or
"We Don't Need A New Twitter"
and trust that people will supply context.
Surely the vast amount of brainpower could go into perhaps modifying the style or the algorithm, or tweet length, or some variable to help? Surely there is an embedded solution, somewhere in there.
That's why I'm saying headlines like this are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes. This opinion as a statement of "what is best" is literally useless, like what true value does it offer? Do you think companies read Cal Newports blog and are like "gee I guess building a new twitter clone exactly like it is could lead to increased world negativity... better not do it"
I would read this article if it were like "Ways to Reduce Negativity in Twitter-Like Algorithms." Now THAT would be useful, and interesting.
Or even, if he doesn't want to think about solving it, then "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity". Now it's a statement of fact and its up to the reader to use the information usefully, ("Hmm.. maybe I shouldnt build this new platform, or I should change how I look at it") rather than treating the user like a bumbling child.
Well, yes, that's his intent: to influence people by presenting his opinion.
1) Twitter-clone emphasizing negativity not solvable in any possible way
2) He has considered every single solution that exists in the entire problem space, even those which might take teams of minds to come up with answers to
Yeah, sure, he's all alone in saying that.
> Surely the vast amount of brainpower could go into perhaps modifying the style or the algorithm, or tweet length, or some variable to help? Surely there is an embedded solution, somewhere in there.
"Surely"?!? There is no more reason to be sure of that than of the opposite. On the contrary, all the evidence so far rather strongly supports the opposite. So... "Surely"? Muahahahaa.
> That's why I'm saying headlines like this are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes.
That's a bit like saying "That's why I'm saying headlines like 'We don't need a new bubonic plague' are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes". What, you're saying Twitter isn't like the bubonic plague? Like I said, all evidence so far points toward it being so, so why don't you prove that it isn't. That's the only way to prove your claim that the headline is stupid.
> Or even, if he doesn't want to think about solving it, then "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity". Now it's a statement of fact and its up to the reader to use the information usefully
1) Twitter is the quintessential Twitter-like platform.
2) WTF would "a new Twitter" even mean, if not precisely any new "Twitter-like platform"?!?
3) The headline has always been a statement of fact.
The bubonic plague killed millions of people.
"We dont need __some tech thing__" is definitely not a statement of fact. There's literally no universe where this is true.
"Twitter when analyzed in X way, appears sentiment trends towards the negative" is much more a statement of fact, but won't be preferred because its not clickbait paternalistic garbage
It's precisely as much a statement of fact as your proposed "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity", just not quite as mealy-mouthed.
> There's literally no universe where this is true.
Besides this one.