Archive for Tweetwaffle

They keep hounding him

But then, that’s all they know how to do, suggests Jonah Goldberg:

Dogs — and animals generally — are among the few things that bridge the partisan divide. Tragedies are a partisan affair. If someone dies in a hurricane or shooting, there’s a mad rush to score political points. Last week, a lovely young woman, Bre Payton, died from a sudden illness, and a bunch of ghouls mocked or celebrated her demise because she was a conservative.

Even babies can be controversial since babies can touch various nerves, from abortion politics to the apparent scourge of “misgendering” newborns.

But dogs are largely immune to political ugliness. The angriest complaints I get about my dog tweets — from people on both the left and right — are that I’m wasting apparently scarce resources on dogs when I could be expressing my anger about whatever outrage the complainers demand I be outraged about.

This is one of the reasons I love dogs. Because it is an occupational hazard in my line of work to be constantly drenched in the muck of politics, dogs are a safe harbor. They don’t care about political correctness. They don’t want to Make America Great Again or join the “resistance.” They just want to pursue doggie goodness as they see it.

To which I say: “Woof.”

Comments (2)

Go back, Jack, and do it again

Do you sometimes get the impression that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is, um, somewhat out of his depth?

If the Sabres were actually paying Twitter, that’s one thing. But if this is just Another Stupid Algorithm…

Comments (2)

People acting out, or up

Fillyjonk is tired of social media:

It’s all so much become a “if this person doesn’t care for something I love, I’m going to impute Bad Reasons to them for it (sexism, racism, whatever) and I’m going to do whatever I can to dunk on them” and when did life become a giant game of, uh, micturational combat and again, I am so tired.

Folks, this: we are all fellow-passengers to the grave. Ain’t none of us getting out of this alive no matter how many points we score or how many people we dunk on or how much hashtag activism we do. And life is hard and a lot of people are hurting and my general MO is not to add to that hurt.

There might be a deathbed somewhere occupied by someone thinking “I should have spent more time thinking about politics,” but that someone is almost certainly not someone I am going to mourn.

Comments (3)

The end of cognitive dissonance

If you don’t see the contradictions anymore, feel free to blame Twitter or Facebook:

The two generations nearest to adulthood — that is, on the just-short and just-long sides of 18 — can’t, absolutely CAN NOT, correlate things.

They “think” exclusively in likes, upvotes, retweets. Every statement is discrete, to be evaluated entirely without reference to anything other than how it makes you feel at the moment you read it.

Nor is it difficult to find examples:

The deeper down the social media rabbit hole America went, the more blatant this kind of thing got. Obamacare — a gazillion-dollar bureaucracy — will both lower taxes and improve medical care. “Death panels” aren’t death panels, you ignorant snowbilly… they’re just panels that will decide when you should be denied life-sustaining care. The Rather Memos are “fake but accurate.” And now we’re a few Senate votes away from an official ruling, from the highest powers in the land, that facts are no longer legally admissible when they contradict someone’s feelings.

Only social media explains that. People who “believe” Ford get upvoted — they’re such caring, courageous people! People who believe in things like logic, reason, and evidence, meanwhile, get downvoted, because those cause badfeelz, and are therefore wrong wrong wrong!!

This is not to say that everyone who buys into today’s silliest notions got there by reading timelines, but excessive dependence on likes is definitely pathological.

Comments (1)

Engagement unlocked

Despite one fairly obvious anachronism — Digital Video Recorders were nowhere near being ubiquitous in 1996 — this was my most successful tweet in a while:

Very rare I get 13 likes, let alone 130.

Comments off

Unreal people

Is Twitter actually taking steps to block the bots?

Some of the world’s biggest celebrities have lost millions of Twitter followers after the company cracked down on “locked” accounts.

US singer Katy Perry, the most-followed user on Twitter, and Lady Gaga lost about 2.5 million followers. Barack Obama went down 2.1 million.

Twitter said it had taken the decision due to its “ongoing and global effort to build trust”. It follows renewed scrutiny over fake news and users on social media.

The new measures mean that any user whose account is locked for unusual activity — such as being blocked or sending unusual volumes of Tweets — and who did not respond to a prompt to verify their identity would be excluded from Twitter follower counts.

The head of the company’s legal team, Vijaya Gadde, said that most accounts would only lose around four followers as a result of the new measures.

So I went to my follower count, which was sitting at a middling 1,475. Assuming Gadde’s plan has been implemented system-wide, I’ve lost a total of, um, one.

Comments (1)

The Captain still kicks it

Back in 2006, the late, lamented FameTracker (“The Farmer’s Almanac of Celebrity Worth”) performed one of its often-feared Fame Audits on William Shatner, and this was the bottom line:

Current approximate level of fame: Ed McMahon
Deserved approximate level of fame: Moses

Seriously. In the text:

Shatner is so damned awesome, so abundantly unexpected, so fucking necessary, he’s practically Biblical. It would be an insult to Shatner to compare him to some other celebrity and suggest they are equivalents.

Nothing much has changed. New Criterion editor Roger Kimball, yesterday:

One does not mess with the Shat. Not now, not ever.

Comments (2)

Undone by the Direct Message

“Can I restore twitter DMs with a deactivated account?” asks this person of indeterminate gender and questionable judgment:

Recently, I stopped being friends with someone toxic on twitter. The other day this ex friend deleted her twitter account, and I have a feeling she’s going to wait 30 days until her account is permanently deactivated, fake twitter DMs with me, and post them and try and make people turn against me because that’s the kind of person she is. I didn’t grab any screenshots of our DMs before she deactivated, so I’m wondering if there is a possibility that I could somehow restore the DMs/get an archive of them somehow despite her deactivating? Thanks in advance!

And do what? Having copies of the original messages will not stop another person from faking them up, and how is anyone supposed to tell a fake from the genuine article? It’s all just text.

Wild imagination, this person has.

Comments (3)

Doing social media wrong

And not just wrong, but outright stupidly:

Ask the NFL how well it managed to enforce #SuperBowl. Or, for that matter, #SuperbOwl.

Comments (4)

They got something on her

Grace VanderWaal has been so proper, so well-behaved, so goshdarn polite in the months since she hit the big time that I, in my fangirl mode, have occasionally wondered if she were actually capable of being silly, even ridiculous.

I needn’t have worried:

The song is Leslie Hall’s “Shazam I’m Glamorous,” from the 2006 album Door Man’s Daughter. (Grace was two in 2006.)

Comments (1)

International House of Blather

This is how you do social media, Part N, where N = some amazingly high number:

How Wendy’s manages to field a steady flow of customer comments and still come up with stuff like this is nothing short of miraculous.

Comments (1)

Media at its most social

According to Jeff Faria, this is how Twitter works:

How Twitter works, as explained by dogs

I don’t think he’s wrong.

Comments (1)

Greatest Of All Time

This description is perhaps arguable:

But this one, maybe not so much.

Comments off

The fluffy side of paranoia

And so he asks:

Yahoo Answers screenshot: My social media is getting too popular should I switch it too private?

Well, he should, but not for the reason he thinks:

My Instagram pics have gained top post. I feel people are imitating me, taking ideas from me, and even stalking me. You see whenever I would tweet things of my interest on Twitter strange things would happen. I would go in public where I would hear conversations where it would sound like somebody referencing something I just tweeted not to long ago or the other day. Ok I would set trends on my Instagram wearing certain clothing and fashion and I would go to college or even other places seeing people I never met with a almost on point fashion since. Then I just bought I new car where afterwards I would see everybody in town suddenly driving the exact same cars. I would go to a store or a shop in my neighborhood where suddenly these people who would coincidentally have the same cars and fashion since would mysteriously appear whenever I would pull up to buy a soda, or go shopping or even just pump my gas it would seem like these clones where now everywhere from my neighborhood to my school and even when I cease my social media activity it continues but now it has gone too far. You see I live on a considerably quite block in my neighborHood and lately I have lately seen this same reoccurring people driving/walking by housing every now and then sometimes even when I step outside my front door sometimes when I step outside my car. I think I may be locally famous in my neighborhood and I have considered moving. Should I just put my social media on private cause this is just crazy.

Obviously this child is insane and should be confined at least until Twitter goes bankrupt.

Comments (2)

He’s right, you know

Not to mention wonderfully terse about it. The question posed:

And the answer, in the very next minute:

And that would seem to be that.

Comments (1)

Learning to conform

I noted last week that it’s really quite all right to be different. Then again, I am sixty-four years old. It’s harder to reach that conclusion if you’re fifty years younger than that:

One form of bullying — one form I experienced a lot as a kid — is for people to find something about you that is DIFFERENT, and to harp on that difference. And it gets to the point where even if you liked being different in that way at the outset, you come to hate it, because the fact that you don’t fit in, that this other person sees you as weird, is being shoved in your face day in and day out. Few adults are strong enough to stand up to that, and even fewer kids.

(I will present as an exhibit: how in 7th grade I forced myself to listen to “top 40 radio” even though I hated it, because I felt like I needed to know what songs and artists were popular, and I knew that the kids thought I was weird because I listened to WCLV instead, and that I liked classical music. Yeah, I did something I hated in the name of seeming more “normal.” Spoiler alert: it didn’t work.)

I had my own issues in seventh grade, one of which was still being nine years old at the beginning of the first semester. I did not take it well. And being so far chronologically offset from the rest of the class, I didn’t quite fit in with the Scarifyingly Heterosexual school activities, which led some to murmur that I might be happier with the boys. Not them, of course. It is a measure of how bad off I was socially that I didn’t realize what they were saying until several years later.

Plato probably didn’t actually say “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle” but the statement is still a good and a true one. And it seems that as the world becomes harder and colder (or appears to have), more and more people are forgetting to be kind — or are deciding not to, in the interest of getting ahead/getting someone to notice them/throwing a punch before someone throws it at THEM … and, it just doesn’t HELP.

This latter paragraph is about fifty-five percent of Twitter, and about eighty-five percent of political Twitter.

Comments (7)

They were not amused

The Turkish government, these days, tends to be irascible:

A former Turkish beauty pageant winner may face up to a year in prison over a tweet referring to last year’s failed military coup that cost her “Miss Turkey” title, the private Doğan news agency said on Thursday.

An Istanbul prosecutor has indicted 18-year-old Itır Esen, who in September was stripped of her title after one day, for “publicly humiliating a segment of the society” following three official complaints over her tweet, Doğan reported.

What she said:

Troublesome tweet by Itır Esen

“I had my period on July 15 morning to celebrate the day to commemorate martyrs. As a representation of our martyrs’ blood, I am commemorating this day by bleeding.”

Sarcasm is wasted on some people.

The importance of the 15th of July:

Around 250 people, mostly unarmed civilians, were killed and over 1,000 wounded in the failed coup bid on July 15, 2016. The day was later declared Democracy and National Unity Day and a public holiday in Turkey.

Replacing Itır Esen: runner-up Aslı Sümen.

Comments (2)

I think this may be a bot

It’s just a hunch.

Twitter profile for Cindy Weaver

Perhaps atypically for a bot, she hasn’t said anything.


Comments (2)

Time I will never get back

Like, ever:

Tweeten profile screen at 100000 tweets

That’s a lot of damn tweets.

[shakes head, moves on to next activity]

Comments off

Intermittently amusing

That infectious laugh of hers again. “Did I mention you’re hilarious?” — Vent #1036

Well …

Some days I can put it all together. And then there are all those other days.

Comments (5)

140 and holding

Twitter would have you believe:

Our research shows us that the character limit is a major cause of frustration for people Tweeting in English, but it is not for those Tweeting in Japanese. Also, in all markets, when people don’t have to cram their thoughts into 140 characters and actually have some to spare, we see more people Tweeting — which is awesome!

Although we feel confident about our data and the positive impact this change will have, we want to try it out with a small group of people before we make a decision to launch to everyone. What matters most is that this works for our community — we will be collecting data and gathering feedback along the way. We’re hoping fewer Tweets run into the character limit, which should make it easier for everyone to Tweet.

I suspect I hit 140 more than most people, but I’ve never considered that a problem: if anything, it helps me gather experience with editing, which is hardly a disadvantage.

And I’m not among the selected few. If I were, I’d probably use all 280 to complain that two things I actually would appreciate — the ability to edit something previously Twote within about five minutes or so, and a rational code of conduct — were passed over in favor of making life easier for the garrulous.

Comments (8)

Shat yourself

There’s always one, right?

Quickly followed by:

You. Do Not. Mess With. The Shat.

Comments (4)

I feel insulted

A random data point from Entrepreneur:

On average, employees have 10 times more followers than their company’s social media accounts.

Who’s bringing down the average? I have almost 100 times more.

Comments (6)

Prophecy fulfilled

This may have been anticipated by Conan O’Brien:

A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: “Duh.”

So let it be written, so let it be Duh’ed.

Comments off

Lured in

Normally I blow off new followers unless there’s some compelling reason for me to check out their timelines, on the off-chance I might find something interesting. I did not do that yesterday. Instead, I decided to pick up on this one:

Twitter profile page of Charlotte Chenaux

To my discomfiture, she responded with a DM, and the following non-conversation ensued:

Conversation such as it is between me and Charlotte Chenaux

Oddly, she didn’t seem all that interested in “Gouvernement & Politiques.”

Comments (5)

Someone who’s been checked out

What most people want in a dating app, supposedly, is some form of selectivity: How do you keep out the riff and/or raff? If you think a checkmark on a blue background means something, then this is the app for you:

BLUE is a new premium version of the existing dating app Loveflutter, and it promises to let you into an exclusive world full of “celebrities and other Twitter blue tick holders.” That is, if you’re verified yourself. This may either sound amazing or like a total nightmare, depending on how you feel about the people of Twitter.

Loveflutter has actually been around since 2013, but they recently relaunched as the first dating app to rely on your tweets to find you matches. Their mission is “to turn ubiquitous flirting on Twitter into something real,” and now they’re offering the chosen members of the platform’s elite an even more VIP experience.

If this gizmo actually has read more than a handful of my 95,000 tweets, it’s probably already declared me as Forever Alone and banned my mention on the premises.

And do take this advice:

Picking from some of the roughly 200,000 verified Twitter users also doesn’t necessarily mean you’re guaranteed to date a celebrity — or even someone who’s internet famous. And being Twitter-verified certainly doesn’t have anything to do with being a good person or even a particularly interesting one.

Nor, I might point out, does not being Twitter-verified.

(Via Dana Schwartz, who is interesting, attractive, and above all verified.)

Comments (3)

More of that Us vs Them stuff

“If the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”

So said Richard Nixon, to David Frost in 1977. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s last Attorney General, was utterly dedicated to that idea; Donald Trump, autocrat that he is, has made similar noises.

Now Nixon wasn’t around for Twitter, but I am persuaded that his own little fan club would loudly support him; partisans, at least as far as I can tell, will happily endorse this idea if their guy is President, and will loudly reject it otherwise. To test this notion, I tossed off an ad hoc Twitter poll; obviously, it’s not at all scientific, and the sample size is tiny, but the numbers lined up almost exactly the way I thought they would:

Persuaded as I am that almost everything the government does violates the Constitution in one way or another — well, okay, they’re allowed to deliver the mail — I just wonder where the hell we’ve been getting all these farging megalomaniacs, and the lackeys to serve at their beck and call.

Comments (3)

Running off at the beak

I have never followed Donald Trump on Twitter, and I really don’t have to: sooner or later, anything he tweets will end up in my timeline. But there’s very little reason to care about his little sub-paragraph explosions:

I don’t care about the president’s nasty tweets because I’m more concerned about his incoherent foreign policy, his foolishly protectionist trade policy, his shaky grasp of basic economics, his inconsistency on issues like immigration and health care policies and a host of others. Despite a few bright spots like James Mattis, Neil Gorsuch, Nikki Haley and probably Jerome Adams, President Trump is already building his Democratic opponents a solid case in the 2018 elections. Compared to these things, the tweets mean less than the product that comes out of the other end of the bird.

Fortunately for The Donald, the Democrats are constantly finding new ways to crap all over themselves; it’s not really necessary for him to point them out. And there is one saving — well, not grace exactly: desperate would-be Hillary-humpers like Peter Daou (among others, but he’s about the worst) have been reduced to a mixture of incoherent sputtering and outright whining, providing sporadic entertainment.

Comments (4)

Duel loyalties

This is basically “Judy’s Turn to Cry” boiled down to 140 characters or less:

March 2017 tweet by @5iine, on the subject of fidelity or lack thereof

“I’m so glad I’m not in the dating market any more,” says Peter Grant. I can’t say as I blame him. And I checked: that Twitter account is suspended, though I have no idea why.

Comments (7)

Says here it’s an act

It’s not that I object to the premise, it’s that I hate acronyms and backronyms of this sort:

The true definition of “covfefe” — born from a deleted, after-midnight tweet from President Trump — remains unsettled, even to the commander in chief, who appeared to mistype it into existence on Twitter last month. But a congressman from Illinois wants to bring new meaning to the word.

The COVFEFE Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) on Monday, aims to preserve tweets from the president’s personal Twitter account, ensuring that Trump’s social-media posts are archived as presidential records.

“In order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say; this includes 140-character tweets,” Quigley said in a statement. “If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference.”

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I just wish Quigley’d called it something else; nine times out of ten, a stupid name undoes a sensible law. (The other time, it’s something like the PATRIOT Act, which was a stupid law with a stupid name.)

Comments (2)