Maybe this gets fixed in version 2 of social media. Maybe version 2 is halfway between the randomness of Twitter and the predictability of Substack.
Show this thread
Twitter is a few people saying interesting things amidst a much larger number saying mean or mistaken things. So are books. But you don't suddenly get sentences from bad books in the middle of reading one of the good ones.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Reminds me I should spend more time reading and less time on Twitter.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Meaning: go read a good book.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let's get GPT-3 to filter twitter to just the good stuff.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Unless it contains advertisements.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
nailed it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I can't imagine using Twitter that's not mediated by lists and muted keywords.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Books have editors. So the average book is much more "interesting" than the average tweet. The lack of a filter also means that the standard deviation of "interesting" on Twitter is much bigger than in books. So the best tweet can be really awesome. The worst...
-
The presence of editors does not stop bad books existing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Books typically don't throw in random *mean* statements, but I've seen plenty of examples of *mistaken* statements thrown into the middle of otherwise good books.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.