Interesting meta thread on bad art story. Was it written ambiguously—helps virality? (Larson filed lawsuit first, that’s why chats were public; FB group was tiny private one to support Dorland through surgery, plan to cover plagiarism was to “drag” Dorland in the writer group…)https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1446292353237626892 …
-
-
Serial was probably also helped by a relatively new(ly popular but not actually new) format -- but I think your thoughts here (and the original thread) could explain it too!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It wasn’t written ambiguously (if you want to call it that) to “help vitality,” it was written that way because that was the best way to write it
-
* “virality,” of course
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s in the upcoming magazine print edition, will there be a whole new set of reactions from the not online?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The true crime genre in general seems guilty of this. So many documentaries that move back and forth across time, making it difficult to see what causal connections are plausible or not (Tiger King stands out as a big offender).
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.
With a basic timeline (including a two year period when it’s calm and Larson has a chance to ameliorate but comes back with more provocation so things heat up again), the story is less ambiguous—less suited to viral disagreement?