Tim Berners-Lee: Stop Foaming At the Mouth, Twitter 307
nk497 writes "Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, has challenged users to improve social networks. He describes Twitter users as 'foaming at the mouth' and unwilling to retweet any update that wasn't offering an extreme opinion. 'How do you design a form of Twitter, how do you change the retweet system, so that Twitter will end up gathering a body of reasoned debate?' he asked. He noted that Facebook-style networks kept users within their existing friend groups, and didn't 'stretch' them to meet new people. Berners-Lee asked how can we 'make use of the web so it connects people together and breaks down barriers more than it builds them up.' Any ideas?"
Networks (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, Facebook lost a lot of appeal when it opted to become network-transparent as opposed to a way to meet people who shared similar interests at your university / hometown. The selling point of Facebook over say, Myspace, was that Facebook was geared towards meeting new people at your school (and later in your city) who had similar interests. I met some of my best friends from the university through finding people with shared interests on Facebook six years ago. With my natural introversion, who knows if we would have ever met otherwise. That has been lost as Facebook expanded...now you will find people with similar interests ALL OVER THE WORLD and since there's virtually no chance that you'll ever meet any of these people, there's no reason to reach out to them. Thus it has become a tool for connecting to your own already existing friends-network as opposed to expanding it.
Even the movie pointed it out: the selling point over Friendster/Myspace was that it was based around your local network. That was thrown out the door a long time ago.
Dude, chill (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter is exactly what you make of it, for those who choose to follow you.
It is exactly not a means for you to procure a distribution network for your opinions, with followers acting as distribution nodes at your behest.
It isn't commanded, it is purely social. Those who wish to retweet your words will do so.
And there are no barriers that you do not introduce yourself. If someone you want to follow is there, you can follow them, even @-reply to them and, if the probabilities and their opinion are willing, get a reply or a retweet from them. (All the better if you aren't begging openly to be retweeted.)
Strong opinions affect a larger number of people. Weak or obvious ones don't induce the need to act. Sounds perfectly social to me.
In other words, if you want the news media, you know where to find it, and how it works.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:2, Insightful)
The character limit certainly hinders long, well-thought-out responses. However, I posit that the real problem is social rather than technological. In the US, at least, we as a society have become much more divisive, and no amount of technology is going to reflect differently.
Um (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like it? Don't read it. No one is forcing little Timmy to read it. I've never had a twitter account or Facebook account and don't intend to. Of course, we could just "pass legislation" so that people can't say things we don't like. I'd rather just not click the fucking things personally.
Slashdot comment system (Score:4, Insightful)
Users will always self-select to what interests them: we can't, and shouldn't, stop that. But taking the example of political news, what we can do with a reasoned comment system like /. is create some semblance of debate -- imperfect and problematic -- but far superior to what we currently see on news websites. The NY Times has done a decent job of this actually. Not a system as good as /., where users have a bit more investment in sticking around and not trolling since modding is done by the community and sticks with you, as opposed to the invisible hand system of the NY Times.
How do you change human nature? (Score:4, Insightful)
With respect to TBL, he seems to be suggesting censorship. Twitter is designed to allow users to spew whatever arises in their minds, and to retransmit the ideas of others that you believe others should see. Who decides what's "reasoned debate" when it comes down to it?
It's been shown that human nature gravitates towards sensationalism. The craziest of rumors always travel the fastest and the furthest. The free speech model of Twitter, for better or for worse, only amplifies this tendency by making so much easier for it to happen.
Give everyone a soap box, and you get a lot of noise pollution.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't want to be improved. Twitter embraces that. Facebook too.
Re:I stopped reading.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Congrats on being a fuckwit.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an old internet tradition to take even mundane discussions, like your choice of editor, and turn them into a "holy war." This used to be done quite tongue-in-cheek but they've turned into actual holy wars by kids with a poor grasp of irony and even poorer reasoning skills. You can't debate with a religious fundamentalist who already knows The Truth.
Internet attracts noise. (Score:4, Insightful)
Reasonable people tend to NOT FUCKING CARE about internet debate. Instead they concentrate on their lives.
Re:Breaking down barriers ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, I don't think that the tendency to "tribalize" is as poisonous as many people like to suggest. For instance, there's nothing *wrong* with a group of African, Mexican, Venezuelan, Chinese, Korean, French, etc., immigrants electing to live, work, and associate with one another. They have shared cultures, shared backgrounds, shared languages - these are the things we fashion bonds of friendship from.
The real danger lies in the hardening of attitudes towards people outside your particular grouping that can come along with this tendency to segregate ourselves with like-minded people. Being open to meeting and learning from people outside your group without hostility is the key differentiator. Being *open* to diversity while tending to cluster together into groups with shared interests and values is a far better state of affairs than paying lip service to diversity while shouting down anybody who happens to disagree with or place different values on your tribe's shared values and interests.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Studies show that certainty is an emotion. Emotions are not arrived at through logical processes. People are not certain of what they know because it makes sense, they are certain of what they know because it feels good. Intellectual debate isn't intellectual. It is the same thing chimpanzees do, flinging poop at other chimps they don't like, only we use words.
And obviously, when I say "people" bunratty, I don't mean you or I. I mean those other buffoons, over there. No, not you either, you look smart enough. You know. The ones who disagree with us. Those guys are like chimps flinging poo.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:2, Insightful)
yep - perfect example of this divisive partisan rambling.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for group think, I can only offer the old platitude: be the change you want to see in the world. I won't positively mod stupidity even if its intent would be sympathetic to a position I hold. In fact, I get as much or more bothered by stupidity from "within" than "without" because I don't want some douche representing a good idea badly such that it turns people away.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:3, Insightful)
So then the Democrats are good. Right?
You sir are just another in a long line of people looking out for their own self interest.
You have nothing to add to this debate other than finger pointing at one side.
If you can not see, you can not be shown.
On the other side of this teacher debate you might start to ask why it is that in states where the teachers are paid the most correlate well
with states that have the worst education?
I am not saying that teachers should not be paid a decent market wage.
I am saying that seniority instead of merit based firing decisions can not but fail to produce good education.
Even though that would be best for the districts, schools and the students it is not done.
Why?
Because the union must protect its current members.
Teachers may care about students or not. Depending on the teacher.
Unions do not though care one bit about the students.
Republicans want more laws and regulations creating monopolies for their corporate puppet masters.
Democrats want more laws and regulations protecting private and public sector unions.
Republicans want a bigger government to serve corporations.
Democrats want a bigger government to serve unions.
Democrats and Republicans want Big Government to control the people.
I want a small government controlled by the people.
You choose your side. I will choose mine.
You better though understand the intentions of not just the other side but yours as well.
Damn!
Over the twitter limit.
Re:Reasoned Debate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cynicism is vastly overrated. If people did not want to be better than they are they would not have invented gods in order to have something better to which to aspire.
Optimism is vastly unrealistic. Primitive humanity didn't invent gods for inspiration. They prayed repeatedly and fervently for food, shelter, and life after death. Gods are the ultimate expression of man's self-centered nature.