> What you're saying is that we should optimise the way we debate things to please the algorithm and maximise user engagement instead of maximising quality content and encouraging deep reflexions
Not at all, in my opinion being able to interact with every piece of an exchange allows to dig down into specific points of a debate.
There is a soft stop at the end of every tweet because it's a conversation and not a presentation. It's an interactive piece of information and not a printed newspaper. You can interact during the thread and it might change its outcome.
When you are the person interacting, it's similar to a real life conversation. You can cut someone and talk about something else at any time. The focus conversation will shift for a short moment and then come back to the main topic.
For someone arriving after the fact, you have a time machine of the entire conversation.
---
About the link, it is only the first result on Google because I don't use those services and not me vetting for this specific one. I also use ad blockers at all levels (from pi-hole to browser extension to VPN level blocking), so I don't see ads online.
If I go meta for a second, this is the perfect example of how breaking ideas into different tweets can be useful.
Were I to share your comment on its own, it contains that information about a link that is not useful to anyone but you and I.
For someone reading our comments, they have to go through this interaction on the ads and this product. If instead this were two tweets it would have allowed us to comment on this in parallel. If it was HN, imagine if you had made two replies under my comments and we could have commented under each. However, that's the wrong way on this platform.
Not at all, in my opinion being able to interact with every piece of an exchange allows to dig down into specific points of a debate.
There is a soft stop at the end of every tweet because it's a conversation and not a presentation. It's an interactive piece of information and not a printed newspaper. You can interact during the thread and it might change its outcome.
When you are the person interacting, it's similar to a real life conversation. You can cut someone and talk about something else at any time. The focus conversation will shift for a short moment and then come back to the main topic.
For someone arriving after the fact, you have a time machine of the entire conversation.
---
About the link, it is only the first result on Google because I don't use those services and not me vetting for this specific one. I also use ad blockers at all levels (from pi-hole to browser extension to VPN level blocking), so I don't see ads online.
If I go meta for a second, this is the perfect example of how breaking ideas into different tweets can be useful.
Were I to share your comment on its own, it contains that information about a link that is not useful to anyone but you and I.
For someone reading our comments, they have to go through this interaction on the ads and this product. If instead this were two tweets it would have allowed us to comment on this in parallel. If it was HN, imagine if you had made two replies under my comments and we could have commented under each. However, that's the wrong way on this platform.