New Twitter Feature Nags You For Sharing Articles Without Opening Them (businessinsider.com) 77
If you try to tweet the link to an article you haven't opened, Twitter may suggest that you read it before posting. It's all part of a new feature the company is rolling out in an effort to "help promote informed discussion." Business Insider reports: "Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it," the announcement reads. It's one of the latest measures Twitter has taken in recent months to more actively steer discourse on the app. It's not clear whether Twitter plans any wider rollout for its prompt urging people to read articles before sharing them. In other Twitter-related news, the company is also rolling out its version of Snapchat/Instagram-style stories. "Fleets," as they're called, just became available in India and is gradually rolling out around the world; after initially launching in Brazil.
Next thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next thing ... (Score:4, Funny)
Count your blessings, /. could require you to read TFA before posting.
Re: Next thing ... (Score:2)
Re: Next thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Then you get nagged and then you post anyway. At least I think - I didn't read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question, "How does twitter know what web pages I've read or not?"
Disclaimer: I don't use twitter, never have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't.
But it does know if you've clicked the link in the tweet you're retweeting.
All they need to do is pop up the nag if the first thing you do on seeing a tweet with a link in it is to immediately retweet.
Of course, I haven't read the article either, so I'm only guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
These days half the commentators barely seem to have parsed the headline. Feed a few keywords in to a markov chain and you get half a dozen Slashdot posts.
I'm not even joking, e.g. any story with "google" in the headline you can just copy/paste a generic rant about how they are an evil advertising company and you are the product, any story with SpaceX or Tesla in the title only needs a bit of Musk workship for a nice karma boost.
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest: Did you read TFA before posting this? I haven't, yet here I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Read TFA? I didn't read the summary, barely glanced at the title. It's a very important tradition we must uphold man!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually I wouldn't know. I didn't read it either.
Slashdot when? (Score:3)
Slashdot would probably never have any comments if they implemented that...
How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:5, Interesting)
What amazes me is that supposedly intelligent people are still wallowing in the rancid cesspool that is Twitter.
Ask the CEO of CrossFit how Twitter worked out for him. And a long-established popular restaurant where I live just closed down for good because the owner used Twitter to make some unflattering remarks about the rioters who trashed the downtown area. The Twitter mob didn't like that. Boom, he's gone.
Twitter can't die soon enough. Using Twitter is like tossing scraps of meat to a pack of rabid dogs. At best they leave you alone, but you gain nothing by feeding them. At worst they turn on you and tear you to pieces.
Re: (Score:3)
I think at this point, having an active twitter account should be considered a liability for a company. Any company with one that doesn't absolutely rely on it should quietly stop posting, wait a bit, then delete it entirely.
Unless you're in some sort of field that's entirely reliant on shallow self-promotion, any twitter post is a potential existential crisis if it inadvertently triggers a cascade of criticism, while the benefit from exposure is
Re: (Score:3)
I think at this point, having an active twitter account should be considered a liability for a company.
I would have disagreed until recently, as a twitter account with strong controls over content posted is an additional brand management channel, and also offers customer an additional contact route.
Now though it's not enough to post only sensible things; the baying mob demand that you post publicly on their favoured cause, and at that point you're fucked, because nobody has a universal cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Now you can't not be political on Twitter. The mob demands your compliance to denounce the latest outrage. Yet if the winds shift, you'll suddenly find a different mob sifting through your old tweets for the evidence needed to hang you. Ask Hartley Sawyer about that.
Re: (Score:2)
The mob demands your compliance to denounce the latest outrage.
This is practically the definition of religious fanaticism.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but . . .but, what about all those self-starting social media directors and social media managers and social media engineers! It's vital that they keep posting to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram or the cabinet companies, steel manufacturers, feed mills and toilet manufacturers will go right the hell out of business! THEY LEAD ENTIRE INDUSTRIES BY POSTING ONLINE ALL DAY EVERY DAY!
Seriously, I work for a woodworking company and we have two of these yahoos that literally do nothing but post shit online
Re:How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
He was perfectly fine with it when it resulted in positive attention.
You're blaming the tool for working exactly as intended, amplifying the message placed there by a user and thus the resulting attention.
Then you're blaming the audience for reacting to the message - "the Twitter mob," really?
It takes time to build a reputation. It takes seconds to destroy it. That fact remains true whether Twitter is involved or not. Put in a TV or radio ad. Post it on a billboard. Put it in an op-ed. Same result, just different magnitude scaling with the popularity of the media outlet.
The users with large followings or notable followers disagree. You think you gain nothing because nobody appears to care what you think.
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of the CEO of Crossfit, I'm sure he will retire to a pile of gold.
Maybe if Twitter are going to properly do fact checking it will be a whole lot less useful to certain types of people.
Re: How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives love consequences when it's consequences for people they don't like. They will be the first to flush their Gillette razors down the crapper or set their Nike trainers on fire. Get woke, go broke, as they say.
It's only a problem when the consequences are bad for them, then it's just a mob and we should all put our personal feelings aside when doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Still using my Gillette razors, and I don't buy Nike (too narrow). Why would I destroy my own property? That's a purely leftist move.
Now, I will NOT buy more Gillette razors. I also cancelled my Netflix account when they started hiring the crooks from the Obama administration, Susan Rice specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying this. It doesn't make it true.
From what I have seen: Conservative people will generally stop buying things if they disagree strongly enough with the company. Liberal people will hold a protest, demand action, but buy it anyway because they can't help themselves.
And my anecdotal opinion is just as valid and useless as yours.
Re: (Score:3)
And there is the fundamental difference between you and I. I don't care what total strangers think about me. Wanting or needing approval or validation from what is effectively an online mob is ... bizarre.
Plenty of people "care what I think" - at least, the ones that matter to me. The opinions of the rest are completely irrelevant. What possible motivation could I have
Re: (Score:2)
You don't care about your reputation, and your livelihood does not involve meeting new people or selling anything to them.
How nice for you. Meanwhile, in the real world...
Re: (Score:3)
My professional reputation is fine, since I don't broadcast my inner thoughts and feelings out in public for total strangers to analyze and attack me with. My reputation is based on the work that I do, not on social media postings.
I also meet new people and do business with them all the time ... just not on Twitter. (And how does one "meet" someone in social media anyway? What sort of
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter doesn't require that. It's a choice that people make.
You lack imagination [twitter.com].
Yes. I don't use my real name for entertainment like this. I curate the hell out of what
Re:How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:5, Interesting)
What amazes me is that supposedly intelligent people are still wallowing in the rancid cesspool that is Twitter. Ask the CEO of CrossFit how Twitter worked out for him.
Not sure the "rancid cesspool" is Twitter itself in these cases, but, rather, these "intelligent people".
And a long-established popular restaurant where I live just closed down for good because the owner used Twitter to make some unflattering remarks about the rioters who trashed the downtown area. The Twitter mob didn't like that. Boom, he's gone.
So... the restaurant owner get a pass? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. How's this really any different than getting bad Yelp reviews? Maybe the restaurant owner should have asked John Schnatter (former CEO of Papa John's) about the consequences of being a business owner and shooting your mouth off before posting anything.
[ Doesn't sound like "intelligent people" can be applied these two Twitter posters. ]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For freedom of speech to mean anything, it has to mean freedom from consequences.
So yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is okay? Slander is okay? etc ...
All your examples are about the 1st Amendment, which only says the Government won't impede you speech, but there actually are still exceptions (see above). The 1st Amendment says nothing about non-governmental entities. As for the restaurant the OP mentioned, serve bad food, get a bad Yelp review; shoot your mouth off on Twitter, get similar results.
You last paragraph gets everything wrong. You are free to say
Re: (Score:2)
So... the restaurant owner get a pass? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. How's this really any different than getting bad Yelp reviews? Maybe the restaurant owner should have asked John Schnatter (former CEO of Papa John's) about the consequences of being a business owner and shooting your mouth off before posting anything.
The restaurant is shutting down for good, after rioters ransacked the place, and you think it is because of the twits? Maybe it is because the restaurant was in a place prone to riots that would destroy it, and the owner didn't want to fight it anymore. Maybe the owner didn't have good enough or any insurance that covered mob violence.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but on the regular I can open a post on Slashdot, scroll down to the comments, and be greeted with nazi symbols in ascii and regular use of the n-word.....and those posts will stay there at the very top of the comments. Reporting them does nothing.
Also, if some idiots are suffering the consequences of voicing their stupid ass opinions on a public forum then they deserve what they get.
Re: How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing he decided to use some sort of slur while blaming certain groups?
Re: (Score:2)
What would lead you to guess that?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know, history?
Re: How about a "Do Not Use Twitter" feature? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So set your viewing to something other than 0. I did, and don't see the nazi ascii.
you do know the trolls who post nazi asciis aren't actually Nazis, They just know what buttons to push to get the most people angry and elicit a response.
Re: (Score:2)
I moderate, so I have to see this shit. I can mod it down, but that shit always remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was he saying stuff on Twitter unless he wanted people to hear what he was saying? And what, you're saying it's unfair that the market responded? Wahhhhhhhh - I wasn't aware people were not allowed to tell other people not to go to a store. It's kind of a central property of capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
It's inherent in the design of the medium. Twitter's short post length limit means it's impossible to post a detailed discussion of anything. The dependence upon viral retweeting means that one-sentence quips will spread far more easily than nuanced discussion. Everything about twitter is structured to amplifier the least-useful voices in a conversation - the posts that are low on analysis and high on emotional impact. Especially anger - everyone likes anger, it shares well.
Re: (Score:2)
some people now publish comments/analysis in a thread of 40 posts, to be read as a whole. I follow twitter mainly for pointers.
Twitter's idea of 'least useful voices' is entirely politicised. It is straight censorship.
Twitter is also trying to clamp down on sharing links . for one, it is not possible to go directly to a link. It has to pass through twitter and they can decide that the link is not good for you and that you better not go there. If at the same time they now decide that you have to follow the l
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about Twitter's censorship. I'm talking about human nature to seek emotional impact and avoid the time-consuming process of actually reading things.
Imagine two stories are published at the same time. One is a ten-page article titled "The history of epidemiology: Social distancing from 1346 to 2020, and the role of large social gatherings in disease spread." The other is one page long, plus a video of an angry man shouting at the camera, titled "The lie-beral plan to close your church." Now,
Re: (Score:2)
No it is censorship.
The ten page article has no impact so why bother. Viral tweets have impact, so which viral tweets are you going to suppress? That is where censorship comes in. Of course emotion makes things go viral. The twist you are giving to it is emotion equals being uninformed and suppressing viral tweets is good because they merely suppress stupidity. The result is that only innocent information and establishment approved stupidity are allowed to go viral. And sure, with some stupidity you may say
Re: (Score:2)
some people now publish comments/analysis in a thread of 40 posts, to be read as a whole.
Any idea how to get them to stop?
Re: (Score:2)
:) it's their business. nobody is forced to read it.
There's cases where the format is suitable because it's just a list of observations on a recent event
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What amazes me is that supposedly intelligent people are still wallowing in the rancid cesspool that is Twitter.
I'm not sure why you think removing yourself from all conversation is something "intelligent" people do. The fact is that Twitter is nothing more than a platform for discord.
And a long-established popular restaurant where I live just closed down for good because the owner used Twitter to make some unflattering remarks about the rioters who trashed the downtown area. The Twitter mob didn't like that. Boom, he's gone.
Somehow you boiled down "intelligence" to the singular example of being an unbearable dick that no one likes in private rather than public. The reality is millions of people including business owners use Twitter every day, and they don't get flash mobbed out of existence.
Also if Twitter ended your business then your business was on shak
Re: (Score:2)
If there are people whose judgement you take seriously and they post links to articles/news/ snippets on twitter which they consider interesting then it makes good sense to follow what they post.
What would you use twitter for? commenting on other people's posts? That is open to everyone indeed, not recommended.
Twitter has a new feature btw, now authors of a post can hide all the comments they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
A local restaurant closed because the owner posted on Twitter? There must be an interesting story behind that.
But overall this is a good thing, we get to find out who the asshats are and can then make an informed decision about who we do business with.
In the that has been effective, e.g. boycotting South African companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all "we find out who the asshat is" until the crowd, running out of people you deem asshats, begins to eat itself. It's voracious and always needs and enemy to feast upon. You're just as likely to run afoul of it as these asshats you mention.
"You used the term 'fuckwit' in your signature, that's a derogatory term first implemented in British homes for the mentally challenged in the 1970s to shame the occupants". It doesn't matter that what I just said was made up, if it gains enough eyeballs, y
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter can't die soon enough. Using Twitter is like tossing scraps of meat to a pack of rabid dogs. At best they leave you alone, but you gain nothing by feeding them. At worst they turn on you and tear you to pieces.
Or maybe, dont be an asshole in society thinking you have the majority wind at your back for all things YOU.
Learn to live in a globa system, where yes, indeed, sometimes what you say is wrong or shit, and screw you for saying it.
or you could also have a backbone and keep beating your cheat with your message and people will rally to you.
Its called life, and its full of choices. Make better ones.
not gonna read the article but (Score:2)
Making the implicit explicit (Score:5, Funny)
"Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it, Mr. President."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it, Mr. President."
Pretty sure Trump can't read -- or, at least, he doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
"Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it, Mr. President."
Pretty sure Trump can't read -- or, at least, he doesn't.
He has people for that. Top People.
Re: (Score:3)
why should he read in the first place. he already has all the words. lots of words!
Re: (Score:2)
Top People.
The best people. Really really good people. The best in the world, probably.
Re: (Score:2)
This does appear to be true. Right from the start of his term we were hearing that he didn't read reports if they were more than a paragraph or two and written in simple English. He seems to prefer the TV to newspapers.
Twitter is the ideal medium for him. Just an endless stream of consciousness, short, hot takes and no edit button. It's basically a Trump speech.
Woah!! (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, ban the bots... (Score:2)
Slashdot could learn from this...
Both ./ and Twitter have APIs allow bots to move RSS into the feeds. Slashdot used to rely on user contributed Firehose, not automatic as we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot could learn from this...
Both ./ and Twitter have APIs allow bots to move RSS into the feeds. Slashdot used to rely on user contributed Firehose, not automatic as we have today.
I'd prefer it if /. didn't allow you to paste more than one line into a regular comment.
I'm pretty tired of all the copy pasta idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. Preventing pasting, a client-side action, is not going to work. The number of workarounds this crowd has is sufficient to prevent that from ever working.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for Slashdot
We finally know where this Anonymous Coward works! We should twitter-storm them, this Coward guy is kind of an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
He's fake, that comment is on every single article, he just switches where he works. I bit and replied to one, then saw it on a different chat.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm older enough to remember when the readership here knew how computers worked.
For shame slashdot. "Nag" is a sexist term (Score:2)
How do they know if I've read the link? (Score:1)
That's the real question. How the fuck would they know if I have visited a site and read the link or not without doing some likely-illegal shit to spy upon me?
Re: (Score:2)
Designed to offset Section 230 legal issues (Score:3)