> It took a week to do the research and two days to write, which is basically like lightning speed in the academic world.
The effort is greatly appreciated, but having to then digest the content on Twitter really lets the content down.
That being said, where else would this kind of content have worked where the everyreader wouldn't have given up after the third or fourth paragraph of dense medieval historic record?
A Medium post or something would be more natural for this length of text, but it also deters people with the possibility of a ten-page story. 60 tweets might be absurdly long, but at least you know it's not going be 200. So the format is dumb, but I think you're right - it offers a guarantee to readers who don't want denser pieces.
I can look at the scroll bar on an article and decide if I want to continue after a couple paragraphs, I can't tell from a tweet that starts "5/" if it'll go to 8 or 60.
The 'benefit' though is that people automatically believe whatever they read on Twitter. You could copy and paste the exact same text into a Google doc, and the number of people who believe what this guy is saying would probably fall by 90%.
There's a reason why whenever there is a hoax about Justin Bieber or whoever having died, it's always Twitter where these things spread.
Woman. Her name is Stephennie Mulder.
Absolutely. And casts doubt on the quality of the research behind it, as well.