Not on Twitter please: Difference between revisions

From Peter Suber
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(39 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
 
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="70%" style="border: 1px solid black;"
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="70%" style="border: 1px solid black;"
| style="background:lightgreen; color:black"  | If I referred you to this page from one of my tweets, then I'd like to follow up what we were discussing. But Twitter didn't give us the space to do it properly, or even the space to talk about alternatives.
| style="background:lightgreen; color:black"  | If I point you to this page from one of my tweets, then I'd like to follow up what we were discussing. But Twitter didn't give us the space to do it well, or even to talk about alternatives. — [[Peter_Suber|Peter Suber]].
|}
|}
 
 
== Worth discussing but not on Twitter ==
* In a [https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/7p45yCCDgE2 June 2016 blog post], I asked, "Is there a well-understood hashtag or abbreviation that means: ''Worth discussing but impossible on Twitter''?"
* At the time there wasn't one. I half-seriously proposed a bad one (WORDBIT for "WORth Discussing But Impossible on Twitter"). But I haven't used it and I'm still looking for something better. Let me know if you see a good one emerging.
* If I had one, I'd use it in many of my Twitter threads, while linking to this page where I can explain myself.
== Dialogue without oversimplification ==
* I like dialogue. I like responding to questions and objections when I can, especially questions or objections about my own work. But I don't like oversimplification. In fact, I like dialogue in part because it helps us overcome oversimplification.
* Hence, I don't like dialogue on Twitter. Or I don't like it once it reaches the point when serious contributions require more than 140 characters. For most interesting dialogues, that's very early in the process.
* If I'm in a Twitter thread and someone asks me a question that requires a response too long for Twitter, I'd rather shift to a more accommodating platform than oversimplify or fall silent.
== Shifting to a more accommodating platform ==
== Shifting to a more accommodating platform ==


* If I point to this page from one of my tweets, here's what I'm proposing:
* If I point you to this page from one of my tweets, then I'm proposing that we follow up on a more accommodating platform.
*# Either [mailto:peter.suber@gmail.com send me an email] and I'll reply by email...
*# [mailto:peter.suber@gmail.com Send me an email] and I'll reply by email.
*# Or post your question to Google+, let me know about it (my G+ handle is [https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber +petersuber]), and I'll reply to your post. Or if you'd like, I could start the thread on my own G+ account and you could reply there. If the dialogue started on Twitter, naturally the G+ posts could link back to it, and the Twitter posts could link to the G+ discussion.
*# If you have a blog that supports comments, post your question to your blog, [mailto:peter.suber@gmail.com let me know about it], and I'll respond in the comment section. 
* The advantage of G+ over email is that others could watch our dialogue, join in, share the URL, and so on. Our back-and-forth could be as public and participatory as on Twitter, but we wouldn't have to stultify ourselves.
*# I have a [https://suber.pubpub.org/ blog that supports comments]. I could start the thread there, and you could respond in the comment section.
* I know that this kind of public, unrestricted dialogue could also take place on other platforms. But I've deliberately deleted my FB account, and [http://www.businessinsider.com/10-reasons-to-delete-your-facebook-account-2010-5 recommend] that you do the same. Let's not go there. For reasons that are similar but not as strong, I don't use LinkedIn. I have experimental accounts on Diaspora or Mastodon, and am ready to try new platforms as they emerge. But for now I haven't seen one better for this purpose than G+.
** Here's an [https://web.archive.org/web/20170810134605/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY example] of the third, from when I blogged at Google+. (I don't have any examples from [https://suber.pubpub.org/ my current blog], which launched in May 2020.)
<!-- I hope that one of the newer alternatives takes off and becomes the clear winner, or forces the others to improve through competition. But they haven't done so yet. -->
** If you want the dialogue to be public, the blog options are better than the email option. They let others watch our dialogue, join in, share the URL, and so on. Our back-and-forth could be as public and participatory as on Twitter, but we wouldn't have to stultify ourselves. Moreover, the blog discussion could link to the originating Twitter thread, and the Twitter thread could link to the blog discussion.
* I'm sorry if one of my tweets that brought you here seemed abrupt or unfriendly. As you can see, the purpose was to invite further discussion, not to shut it down. If I could modify the tweets that point here, or modify this page itself, in order to make that clearer, I'd welcome your thoughts on how to do that.
* Apologies if the tweet that brought you here seemed unfriendly, because it didn't answer your question and pointed to another page. As you can see, the purpose was to invite further discussion, not shut it down.  
 
&nbsp;
<!-- EXAMPLES of my use of this idea:
<!-- EXAMPLES of my use of this idea:
6/19/17, https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY
6/19/17, https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY
https://web.archive.org/web/20170810134605/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY
-->
-->
----


Return to my [https://twitter.com/petersuber Twitter feed] (@petersuber).
== Worth discussing but not on Twitter ==
 
* In a [http://web.archive.org/web/20190119214727/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/7p45yCCDgE2 July 2016 blog post], I asked, "Is there a well-understood hashtag or abbreviation that means: ''Worth discussing but impossible on Twitter''?"
* At the time there wasn't one. I half-seriously proposed a bad one, ''WORDBIT'', for ''WORth Discussing But Impossible on Twitter''. I haven't used it and I'm still looking for something better. Let me know if you see a good one emerging.
* If I had one, I'd use it in many of my Twitter threads, while linking to this page where I can explain myself.


Return to my [https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber Google+ feed] (+petersuber).
== Dialogue without oversimplification ==


Return to my [[Peter Suber | home page]].
* I like dialogue. I like responding to questions and objections when I can, including questions or objections about my own work. But I don't like oversimplification. In fact, I like dialogue in part because it helps overcome oversimplification.
* Hence, I don't like dialogue on Twitter. Or I don't like it once it reaches the point when serious contributions require more space than Twitter provides. For most topics worth discussing, that's very early in the process.
* If I'm in a Twitter thread and someone asks me a question that requires a response too long for Twitter, I'd rather shift to a more accommodating platform than oversimplify or fall silent. That's what this page is about.

Latest revision as of 12:41, 31 August 2020

 

If I point you to this page from one of my tweets, then I'd like to follow up what we were discussing. But Twitter didn't give us the space to do it well, or even to talk about alternatives. — Peter Suber.

 

Shifting to a more accommodating platform

  • If I point you to this page from one of my tweets, then I'm proposing that we follow up on a more accommodating platform.
    1. Send me an email and I'll reply by email.
    2. If you have a blog that supports comments, post your question to your blog, let me know about it, and I'll respond in the comment section.
    3. I have a blog that supports comments. I could start the thread there, and you could respond in the comment section.
    • Here's an example of the third, from when I blogged at Google+. (I don't have any examples from my current blog, which launched in May 2020.)
    • If you want the dialogue to be public, the blog options are better than the email option. They let others watch our dialogue, join in, share the URL, and so on. Our back-and-forth could be as public and participatory as on Twitter, but we wouldn't have to stultify ourselves. Moreover, the blog discussion could link to the originating Twitter thread, and the Twitter thread could link to the blog discussion.
  • Apologies if the tweet that brought you here seemed unfriendly, because it didn't answer your question and pointed to another page. As you can see, the purpose was to invite further discussion, not shut it down.

Worth discussing but not on Twitter

  • In a July 2016 blog post, I asked, "Is there a well-understood hashtag or abbreviation that means: Worth discussing but impossible on Twitter?"
  • At the time there wasn't one. I half-seriously proposed a bad one, WORDBIT, for WORth Discussing But Impossible on Twitter. I haven't used it and I'm still looking for something better. Let me know if you see a good one emerging.
  • If I had one, I'd use it in many of my Twitter threads, while linking to this page where I can explain myself.

Dialogue without oversimplification

  • I like dialogue. I like responding to questions and objections when I can, including questions or objections about my own work. But I don't like oversimplification. In fact, I like dialogue in part because it helps overcome oversimplification.
  • Hence, I don't like dialogue on Twitter. Or I don't like it once it reaches the point when serious contributions require more space than Twitter provides. For most topics worth discussing, that's very early in the process.
  • If I'm in a Twitter thread and someone asks me a question that requires a response too long for Twitter, I'd rather shift to a more accommodating platform than oversimplify or fall silent. That's what this page is about.
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/~psuber/wiki/?title=Not_on_Twitter_please&oldid=2234"