The problem with fortune cookie Twitter is evident from one metric: the ratio K of average quality of replies (on a 1-10 scale say) to likes+RTs.
If you get 4 likes, 2 RTs on a tweet where average reply is 8, K=8/6=1.33.
100 likes, 20 RTs, reply quality 1? K=1/120=0.0083.
Conversation
And it’s not that you attract dumb people in the mentions. You get smart people *acting* dumb. You’re literally making the discourse dumber. I noticed this tendency in myself which made me sharply pull back from engaging. I was getting tempted to post *dumb* replies.
Replying to
Most people who adopt a fortune cookie style are smart and doing it on purpose. I notice a certain clinical, borderline sociopathic approach to the tweeting. They're actively solving and optimizing for extreme reach as measured by likes/RTs and accepting the cost in low K terms.
3
15
This is not a subtle effect btw. The K drops off a cliff rapidly once a person adopts this style (and is good at it). You'll notice their followership skyrocket, and their mega-liked/mega-RTed content rate go way up. It's unmistakeable. Nobody does this by accident.
2
8
The content of fortune cookie Twitter is generally smarm. Smarm is the mind-killer. Relentless snark is perhaps a worse attitude, but snark tends to be self-limiting and easy to tune out. Smarm otoh pollutes the discourse in an uncontained way. gawker.com/on-smarm-14765
1
3
16
Replying to
playful replies > dumb replies
IMO of course
but also more replies means more chance of a 11/10 reply, just an absolute unicorn of a reply
1
Show replies
Replying to
Oof
You posted this a few seconds after I replied to something of yours for the first (maybe second?) time.
Social paranoia GO!
1
Replying to
I don't see the reply you're referring to. Twitter doesn't show me all replies.
1
Show replies


