Caio C. G. Oliveira

Take a look at this dialog:

It shows the owner of twitter responding a user of the platform insulting them.

Would you buy from a store where the owner behaves like this?
Would you buy anything from someone who behaves like this?
Would you be friends with someone like this?
Would you support a business of someone who behaves like this?

So… why are you still using Twitter? Seriously. The web is a huge environment. You can choose from dozens of other services. Just stop using (and by using you are endorsing this behaviour) Twitter.

This text is still a draft.

The social dynamics that take place on Twitter make it a key platform for the dissemination of information. Not for the reach or even the conversations, but for the simple fact that key people are there. Twitter is not the platform with the largest number of users, nor does it have the most traffic, but what happens to Larissa reverberates a lot.

In its current configuration, the platform serves as the perfect space for the manipulation of speech from the movement of robots to boost specific hashtags that end up guiding the mass media. Hence, the subject falls into people’s conversations and for those interested, it is enough to reap the results.

Last week I participated in the Panorama program, on TV ALMG, where we talked about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and the possible paths of the platform.

One thing that I think might be cool and that is on Elon Musk’s list of proposals for Twitter is the individual validation of users. The initiative is controversial because, depending on how its implementation is carried out, it can put people in a situation of persecution by authoritarian governments. But there are ways to operationalise this without having this potentially harmful externality. Anyway, I understand that one-on-one validation can be cool because it has the potential to wipe out fake accounts and bots. This will be of great help in the process of combating the dissemination of disinformation actions.

November update: The current proposal of “pay to be (and remain) validated” is, in my perspective, an error. Everyone that wish to be verified should be verified for free on the platform. This would elevate the civility and politeness on the platform, since people could be held responsible for what they publish. Attaching this to a monthly payment is wrong, in my opinion because a large amount of people just can’t afford monthly payments. I believe a subscription-based platform is viable, though. Current speculations are that people who subscribe would pay around 8 US dollars monthly. This can be really expensive in a lot of countries. I believe people who subscribe should have an ad-free experience, organic reach of 100% and pay less than 5 US dollars a month. This would probably scale better than what is being ventilated by Musk. Note that it is key not to attach user verification / validation to the subscriptions. This should be free.

As Twitter currently operates based on the sale of advertising, the existence of fake accounts and robots helps the company by inflating the number of users and composing graphics that the platform uses to sell ads in our feeds. Another thing that happens is that, when anchoring its revenue in the sale of advertising space, Twitter has to algorithmically manipulate the feed in a way that brands have to pay to make their posts reach the audiences of interest.

This is my biggest annoyance with the platform in the current setup. The organic reach of posts is always a fraction of their potential. Let’s say… if a profile has 100 followers on the platform and posts a message, only a part according to research I did a few years ago, the average was 37% of your followers will see the post in their feeds. I find this quite counterproductive in terms of system and usefulness for people. However, this is a format that pleases the platform well, as it generates demand for profiles that commercially explore their presence there and end up paying for boosting.

To get an idea of ​​this challenge related to the reach of messages on Twitter, let’s look at a practical case. I posted the video of my participation in the TV show on different platforms. Below, a brief report of these posts and what you can have about their reach.

Although my quick effort here did not account for the number of views that the post had on Instagram and Facebook (these platforms do not provide this data directly in their applications) it is possible to see from the number of reactions (likes / likes) that the reach was greater. than what I had on Twitter.

In other words: for a message to reach a large number of people on Twitter, it is necessary that key people see this post and decide to reverberate it (like, comment or share). We return to the issue of social networking, which is the need to be well connected on the platform. It is not enough to have a large number of followers. You need to have the right Twitter followers.

On the other hand, that is, on the side of those who are on the platform to consume information, this way of working is very bad, as users choose to follow profiles because they are interested in the content that these profiles post. As the platform does not show everything to them, there is a bottleneck that is not being resolved.

Due to this limitation, I understand that platforms that provide higher organic reach can be more interesting. In that vein, I understand that Mastodon has all the potential to solve this. At Mastodon we have full organic reach (ie: your effective organic reach is equal to your potential reach). In other words, everything you post will be shown in the feed of those who follow you. This makes this platform truly what Elon Musk argues Twitter is: the public arena of discussion.

In terms of platform design and potential the Mastodon is a far superior platform. Instance administrators can work on content moderation and even handle the connection (or not) with other servers. This makes content-specific restrictions by type or profile operational. Anyway. It’s a dynamic that has really cool potential and I invite you to check it out. https://ursal.zone/@caiocgo

With all this hype about Elon Musk buying Twitter, obviously a lot of people ended up going back to the site and seeing what it is… I myself am one of those people who went back to Twitter after Elon Musk bought the platform.

One of the things I did when I got back was to get the news about the transaction. Hence, it was inevitable to find profiles of journalists who were talking about the case and it didn’t take long for “RT is not an endorsement” to appear (or even “RT ≠ endorsement” for those who know how to copy-and-paste or even understand Unicode ) in the bios of some of them. This statement is easy to find; especially in profiles of journalists. I understand it to be a way for them (mainly journalists who cover the universe of politics) to exempt themselves from any responsibility associated with RTing a controversial message. But that always leaves me puzzled; even more so when it’s in a tech journalist’s bio. What pisses me off is that it’s simply not true. RT is a form of endorsement, yes. It’s in the nature of functionality. Just saying this in your profile does not resolve the fact that you are endorsing a message by retweeting it.

I explain by showing two (of several) things that happen when we simply retweet (RT) a message without context.

1 – Message amplification

When you RT any post on Twitter, the first thing that happens is that you amplify the original message for your followers (or for a fraction of them, for that matter… but still, it’s an amplification of the message). Making a message – even if you disagree with it – reach your followers is a way of endorsing the content of the original post. Put yourself in the position of a person who follows you. Suddenly that person following you sees a message in their feed with something you retweeted. Without any context, that RT signals to the person reading the tweet that you agree with it to the point of replicating the message to your followers. In other words: RT is endorsement.

2 – Platform signaling

Another thing that happens when we RT without any context associated with it is to signal to the platform that that content is of interest to you. Obviously the RT already signals to the platform that that content is of interest before anything else. But when you RT and don’t add any context, it’s you signaling to the platform that your profile is interested in that content and is recommending (endorsing, as I said above) that content to your network. If you don’t agree with something and RT that something, you’re sending the wrong signal to the platform. Then two things can happen as a result of this. The first is for you to signal to the platform that that content may deserve some attention. That’s normal. But doing that with content you don’t like is shooting yourself in the foot. You will be helping the platform to be a bad place for everybody. The second is you help the author of the original content to be promoted by the platform to people including your audience. This seems to be included in the previous question, but notice that by signaling this to the platform, that original profile, even if it is someone you don’t agree with at all, you are informing the platform that that content may be of interest to you , your audience (your followers) or people who look like you. I mean, nothing cool. By RTing a post and not adding any context, you are endorsing the original post. Understand it!

How to do it?

An important thing to do is to provide proper context to the RTs you give. By doing this you are letting your audience know that you disagree with what you are retweeting, you are explaining why you disagree and you are also (very important) associating the words in their context with the RT. This way you also teach the platform that that RT is associated with those words and this can help the platform to understand the reason for the RT and not necessarily understand that that original profile may be of interest to your audience.

Therefore, it is always good for you to give the context when you are going to replicate a message. Put your observation. This helps your audience (your followers) and also helps teach the platform that what is on your profile is associated with the words you used in your RT.

If you’ve read all of this and haven’t seen anything new, good for you! 🙂
However, this is likely not part of their repertoire (yet) and was new. In this case, the reason for using the video The machine is us/using us in my Communication and Digital Culture classes in the middle of 2022 is justified. It is that even though it was made there in 2007, the concepts prevail there.

Furthermore, there are many people who work with social media / digital communication who do not associate our actions on the platforms and what they learn with and about us.

Obviously, in the same way that platforms learn from us, they also learn that the association we make between our profiles and messages that we replicate (RT) without context are not necessarily affinity associations. But it’s also nice to understand that until that happens, the platform needs to know you and your interaction habits there. That comes with time. So, you need to be a very frequent user of the platform for this to have already happened. And it’s also nice to keep in mind that this learning about platforms only solves half of the issues I brought up in this post. The other half (confusing your audience) is not solved with this machine/platform learning. Your followers will be confused when they see something you’ve RTed without providing context in their feeds.

Now that you know this, make a commitment not to replicate a message without giving the proper context associated with it. Help your audience (and the machines as well) not get confused about your intentions. Believe me, not confusing the machines now can be useful to you in the future, when they take over. 🙂

Muriel Deacon é uma personagem da série Years and Years. Se você não assistiu a série, faça a si mesmo este favor e assista. São apenas seis episódios. Te garanto que vai valer a pena.

A série mostra um futuro possível muito próximo. Imediato. É assustadora a semelhança com o contexto atual que vivemos. Como muitas produções da BBC (Black Mirror sendo o exemplo mais famoso) é uma crítica ao nosso presente.

O trecho acima é retirado do penúltimo episódio. Eu acho que ele é bem bacana para nos ajudar e nos motivar sobre decisões importantes que precisamos tomar para que evitemos chegar a um futuro tão estranho quanto o que a série mostra.

Como o meu contexto atual é o de olhar as plataformas como objeto de estudo, minha interpretação deste monólogo se encaixou fortemente com a questão de como precisamos sair delas o quanto antes para podermos evitar um futuro horrível. As indicações de que as plataformas agem ativamente para nos prejudicar como cidadãos estão aí. Só não percebe quem não quer. A edição de hoje da “The Interface” me motivou juntar o monólogo da Muriel com esta reflexão e postar estas linhas desordenadas aqui.

Precisamos sair das plataformas o quanto antes. Facebook e Twitter sendo os primeiros dos quais precisamos sair. Isso é urgente e precisa ser feito pela maior quantidade de pessoas possível. Se seguirmos o uso que fazemos dessas plataformas, a tendência é uma degradação exponencial.

Andrew Keen falou disso.

Bob Hoffman falou disso.

Zeynep Tufekci falou disso.

Jaron Lanier falou disso.

Eli Pariser falou disso.

Geert Lovink falou disso.

Shoshana Zuboff falou disso.

Só não vê, quem não quer. Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp e Twitter devem deixar de fazer parte de nosso cotidiano. O quanto antes. E eles são apenas os primeiros que devem sair. Outras plataformas precisam ser eliminadas ou ter seu uso readequado. LinkedIn e YouTube se encaixam nesta segunda categoria.

Enfim. Sei que parece mais um rant. E é. Mas é um rant que precisa ser observado e seguido. Isso está fazendo mal para as pessoas. Para nós.