Twitter Is Testing An 'Undo' Option After Sending Tweets (cnn.com) 18
Twitter is working on a feature that could offer users a short window of time to rethink posting a tweet even after they hit send. CNN reports: The company confirmed to CNN Business on Friday it is testing an undo option that would potentially let users retract or correct a tweet before it's officially posted on the platform. The feature was discovered by Jane Manchun Wong, an app developer who has a strong track record of uncovering new tools on social networks before they're released. Wong posted a GIF on Twitter that shows a blue "undo" bar appearing beneath the words "Your Tweet was sent." (It's possible the feature could change before it formally rolls out -- if it ever does.) It's not quite the edit button users have long requested, but it's a step toward helping users proactively catch errors and slow down before sending impulse tweets.
AKA Delete (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What it probably does it delay it before it hits public view. Which only means that tweet conversations will be slower. Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you mark "Final Answer!" and then no delay.... which everyone will default to, because, if they really cared they'd just type up their tweets in some offline thing, mull it over, and only after careful consideration would they share it.
This is a feature looking for a use case. There really just isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect for all those tweets that people put out there and not realize what they're actually saying.
Either way, you should be blocking twitter and its holdings outright. It's a cesspool.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between reading shit written on twitter and using twitter.
I also dont contribute to the local and quite terrible newspaper, but sometimes I read some of it.
The thing to understand is that it is those that "contribute" that make twitter terrible. Twitter users have accounts. Mere readers don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I also dont contribute to the local and quite terrible newspaper, but sometimes I read some of it.
If everyone reads but no one pays to subscribe, then the newspaper gets all of its revenue from advertising.
Advertising-supported news means attracting eyeballs rather than building a loyal customer base. The result is sensationalism and garbage journalism.
You should find a quality source of news, and PAY FOR IT.
For me, it is The Economist [economist.com]. I have both a print and digital subscription. Other than my morning news brief from Alexa while I am making breakfast, it is my main source of news.
Re: (Score:2)
You should find a quality source of news, and PAY FOR IT.
A good suggestion. I'd go a step further and suggest two sources of news that have different biases, but I appreciate that this is both time consuming and an additional burden financially.
For me, it is The Economist [economist.com]. I have both a print and digital subscription. Other than my morning news brief from Alexa while I am making breakfast, it is my main source of news.
I read the print version for many years, and still leech off their online offerings on an intermittent basis. My main problem with them, and the reason I stopped buying the magazine (other than reading time constraints), was their unquestioning support of, and advocacy for, neoliberal economics.
Would you say this is still
Re: (Score:2)
it'll reduce the entertainment value (Score:2)
Delusions. (Score:1)
Like in the movies, where if somebody deletes a file online, somebody else's window with that fil open closes, or what?
There is no undo in communication. There is only undo theater.
As in: Somebody will have kept it, and will take it out at the worst possible moment, because oblivious you thought it was gone forever.
An extremely old and common feature (Score:1)
I'm glad CNN is keeping us up to date on which basic app functionality Twitter might implement or not.
Email programs have had the feature of delayed-send with cancel option for... 10 years? 15?
Refusal to add edit (Score:2)
Amygdala (Score:3)
The thing about Twitter's character limitation is that 280 characters is good for short angry outbursts but very challenging for nuanced and balanced thinking. So the form encourages the function, even leaving out the jeering crowd mentality that it amplifies.
People may be shitty to each other here, sometimes, but at least there is sufficient space to not be.
Nobody ever stopped to think what they were doing by building a human communications system that has this limitation - it was just an SMS routing hub