That’s a lot of damn tweets.
[shakes head, moves on to next activity]
That’s a lot of damn tweets.
[shakes head, moves on to next activity]
That infectious laugh of hers again. “Did I mention you’re hilarious?” — Vent #1036
So: What’s a better name for my new restaurant – Frankfurter Corridor or Hot Dog Hallway?
— Elisson (@elisson1) November 9, 2017
This… is brilliant.
— Elisson (@elisson1) November 9, 2017
Some days I can put it all together. And then there are all those other days.
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.
There’s always one, right?
I have no idea who is actually composing these tweets but there is no way they are from the octogenarian Star Trek actor.
— Kaos Agent (@AgentSiegfried) September 10, 2017
Quickly followed by:
Yes I'm a feeble old man who doesn't get technology or why people keep walking across my lawn. https://t.co/sQuhsnEPRa
— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) September 10, 2017
You. Do Not. Mess With. The Shat.
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.
Finally got a letter printed in The Times… pic.twitter.com/0Bzi1X6B5d
— Ian Rankin (@Beathhigh) August 22, 2017
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.
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:
To my discomfiture, she responded with a DM, and the following non-conversation ensued:
Oddly, she didn’t seem all that interested in “Gouvernement & Politiques.”
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.)
“If the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
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:
What percentage of Twitter traffic translates to nothing more than "It's different when *my* side does it"?
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) July 3, 2017
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.
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.
This is basically “Judy’s Turn to Cry” boiled down to 140 characters or less:
“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.
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.)
This is bannered “Interests from Twitter,” and if nothing else, this makes me wonder if Biz Stone has been summoned just to clean up the mess:
These are some of the interests matched to you based on your profile and activity. You can adjust them if something doesn’t look right.
Action and adventure
Automotive news and general info
Biographies and memoirs
Business & Finance
Business and finance
Business and news
Business news and general info
Celebrity fan and gossip
Drawing and sketching
Make-up and cosmetics
Movie news and general info
Music news and general info
Politics and current events
Sci-fi and fantasy
Sci-fi and fantasy
What I’d like to know:
(1) The difference between “Business & Finance” and “Business and finance.” Ditto “Tech News” and “Tech news,” or several other seeming (or actual) duplicates.
(2) Why I should give a flip about any of this.
There’s nothing at all — well, hardly anything — wrong with Twitter than a nominal service charge can’t fix. (Hint: Think thousands of anonymous bots.)
So this little dustup happened:
— Edy Maldonado (@TheBudgetNudist) April 29, 2017
How Marina Sirtis got dragged into this thread, I don’t want to know. Anyway, she was right back at Mr. Mansions:
I live in a 1200 square-foot house. How big is yours?? https://t.co/20dwjzKj8j
— Marina Sirtis (@Marina_Sirtis) April 29, 2017
When Deanna Troi asks “How big is yours?” it’s all over.
— Lance Ulanoff (@LanceUlanoff) April 13, 2017
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.
It doesn’t happen often, but when it does I feel an ever-so-slight urge to strut a bit:
I am not turning on the A/C in February. This is not Australia, fercryingoutloud.
— Lamar Oklahoma City (@LamarOKC) February 22, 2017
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.
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:
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) February 18, 2017
And if anyone should come back with “But … but we’re marginalized!” I’m going to reply “Yet I can still hear you.”
Apparently I did well with the Friday Twitter burst of #FactCheckASong, delighting several with this one:
New research shows that the loneliest number is 0.87. #FactCheckASong
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) February 4, 2017
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:
I told you once, you son of a bitch, I'm a perfectly adequate fiddle player. #FactCheckASong
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) February 4, 2017
No figuring these Twitter folk.
I promised myself I wouldn’t get bogged down on Twitter during the election returns.
As I probably should have expected, I failed miserably:
Although this doesn’t compare with the 22nd of October, during which I picked up 19,738 impressions with a lot less controversy.
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.
Short, but not too big around:
— Kneaver Chat (@kneaverchat) September 26, 2016
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.
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.
In this case:
The WiFi is down. Kill me now.
— Charles G Hill (@dustbury) July 14, 2016
Sometimes, that thin wire is all you have.
Wonder if I’d get any takers:
"ur so annoying on twitter" pic.twitter.com/iAsitkZgyk
— psycho (@invalid) July 5, 2016
Prices, I assume, may vary.
Best advice I've seen on how to deal with Twitter trolls comes from al-Ghazali's "Ayyuha l'Walad." He anticipated the problem by 1000 years.
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) June 18, 2016
And by gum, al-Ghazali was right.
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.
A smile from last night:
Sometimes Twitter is perfect. pic.twitter.com/S87O3bIaAx
— Allie Mac Kay (@alliemackay) May 27, 2016
They didn’t say “Delete your account,” but apparently the foul-mouthed slob did.
Unless things have changed a whole lot more than I think they have, and I have no reason to think they have:
Then again, that’s about what I said when that notification came in.
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.