Difference between revisions of "Not on Twitter please"

From Peter Suber
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 23: Line 23:
 
*# [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, let me know about it, and I'll post a comment. Or if you'd like, I could start the thread on my own blog and you could post your comments there.  
 
*# If you have a blog that supports comments, post your question to your blog, let me know about it, and I'll post a comment. Or if you'd like, I could start the thread on my own blog and you could post your comments there.  
** Here's an [https://web.archive.org/web/20170810134605/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY example from when I blogged at Google+.  
+
** Here's an [https://web.archive.org/web/20170810134605/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/Mx3eCDyebjY example] from when I blogged at Google+.  
 
** If the dialogue started on Twitter, naturally the blog posts could link back to it, and the Twitter posts could link to the blog discussion.
 
** If the dialogue started on Twitter, naturally the blog posts could link back to it, and the Twitter posts could link to the blog discussion.
 
* The advantage of using a blog 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.
 
* The advantage of using a blog 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.

Revision as of 15:54, 29 July 2020

 

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.

 

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 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

  • If I point to this page from one of my tweets, then I'm proposing either of the following paths.
    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 post a comment. Or if you'd like, I could start the thread on my own blog and you could post your comments there.
    • Here's an example from when I blogged at Google+.
    • If the dialogue started on Twitter, naturally the blog posts could link back to it, and the Twitter posts could link to the blog discussion.
  • The advantage of using a blog 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'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 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.

 


Return to my Twitter feed (@petersuber).

Return to my Google+ feed (+petersuber).

Return to my home page.