Archive for Tweetwaffle

The dreaded Dislike Button

No, I didn’t.

There hasn’t been a lot of conversation about it because Twitter hides their negative option quite well and it does not appear consistently. Of a dozen or more tweets I looked at, I saw “I don’t like this tweet” only a few times. (Twitter wouldn’t elaborate on how often or under what conditions the option appears.) Plus, the Yin to Twitter’s “like” heart Yang, doesn’t show up in your stream. Still, the language could not be clearer.

Is this a Good Thing? Not necessarily:

Disliking a tweet in the heat of the moment applies a long-time sentiment to your Twitter timeline for a temporary feeling. You can undo it in the moment, but not go back later when you feel differently.

More importantly, we’ve already seen what the “like” up-voting opinion bubble does on Facebook. Last year, people kept liking content that synced with their values and beliefs and ignoring (or maybe choosing “angry”) for anything that didn’t. Facebook’s EdgeRank algorithm expertly scrubbed all the non-conforming stuff so Facebook users could live in their perfect social media thought bubbles.

Twitter’s decision, in September 2016 (just two months before the presidential election), to give us a dislike option for tweets could have had the same effect. The platform is already polarized.

Is it ever. And “mute” doesn’t seem to work consistently: should you have someone muted, it doesn’t mean that someone else can’t retweet that someone right back into your timeline. The “dislike” function doesn’t seem to work with TweetDeck at all.

Comments (3)

Heard instinct

It doesn’t happen often, but when it does I feel an ever-so-slight urge to strut a bit:

High temperature in OKC today was 81°F. There have been a couple of days in Februarys past when we saw 90 or more, but I don’t see any of those on the horizon.


A politics-free zone

In the best of all possible worlds, the entire world would be a politics-free zone. But this isn’t happening:

I started following a few “pretty pictures” accounts on Twitter to try to counteract a lot of the political stuff that’s being discussed on there. And then guess what: yesterday afternoon an account or two of them suddenly decided that it was time to get political.

They chose … poorly.

I think about a lot of this, and I think about something the survivalist types talk about, the whole “head on a swivel” idea — that every public place now is Potentially Dangerous, so you need to be in a state of heightened awareness and that just exhausts me and makes me want to be a hermit. I mean, I have halfway-decent situational awareness just because I’m observant and my history of being teased and made the butt of jokes makes me super sensitive to “hey, this thing isn’t quite right in my environment” but the idea of thinking of five escape routes for every part of the wal-mart I might happen to be in just makes me exhausted, and makes me almost want to say, “Okay, if a crazed shooter wants to take me out while I’m buying frozen cauliflower, then it was my time to go, and hopefully I’ll have that last chance to ask forgiveness for my sins before I die…”

And I think the being hyper-aware of political stuff is similar.

I stick by what I said yesterday to a friend in Canada:

And if anyone should come back with “But … but we’re marginalized!” I’m going to reply “Yet I can still hear you.”

Comments (1)

In which I hit a nerve

Apparently I did well with the Friday Twitter burst of #FactCheckASong, delighting several with this one:

My apologies to the late Harry Nilsson, who argued on behalf of an integer.

And frankly, I liked this one better, but it didn’t get much in the way of traction:

No figuring these Twitter folk.

Comments (2)

Tweeting up a storm

I promised myself I wouldn’t get bogged down on Twitter during the election returns.

As I probably should have expected, I failed miserably:

Your Tweets earned 7,374 impressions over the last 24 hours

Although this doesn’t compare with the 22nd of October, during which I picked up 19,738 impressions with a lot less controversy.

Comments (1)

Poor, poor, pitiful she

“Why does nobody follow my social media?” she wails:

Well I tell a little lie, I do get a few followers now and then, on Instagram, Twitter and so on, I don’t use Facebook anymore, but I don’t have as many as some people and when I do get followers, they don’t even appreciate what I have to post, otherwise what was the point in them following me in the first place? I don’t what I’m doing wrong. Everyone else just seems to have it easy. They can get away with posting selfies of themselves and gets lots of likes and comments for them, I’ve never gotten anything like that in my life. I think I must come off as fake to people. But nothing about me is fake at all, whatever I post is true to what is happening in my life in the present moment. People seem to be inspired by others’ happiness but my own. Say I post a picture of me smiling, nobody gives a damn. It doesn’t feel fair. I’m a human being too with interests, passions and hobbies like everyone else.

I’ve always assumed that my vast social-media following has been due to my mad grammar skillz.

Still, this is worrisome, because someone who thinks she’s entitled to X amount of attention on screen probably thinks she’s entitled to comparable levels of attention in Real Life. Of such is madness born.

Comments (2)

The roll I was on

Short, but not too big around:

One of those was automated. That leaves 38 tweets actually typed in, over a period of 60 minutes. Maybe my brain isn’t totally addled after all.

Comments off

Tweets to come

A prediction by Christopher Johnson:

Twitter, the single greatest collection of idiots, morons and nitwits ever assembled in one place anywhere in the universe, will eventually become so gigantic that it will collapse in upon itself and form a massive Black Hole of Stupidity which will destroy existence as we know it.

Compare this outcome to the one projected by Conan O’Brien:

In the year 3000, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook will merge into one super time-wasting site called YouTwitFace.

I don’t think it will take that long, really.

Comments (2)

There’s always another obstacle

In this case:

Sometimes, that thin wire is all you have.

Comments off

Heck of a deal

Wonder if I’d get any takers:

Prices, I assume, may vary.

Comments off

Still nothing new under the sun

For example:

And by gum, al-Ghazali was right.

Comments (1)

Follow lying fallow

There’s always someone out there bewailing his meager Twitter following, and you can’t tell them that this is in fact the natural order of things:

[I]f you’ve noticed that you don’t have many Twitter followers of your own, it’s probably just due to the simple fact that you are following the people that everyone else in the world is following. The idea that your friends are (seemingly) more popular than you is known as the friendship paradox — a phenomenon observed by sociologist Scott L. Feld in the early ’90s — which claims that there is a greater chance that someone with more friends will be your friend than someone with fewer friends.

Similarly, the beach isn’t as crowded as you think it is.

A recent study published in the Plos One journal related this concept to social media and specifically Twitter followers, suggesting that the people you follow on Twitter are more likely to have more followers than you. This is because those people who you follow are socially active; their lives full of exciting activities that influence and inspire the general population.

And should you conclude that since you’re socially inactive, your life devoid of exciting activities that influence and inspire the general population — well, how surprised were you to hear that?


[I]t’s the real-life human interactions that truly count. Whether you have five friends or 50 or 500 is of little importance in the grand scheme of life.

And I am quite confident that my position in the 96th percentile of Twitter users is purely a factor of my spending entirely too much time on it.

Comments (1)

Foot, meet bullet

A smile from last night:

They didn’t say “Delete your account,” but apparently the foul-mouthed slob did.

Comments (4)

It doesn’t work that way

Unless things have changed a whole lot more than I think they have, and I have no reason to think they have:

Screenshot from Twitter: Jesus Christ followed you

Then again, that’s about what I said when that notification came in.

Comments (1)

Shortable stock

It is no secret that Twitter is losing money hand over fist. It’s easy, I suppose, to blame corporate governance, such as it is, but maybe there’s something else at work:

My thought is that for every new person who tries to express coherent thoughts in bursts of 140 characters or less, at least one current user discovers that even when it can be done no one is interested and quits. Apparently there is a limit to the number of people who figure the best response to a watered-down oversimplified knee-jerk reaction to an event or statement is to squawk out another one.

If nothing else, this would explain user growth, of which they have had essentially none.

Comments off

The turn of a friendly card

Twitter cards have been around for several years, but I couldn’t remember ever seeing one. I did, finally, get dealt one last night, as a thank-you-for-sharing response by an Alaskan fashion blogger:

I guess that’s kind of neat in its own way, and it probably doesn’t carry too much of a bandwidth payload. Then again, I’m inclined to think that the idea of an Alaskan fashion blogger is kind of neat in its own way — especially one with an umlaut.

Comments off

Artificial tweetener

As of yesterday, the Windows version of TweetDeck is dead, dead, dead; I reluctantly switched over to the Web version, which I deemed marginally acceptable at best. If I find a reasonable workalike, I vowed, that’s where I’m going.

This is where I wound up:

Tweeten is available for Windows 10, 8, and 7. Our Windows app is currently in beta, and you can download it from the links below.

There followed links; there are OSX and Chrome versions as well. I jumped. It looks about as much like TweetDeck as is algorithmically possible without being actionable, and it doesn’t eat a browser tab while so doing. According to Tweeten’s profile, it was “Developed by @mehedih_ and @gus33000” in England and France. The first of those chaps is Mehedi Hassan, deputy editor of If he sees me with a hat, I will take it off the moment I recognize him.

There are, inevitably, some things that scream “Beta!” The Light theme is indistinguishable from the Dark theme, and column widths don’t seem to be adjustable despite a toggle. On the upside, it doesn’t scroll stupidly the way TweetDeck always did, which is reason enough to keep it right there.

Comments off

The ghosts of Olympic Stadium

This seems a reasonable question to ask in 2016, and the Washington Post duly asks it: Why does a long-dead baseball club need a Twitter account?

The Montreal Expos don’t exist anymore. They’re a defunct brand that hasn’t seen the light of day since 2004. But they almost certainly have way more Twitter followers than you do.

By a factor of, oh, let’s say, twenty.

Baseball fans scrolling through their Twitter feeds today might have noticed a ghostly presence popping intermittently onto their screens. That’s because the Expos, dead for the last dozen years, appear to have somehow acquired the tweeting habits of a bored teenage girl who can’t stop thinking about her ex-boyfriend.

Then again, there is method in this seeming madness:

Montreal baseball fans were excited to be hosting a pair of spring training games this weekend between the Toronto Blue Jays and Boston Red Sox. This marks the third straight year the Jays have concluded their spring exhibition schedule at Olympic Stadium, site of all those fuzzy Expos memories of yore. It’s a fun occasion for the expected 100,000 fans descending on the area, and, more importantly, it’s a chance for the city to show Major League Baseball that it craves a team again.

I note, just for amusement value, that the Expos’ account is on three Twitter lists, while the account of the Washington Nationals, the current designation for that franchise, is on only two. (I’m on 121, but don’t ask.)

And the Expos responded to the WaPo this way:

Also a reasonable question to ask in 2016.

Comments (1)

Still doing it wrong

The standalone TweetDeck client is being killed off:

Twitter announced today it is shutting down the TweetDeck app for windows on April 15.

Which they buried in the third paragraph of a new-features promo.

And why would they phase out arguably the most popular version of an application for which they paid £25 million five years ago? Why do you think?

Twitter’s plan is to push all users to for their advertisement revenue.

Yeah, right. They just dished up a 4.0 version; I’m betting that they tried, and failed, to wedge ads into it.

In the meantime, will continue to work in browsers. Maybe. They did mention Chrome.

Comments (2)

Listing this way or that

I have never taken advantage of Twitter’s “List” function, mostly out of a misplaced concern that I might concentrate on one group of tweeters at the expense of all the others; if I need to monitor a concept or a hashtag, I can always create a temporary column in TweetDeck. And frankly, I’m not all that comfortable with associating people’s names with, say, “women with whom I have no chance whatsoever, dammit” or “people who perversely believe that Trixie is Best Pony.”

That said, I’m on 121 lists compiled by other people, and the vast majority of them are “people I know” or “people who hang on #blogchat.” Nothing particularly accusative. Two of them, however, do make me smile: Writer’s point and Online Media. They help to preserve the illusion that I have something to say.

Comments off

You still talk too much

This happened last night:

75000 tweets

Since the 26th of October, the date of my 70,000th tweet, I’ve picked up 94 followers and I’m following 64 more people.

Of course, the scary statistic is this one: 5000 tweets in 116 days. That’s forty-three a day.

Comments (2)

Mustard out

These items were next to each other in my tweetstream last night, around a quarter to nine:

TweetDeck screenshot featuring mustard references

“Yeah, they were all yellow” — Coldplay

Comments off

Changing with the times

I really don’t have much of a counterargument for this:

I have a similar annual spend. Then again, I probably have more posts than most.

Comments (1)

Tweetier than thou

It began here:

Seventy thousand tweets later, where it stands.

Comments off

Exception noted

Monday morning, Twitter was glitching all over the place, prompting this observation:

I’d say that Brian J. begs to differ, except for the fact that I can imagine no circumstances under which Brian J. would beg.

Anyway, I put up a correction.

Comments off

Multiple death syndrome

I’ve been wanting to know this myself: Why is Leslie Nielsen STILL dead?

This week there have been waves of online sympathy over the passing of actor Leslie Nielsen prompting many to quote their favourite and most memorable lines from films such as Airplane! and The Naked Gun.

The only trouble is Nielsen actually died in November 2010 aged 84.

That didn’t stop thousands of online users sharing this BBC story without checking the date and so it appeared that Nielsen had just died.

As a result the article popped up in the “Most Read” section which resulted in even more people sharing it. And the snowball rolled on gathering weight. Many people shared their own personal tributes on Twitter and then felt foolish when they discovered the truth.

One possible explanation:

[I]f a person’s celebrity is below a certain level some of their fans may have missed news of their original death. And if they randomly search to find out whatever happened to a star, they may discover a report of their hero’s death, but not notice the date stamp. And so another snowball starts rolling downhill.

It’s chaos theory making its presence known via social media. An entirely innocent variation of the Butterfly Effect.

Fortunately, it’s easy to check up on Abe Vigoda.

(Via Fark.)

Comments (10)

Predictive smartassery

Christmas morning, I was bleary-eyed and running about 60 percent brain function, but I still managed to come up with this:

No response. (Too early, you think?) Then, an hour later, this showed up:

Bless you, Mr Harvey, sir.

Comments (5)

Citation unneeded

There’s a practical limit to how much you can squeeze into 140 characters, and by now you’d think that everyone would know that. Apparently not:

I sometimes wonder how narcissists manage to get by in the world unless they’re wealthy or politically influential enough to attract a flock of sycophants eager to tell them that their egocentric Weltanschauung is correct. It must be crushing for them to be reminded on a daily basis that the universe absolutely does not give a shit about them, and that most of their fellow humans care hardly a particle more than that. Of course, I’m assuming that they aren’t completely delusional; perhaps they go about distorting everything they hear and experience until it supports their own grotesquely-inflated sense of self-importance. I can’t imagine any other way that some random tweeter with a couple of dozen followers could actually expect a positive response to his demands that I produce citations and links for statements made in 140-character tweets. Yet I encountered not one but several of these last week; these champions of Not Getting It apparently failed to grasp the difference between a tweet and an academic paper until I none-too-gently reminded them that a tweet looks like this and an academic paper like this.

I have seen activists tweet back at people to the effect of “Shouldn’t you be getting your own information?” At first this seemed a bit high-handed; but it eventually occurred to me that finding my own links to stuff would stick better than just having them give me a bunch of links to stuff, and besides, there’s a better chance I’d hear more than a single side to the story while doing my own searching. So no, I don’t consider anyone responsible for my continuing education, except for myself.

Comments (2)

Beat on the bot

How many of you would be delighted to see someone like this suspended?

Yahoo Answers screenshot: How to auto tweet without getting your account suspended?

A bit of self-justification here:

My twitter got suspended though they were not specific why. They just said multiple violations to the twitter policies. Yeah really big help. I assumed it was because I was auto tweeting from google alerts. How am I suppose to tweet a lot of news from google when I don’t want to sit here all day doing so? How do some people get their accounts suspended for auto tweeting and some don’t? I have a life and don’t want to sit here all day long tweeting news from google alerts manually. Do they automatically tweet stuff just once in a while, one a day, once a week or what?

Darlin’, if you’re tweeting nothing but news from Google, by definition you have no life. And the likelihood that you’d get any followers is pretty close to zip.

Comments off

Rolling in the derp

I have long suspected this situation of prevailing with many celebrity Twitter accounts:

Adele also partakes in “Rumor Has It”, a fan Q&A. Asked if it’s true that she doesn’t have access to her own Twitter account, she responds that it is. “I’m not a drinker anymore, but when Twitter first came out, I was like, ‘You’re drunk tweeting,’ and nearly put my foot in it quite a few times. So my management decided, ‘You have to go through, like, two people, and it has to be signed off by someone’.” (Despite the lack of access, she says that she still writes her own tweets, which are then posted by her staff).

Perhaps I need to watch this stuff a bit more carefully.

(Via Laura Northrup.)

Comments (3)