it’s still called going to the library here and it’s freehttps://twitter.com/autotrnslucence/status/1017154784162222080 …
I don't know what libraries you go to, but at mine the librarians don't interview you then hand you a tightly curated stack of essays and longform articles to read every day. Unless you need something specific, then librarians are great.
-
-
And involves going to a physical place. The service I'm thinking about is not, afaict, in competition with libraries - more news feeds.
-
people are already capable of reading beyond their newsfeeds. ‘services’ like this are monetized technofascism in drag. what you are proposing is a chum bucket for the minds of spoiled valley liberpiglets. by eradicating chance and error you eradicate choice
-
also in blinkering users from random access knowledge and the common ground a newsfeed provides you create deeper fissures in an already fractured society
-
SEEMS ONE OF YOU IS NEGATING HOW SHITTY THE ATTENTION ECONOMY DOMINATION OF THE FEED IS AND THE OTHER IS NEGATING HOW SHITTY IT IS TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE STARTING WITH "HOW MUCH WOULD YOU PAY FOR..."
-
If I understand you correctly, you're saying one of us is arguing that it's bad that the newsfeed controls the attention economy, and the other is arguing that it's bad to offer a paid alternative to a newsfeed? (Am I the first one?)
-
I'M SAYING ONE IS IGNORING THE ALGORITHMS THAT MAKE THE FEED ANYTHING BUT "RANDOM ACCESS" AND THE OTHER OFFERS TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE (CAUSED BY MONETIZATION) WITH ANOTHER MONETIZED OPTION.
-
Why is monetization bad?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.