Difference between revisions of "Not on Twitter please"

From Peter Suber
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(17 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 well, or even the space to talk about alternatives. — [[Peter_Suber|Peter Suber]].
+
| 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 [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.
 
 
== 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 than 140 or 280 characters. For most interesting topics, 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, then I'm proposing one of the following paths, whichever you like best.
+
* 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.
 
*# [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.
*# 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 post a comment. Or if you'd like, I could start the thread on [https://suber.pubpub.org/ my blog] and you could post your comments there.  
+
*# 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.
** Here's an [https://web.archive.org/web/20170810134605/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY example] from when I blogged at Google+. I don't have any examples from [https://suber.pubpub.org/ my PubPub blog], which launched in May 2020.
+
*# 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.
** If you want the dialogue to be public, the blog option is better than the email option. It lets 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 tweet thread, and the tweet thread could link to the blog discussion.
+
** 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'm sorry if one of my tweets that brought you here seemed unfriendly. As you can see, the purpose was to invite further discussion, not shut it down. If I could modify the tweets pointing here, or modify this page itself, in order to make that clearer, I'd welcome your thoughts on how to do that.
+
** 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.  
 
 
 
<!-- 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
 
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 ==
  
Return to my [https://suber.pubpub.org/ blog].
+
* 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.
 +
 
 +
== 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 17:41, 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.