‘LOL’ message with a marker that identifies it as chaff, but anything that is generated semi-automatically by an application - location check-ins, music player pings and so on - can easily be categorized. Now, instead of a single channel, you have a set of parallel channels and you can dip in and say exactly which ones you want to pay attention to at any given time.

The high-volume content isn’t always low-interest. If your friend A lives five states away, their location check-ins aren’t interesting, but if your friend B lives nearby, the news that they’ve just checked-in at the bar down the street is high-interest information. You don’t want to throw all the high-volume stuff away (although you could), but you do want to control what you see at any given moment.

A single-channel Twitter lets us subscribe to our friends’ lives: a multi-channel Twitter would let us subscribe in a much more fine-grained fashion to the specific aspects of their activity that interest us.

Twitter is looking increasingly like a protocol, or a platform, if you prefer. Just as the basic platform of the World Wide Web grew to support blogs and shopping sites and social networking and all the rest of it, Twitter - or micro-messaging services, if you want to be more generic - can grow to support a whole host of similarly diverse applications. But it can’t do that on a single-channel model, not with every new device or application begging to be allowed to pour a flood of updates into that single channel. 

In the short-term, tools will probably emerge to create implicit ‘types’ by the use of more or less intelligent filters: essentially, spam filters in your Twitter client that throw away the Foursquare check-ins and the “I’m listening to …” announcements. But that’s the wrong way to go about it. The right way is to start building the notion of information typing into the protocol.

If I were Twitter, I’d already be working on Twitter 2.0, with typed messages built in from the ground up. Because if they don’t build it, someone else will.