Super interesting thread, and a useful counter-narrative to “we’re only failing because our target audience is too dumb/cheap/easily manipulated” & its better-dressed but no less condescending sister take, “social media ruined everything.”https://twitter.com/JeremyLittau/status/1088503510184927233 …
-
-
I wonder. There seems to be an effort to keep the curator model, while changing the underlying justification from curator-of-importance to curator-of-morality, or perhaps gardener-of-ideology. The implicit promise being a single voice to separate sheep from goats amid the chaos.
-
You don’t think traditional (especially local) newspapers were gardeners of ideology?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the hopeful take I needed. There’s been too much doomsaying about social media and the internet. It’s such an outrageously empowering force for flourishing, it just needs a few nudges in the right direction.
-
I feel like Jaron Lanier would take issue with this tweet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Agree that newspaper-as-curator model was never going to cut it. But I still mourn the loss of “traditional” media, especially local newspapers. Not everything should “meet the market”. I’m quite convinced by Scanlon’s “What Money Can’t Buy”.
-
There’s a version of this that happens in reddit comments, and twitter replies, and Wikipedia etc - a lot of the best content in the world is made by unpaid volunteers
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As newspapers find the information-gatekeeper role declining in value, Youtube and other social media sites seem to be leaning into it. Filtering information rather than just presenting it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.