35
votes
Bad faith is the condition of the modern internet, and shitposting is the lingua franca of the online world
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Thread by @Millicentsomer: I get the longing--I even share it--but the naivete is annoying. Online pundits should know (and factor in) that social media as a "public s...
- Word count
- 44 words
Not sure how people feel about reposting Twitter threads, but I expect this will end up being a piece in Slate at some point since she's a Slate writer.
In any case, I thought this was a very smart take on the state on online discourse and a bleak reality any of us who value it need to learn to live with and work around.
Edit: And here is the Slate article on the same topic
Mostly unchanged from the twitter thread, just a little cleaned up/edited for clarity. I would replace the link with this if I could.
Twitter is an exceptionally bad platform for long-form, thoughtful essays. Even if you can post a longer text as a sequence of tweets, there’s an almost irresistible pull to make each tweet an independent soundbyte. I think there’s probably an interesting take in there, but I think it would be better expressed literally anywhere else. Even reddit or facebook.
The text is littered with references I don’t get. What’s the deal with the nice-looking boy in the Hawaiian shirt? I have no idea. Is it something Twitter users are expected to know about? If this were a Slate article, I’d expect there to be at least a link to some context.
Thanks. Seems like it’s memes all the way down. I don’t know how anyone not involved in this subculture could be expected to follow the convoluted trail of Big Igloos, icehouses, clown worlds, roof Koreans, and whatever else.
That's part of the point of the article. The fact that you can't is part of the reason why social media makes it impossible to have an open and good faith debate about ideas.
After requiring help to understand the nuance of the piece, I can’t say I’m pleased by the format. It’s clear to me that this amalgamation of tweets did not produce something with a life of its own, since it was produced for a specific audience that shares a specific set of references that are not available outside of Twitter’s context. It’s also highly condensed.
I’m definitely not opposed to these threads but I think they would benefit from some explanation efforts on the part of the poster. If that’s not something you’re willing to do, maybe find another source.
The references in there aren’t Twitter references so much as part of the discourse throughout social media. I think it makes sense that an entire piece about social media would need to talk about what’s happening in social media discourse.
This is really good and also deeply disheartening.
I genuinely don't know how it's possible to win against bad faith arguments. As soon as someone is acting with ulterior, malicious motives, what can you do to meaningfully address that? They've shown that they're willing to discard their own role in any sort of social contract, as well as ignoring yours, thus any engagement likely comes at your own expense. As the author mentioned: "good faith engagement is actually maladaptive". Ignoring them or exiting isn't a solution either, as that just gives them the floor.
I have no idea what are the actual conclusions of this article. The argument is convoluted and split in bite sized pieces (as one should expect from a twitter thread). An explanation would be appreciated.
I figured that much, but what does that mean?
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
This seems to be a good-faith argument made on Twitter about how there are no longer any good-faith debates on Twitter.
I think sometimes there are good-faith debates, but not with every passer-by who tries to engage with you. Many strangers are not worth arguing with. The supposed "public square" is no different; do you really want to stop and talk with some religious fanatic holding a sign?
I think there might be more polite ways of dealing with people who may or may not be up-to-date on the latest memes. Posting a link to an FAQ seems like a decent way.