One of the things that has always confused me about twitter is that it seems to be offering a threaded conversation model, yet it tries to "flatten" the conversation and render things in a linear timeline. I've always struggled to understand the full context of the tweet I'm reading (that is, where is this tweet in the full conversation?). Do others also struggle with this? Am I just Doing It Wrong?
I think it's a variation of Stockholm Syndrome at this point. I've used Twitter since early days, and the only reason I even keep an account is to keep the user name. But I quit regularly viewing Twitter going on probably close to ten years ago, and open it in some form maybe once a week to look at a specific post (not just browse).
So, as one who doesn't use the interface very often: it's a fucking dumpster fire. If one were one of today's 10K, seeing Twitter for the first time, imagine explaining how to read a thread (no, you are not allowed to direct the n00b to a 3rd-party tool such as Nitter). It would appear to me, a not-regular user, that Twitter tries to do threaded conversations and fails miserably. As with parent comment, finding the context quickly turns into actual work. Someone must get value out of Twitter if they put up with all this, but that someone is not me. At the end of the day, I find Twitter to just not be worth the trouble anymore.
I used to think exactly this - whatever Twitter has that makes it so popular, it can’t be its dumpster fire UI. But in the last year I finally got into it and it became a go-to place for me at certain times of day to get a kind of social/conversational fix that is just not provided by any other social networks. At some point I realised I no longer find the UI baffling, I seem to sail around it intuitively and enjoy it. Now I think it might be a smart decision not to ‘fix’ it. Yes you are constantly hunting around for the context of things, but I wonder if that’s a big part of what makes it work, makes it more enjoyable for your social brain. It’s that sense of “what’s going on? What’s this thing about?” and then being rewarded, over and over. It’s the closest thing online to a bustling marketplace where you bump into people you see often and overhear interesting things that draw you in.
OMG, Yes! I can't understand anything about it's interface. Sometimes there's a moderately straightforward discussion, other times, random, completely unrelated things show up looking like replies, but obviously aren't. Still other times the thing being linked to is a reply to something I can't see. It makes zero sense and I avoid going to Twitter if at all possible.
It is a plainly idiotic user interface and threading model and the fact that it's lasted so long looks to me like evidence of extreme dysfunction within the company.
Consider also their privacy model. Twitter is the only website I have ever been a user of that lets me see more information if I log out than I can see when I'm logged in (i.e. the tweets of anybody who has blocked me). Deep confusion is on display at every turn.
The fact that it's lasted this long is evidence that it doesn't matter enough to the end user to be worth changing. If it were Hacker News people would be saying "if it isn't broken, don't fix it." And people using Twitter despite its user interface - even putting in the effort to work around it, implies that it isn't really broken.
People also just suffer silently. Buggy, confusing, incorrect, whatever it may be, in my experience a lot of people just put up with all of it and never think to complain or look for alternatives. I find this especially true of less technical people who often think bugs are due to something they did wrong.
I think people have been trained to feel helpless about what companies do to them, especially when it comes to tech companies. It's very much not just a problem with tech, but tech gives companies new and easy ways to force things on their users long after the sale is completed. Everyone's been conditioned to accept things like sudden and unexpected changes. The websites they visit do it, so does the software on their computers, their consoles, and their cell phones.
There was some grumbling from uppity Windows users when forced updates/upgrades and reboots were pushed onto them, and I thought things might start to change but those things are still around (although the reboot thing was walked back a little) and now people are slowly being made to get used to hosting all their data on 3rd party servers and never being sure if/when it will be suddenly and unexpectedly be removed and inaccessible. Today there are stories of people who had their YT video or their repository removed, or lost access to books/music/games/movies they paid to be able to download/stream/play etc. Car companies are now disabling or pay-walling off features people already had when they purchased the vehicle.
I don't know if I'm just suffering from confirmation bias but it seems like this feature is used as a form of soft censorship, to discourage users from reading certain threads, as it appears to disproportionately pop up on "controversial" topics where right of center opinions are likely to be expressed.
That's exactly the case, and its not at all limited to "right of center" positions. Accounts that are deemed undesirable by Twitter for whatever reason (usually involving posts that go counter to mainstream narratives) have all of their replies to every post listed after "see more replies" to reduce their visibility. And beneath "see more replies" you will often see another "show posts that may be offensive" that you have to click on to see even more replies from users Twitter finds less desirable still. Very frequently none of these posts will be offensive in any way. Those who have their posts under these extended tabs also don't give notifications to those they are replying to. It's censorship and information manipulation from top to bottom on Twitter.
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
LOL there's a fun one. What's next, writing a new arbitrary definition so that pinching people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is also censorship?
There are reasons the formal definition of censorship focuses on the actions of the state. One of them is that decisions about which speech to carry or amplify (and which to not) in the context of private means are themselves rights of speech.
If you disagree, I look forward to you sending me your address and letting me put signs of my choice up on your lawn. After all as a principled defender of speech, you wouldn't want to "suppress" what I have to say by not giving me the privilege of putting whatever words I choose there.
The funny thing, though, is that even by your altered definition, what the ancestor comments are talking about here still isn't censorship -- even assuming that there's some basis on which to assume systematic click-to-read-more-ificitaion of "right of center" ideas other than "some dude on the internet feels like it might be true", it's not even that Twitter is taking the words down and making the ideas unavailable, it's that they're somewhat less convenient to actually read and you have to put extra clicks in. This has all the "suppression" of a downvote, a mechanism I'd wager you've recently used.
But hey. If you value discourse so little as to equate both "have to make extra clicks to read someone's hot take on some sites/apps (freedom to choose other sites/apps still quite intact)" and "face imprisonment for expression of certain ideas" under the umbrella of censorship, the good news is that free speech rights let you do that.
What are you on about? Certain ideas are made more difficult to express by a defacto authority (twitter). That's censorship, by definition.
>If you value discourse so little as to equate both
Censorship is a spectrum. Hence my original choice of the word "soft". Honestly it sounds like you're upset that someone noticed the suppression of right leaning opinions and are effectively deflecting by pretending that this isn't censorship, rather than acknowledging that it's happening. I don't think you even realize how disingenuous you're being if that's the case.
> Certain ideas are made more difficult to express
Which ones? Describe a few. Try not to embarrass yourself by either picking something for which someone could actually find a tweet embodying the idea, or by demonstrating that what you're talking about is actually not, in fact, so much an idea.
> by a defacto authority
Twitter is not an authority. It's one of many fora.
> That's censorship, by definition.
Nope. By definition, censorship describes activity by the state. You might productively stretch the definition to any other entity that can use physical force in the same manor a censorous state does to selectively deprive people of liberty or health on the basis of speech opposed by said entity, but that's it.
> Hence my original choice of the word "soft".
ie, indicating that in actual fact, no speech has actually been suppressed at all.
> Honestly it sounds like you're upset that someone noticed the suppression of right leaning opinions
"Noticed," heh. Like, with some kind of evidence? Not anecdotal, analytical? Systemic suppression of right wing opinions?
Can you describe which right wing opinions are being suppressed -- apparently to the point where I haven't even heard these opinions?
> I don't think you even realize how disingenuous you're being if that's the case.
Speaking of disingenuous, like I said above, please send me your address. Or tell me why I shouldn't be able to compel you to carry posters/signs I'd like to see displayed on your property.
Are you also one of those people who pretend that twitter, facebook, and google don't lean left in their moderation?
>Can you describe which right wing opinions are being suppressed -- apparently to the point where I haven't even heard these opinions?
Another in a series of strawmen. Again, I called it soft censorship. The fact that these opinions exist on these platforms does not imply that they are not made more difficult to communicate. But it sure does make it easy for people to weasily claim that no suppression is occurring.
This "show more replies" trick typically loads 3 comments at a time with a half second delay. Compare that to scrolling through hundreds of posts in an uncensored thread. Far fewer people are going to see those tweets. It's an obvious form of information manipulation - why else would it be done?
>Or tell me why I shouldn't be able to compel you to carry posters/signs I'd like to see displayed on your property.
My property is not a public square frequented by millions of people, including world leaders like Trump, whom I'll remind you was banned from twitter. I don't care about your weak rationalization for the ban, the point is that twitter does not need to be a nation state satisfy the definition of a censor. And if millions fewer eyes are landing on certain topics because of what is effectively a dark pattern, that's suppression, that's censorship, at the very least in spirit because certain information is being made more difficult to communicate. It's dishonest to pretend it isn't happening just because you agree with it, but I guess it helps with your cognitive dissonance over authoritarianism?
> Are you also one of those people who pretend that twitter, facebook, and google don't lean left in their moderation?
I'm one of those people who requires evidence for the assertion that there's some systemic left lean on any of those platforms.
I'm also able to observe plenty of speech by people who identify themselves as right-wing/conservative being propagated via Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
I'm also aware that some people like to make charges of oppression so they can "work the refs" in order to gain privileges.
> Another in a series of strawmen.
Strawman has a definition too. Just because there's something you don't like about it doesn't make it a strawman.
Censorship requires an idea actually being suppressed (and by the state). If that hasn't happened, what is happening is not censorship.
> Again, I called it soft censorship.
And again, I pointed out that this is a contradiction in terms -- the very phrasing admits that what is happening is not censorship, however much you'd like it conceptually associated without meeting the definition.
> The fact that these opinions exist on these platforms does not imply that they are not made more difficult to communicate.
Even if you're backing away from the idea that there are some viewpoints that are censored outright, the same question applies: do you have any evidence that "show more replies" systemically applies to any particular political pole? Because I can guarantee you I see "show more replies" across a wide range of topics, many of which are more or less apolitical (hey, here's one I just saw this happening, a thread about someone's divorce: https://twitter.com/moonbm_dmr/status/1512515632864145431 , oh hey, here's another one, gender reveal party: https://twitter.com/AriWRees/status/1512581194491183104 ), some of which are progressive as hell (here's one basically affirming a progressive vision of Christianity https://twitter.com/Brcremer/status/1512775185572671492 but it's cut short by "show more replies" insert is-this-censorship-butterfly-jpeg here).
But even if it were, the hypothetical you're talking about is no longer about censorship, but what is privileged. And Twitter's own free speech rights actually protect their decisions about what is privileged, actually let them choosing the structure of what they amplify and what they do not. They have the same rights that a political party or Fox News or any other private organization (explicitly partisan or not) have to determine how speech unfolds within their bounds.
That even extends to what they decide not to carry at all.
The authoritarians are those who suggest that a privately created and sustained platform be compelled to carry arbitrary speech. Compelled not to exercise their own preferences and opinions in moderating.
Compelled speech is not free speech. And compelled speech is therefore not anti-censorship.
> why else would it be done?
Off the top of my head because they think it helps engagement metrics with the platform as a whole, likely under some model with a law of diminishing returns for any given thread. Seems pretty obvious to me. But maybe that's only the kind of actual underlying technical dynamic that people who are thinking beyond partisanship and in principled analytical terms about this topic can see.
> my property is not a public square frequented by millions of people
Disneyland is frequented by millions too. It remains private.
Twitter is a forum, but it is not public. Those who run it can choose to run it in accordance with their own principles, within the bounds of law. Their property is as private as Disneyland's -- or as yours, choices about the scale of visitors they invite notwithstanding. They have as much right to set the terms within their places as you do with yours.
> world leaders like Trump, whom I'll remind you was banned from twitter.
Twitter has no general legal obligation to carry any individual's speech, so they could do this for any reason or no reason. As it happens, they chose to do it for specific reasons which were violations of their clearly articulate terms, and this after years of indulgence toward Trump crossing the line repeatedly.
> I don't care about your weak rationalization
Calling a rationale weak doesn't make it so. In fact, choosing to narrate your way to affirmation of your position is often a sign that you don't think you have a better tack.
> it's dishonest to pretend it isn't happening just because you agree with it,
I don't think it's happening because I haven't seen anyone present evidence that supports this position and because it is quite clear that conservative ideas are loudly and commonly represented. As for who's "pretending", observant readers will note that you keep avoiding/ignoring this point.
Some observant readers might even assume that the reason you imagine others are taking a position on twitter's policies "just because you agree with it" is because that's how the human being you know best from the inside out works, but that would surely be speculation.
> I guess it helps with your cognitive dissonance over authoritarianism?
As loose with the definition of authoritarianism as you've been with the definition of censorship, are you?
I believe that every person or institution has the legal and moral right to make decisions about which speech is valuable -- that this is itself a free speech right. I may be obligated to let others use their means to make speech, but I am in no way obligated to carry anyone's speech that I disagree with, and I am in no way forbidden from assigning different value to different speech when it comes to how I administer my means.
You appear to believe that under some circumstances, some private parties (conservatives?) should be able to forbid other private parties (Twitter?) from making systemic or individual judgments about how they carry, value, or present speech in fora that belongs to them. That sure seems more authoritarian to me.
>I'm also able to observe plenty of speech by people who identify themselves as right-wing/conservative being propagated via Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, that these opinions still exist on the platform does not imply that they are not being suppressed. Yes, this is a strawman, because I'm not arguing that they are completely banned, as you're implying.
>I believe that every person or institution has the legal and moral right to make decisions about which speech is valuable
It's really odd how you devote about half of your ramblings to claiming that censorship/suppression are not occurring on twitter, and the other half defending their freedom to do so (which I'm not even arguing against, I just think it's slimy and potentially dangerous to society). While also disingeniously rationalizing the behavior by insisting that it isn't censorship if twitter is not a state.
Oh, anyone who's followed our exchange can tell you're into repetition. Almost like a religious mantra.
And while there's a lot I could also repeat here, the following is the only novel ground we haven't covered yet and it's ... interesting:
> It's really odd how you devote about half of your ramblings to claiming that censorship/suppression are not occurring on twitter, and the other half defending their freedom to do so
You really think that's odd? I mean, that's not just "LOL", that's "chef's kiss LOL."
In either exploration or argument, it's entirely standard to both refute an assertion, and then for thoroughness sake to also look down the road and say "let's say we accept your assertion, here's why it doesn't mean what you think it means."
This is not only honest, it's thorough. And if you think it's strange, then it sure seems like you're... pretty new to exploratory or argumentative discussion.
That wasn't an arbitrary definition invented by GP to make a point. It was copied from Wikipedia.
Major dictionaries agree that censorship is not limited to government censorship. For example Webster defines “to censor” as “to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable”
> Having to click on individual tweets to see their replies
I'm not sure that even works -- when I go to a tweet in a "thread" I see there are replies but I can't figure out how to view them. All I see are the rest of the tweets in the "thread".
I've completely given up on seeing replies to tweets mid-thread. I'm too dumb to grok Twitter's UI.
Clicking the text of the specific tweet in the thread should show the replies. I always click the little speech bubble in the bottom-left, which is the icon to show replies in all other interfaces, but that just pops up the Reply feature and I get aggravated every time.
Does that work? On the occasions when I read a post on Twitter (by following a link, since I don't use it) and I press "see replies" I always get to see the same replies again.
Second: I think they are leaning into the surprising and sometimes pleasing juxtaposition of conversations that can be happening "close" to each other. Like, I'll click into a tweet, and generally the first "thread" is the one where the OP replies to themselves - but that's not always the case! Sometimes another reply is more popular and they will swap it.
I think they are trying to give you a sense of how the conversation has gone - when they break the thread they are showing you that, based on activity, other people are ignoring the thread and paying attention to this other thread. It messes you up if all you want to do is see what the OP said, but if you are there to see "why people care about this tweet" (also common) it's important to understand where things fell apart.
I think it’s intentional on Twitter’s part. It’s FOMO: you see a hot take out of context and now your brain ~~wants~~ needs to know what the hell is going on, so you reward Twitter’s algorithm with lots of tasty engagement in your effort to figure out who pissed everyone off.
Yeah, this seems to be the endgame of the whole engagement maximizer craze: If struggling with an app because you can't find the function you're looking for counts as "engagement", then the obvious strategy is to make apps as hard to use as possible.
Twitter is terrible as a social platform. It's a great platform to get quick news about something. Obviously platforms like these thrive during eventful times. Just look at who is posting about the Ukraine/Russia war. But it's not about dialogue or threads. It's only consumption.
Wow, I thought it was just me. I've tried to "get into" twitter for the past decade, but I could never figure out how to read threads. I just gave up after a while because I was too proud to hunt for an explainer article somewhere. And I have too much noise in my life anyway...
> One of the things that has always confused me about twitter is that it seems to be offering a threaded conversation model, yet it tries to "flatten" the conversation and render things in a linear timeline.
They do not flatten it to a linear timeline, they "optimize" it by mixing in the important sub-threads. Generally they show only the first level of replies. and then they optimize it by also showing some replies to those replies, which can go down pretty deep. So basically they give the thread, but selectively hide the unimportant parts. I understand the reasoning here, as there popular tweets can gain many replies of which most are just noise. But the actual result is a clusterfuck of experience which only makes it worse.
And lately they even made it worse, because now they also show irrelevant tweets under the normal tweet-view, and it's hard to see where the original tweet ended.
I think if you tried you could understand why it looks the way it does. There replies are rendered under what they are replying to. Do you have any example of what you think is being displayed incorrectly?
are way, way off screen (except for the self replies). And when you scroll down to them it's not clear if they're replies to the first tweet, the last, or the middle.
Every tweet under the tweet are a reply if they don't have a line connecting them to a previous tweet. The ones that have lines up are replies to the tweet the line connects to.
Thanks, looks like you're right. That's some counterintuitive UX right there, requiring the user to scroll several pages just to see a mid-thread comment. Wonder why they don't just put the replies immediately below the tweet they're replying to.
What you are seeing in that thread is the OP replying to themselves to create a thread of related tweets. They believe that seeing the whole thread of the OP is more important than what could be 1000s of replies to the original tweet.
I also found Facebook too confusing to use back when I briefly tried it around 2009. A friend who'd been on it since it was still exclusive to some universities assured me it made a lot more sense a year or two before that, but by then, it was too confusing for me and I bounced off fast.
I spend a lot of time hiding whole comment subtrees when browsing Reddit threads, especially on mobile. I'd do that on HN too except HN's UI is completely mobile-hostile with how tiny its buttons are. I don't fault Twitter for picking the opposite default.
In small discussions where most people are interested in every detail being followed up on, HN and Reddit's style is nicer. In popular discussions where every individual message has too many replies to care about and most people don't care to see every single subthread to completion, Twitter's style is much nicer because you can just scroll without repeatedly hitting buttons to avoid getting caught in way too deep subthreads every single message.
You'll see more ads and promoted content if you click through threads. Whenever you click a tweet to read through its threaded replies, sponsored content blocks refresh even if the page itself is an SPA that doesn't do a full browser refresh.
