That’s tangential to the point - that people choose products and not the other way around.
-
-
Replying to @benedictevans
Yes but. There is a giant literature plus corporate practices that recognize how things are presented have significant influence on choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
And I wrote a whole paragraph about that. Nonetheless, you cannot decide what people will want. You can only suggest, channel and optimize
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @benedictevans
Again yes but. People want contradictory things. They have better selves, aspirational selves, angry selves, vindictive selves, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @benedictevans
Where you end up depends on which you pick up, which depends on how you present and how you measure. (Yes, I should write longer).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
There’s a fundamental distinction here. OF COURSE FB (or G, or Yahoo) can drive use. They can put it on the homepage & it gets a firehose
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @benedictevans @zeynep
And, they can optimize daily engagement with thousands of small tweaks. The trouble is, that only works for the short term
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benedictevans @zeynep
FB can put something on the home page, or emphasize it in the feed. But though a shop can put it in the window, that won’t make a fashion
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benedictevans
That's not the right level of analysis, imo. What people want is to belong, or what they want from fashion is to be, say, cool & expressive.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @benedictevans
So early inventors think comm tech should be used for info. Users get their hands on it & start communicating. Phone, Minitel, internet.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
So the thing that cannot be resisted is that most people want to communicate, not read your erudite encyclopedia entry. But *how* they can+
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @benedictevans
..communicate can end up leaning saccharine (FB/"Like") or vituperative/mobby (Twitter/Retweet/mention mechanism) depending on structure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @benedictevans
In both cases, they are expressing a need to belong and communicate; but different strands are encouraged/incentivized, in feedback loops./
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
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.