1) Is massively popular; and
2) Has design flaws that actively sabotage conversation
... could lead to a situation where "B would be better if A went away," due to network effects. No matter how good an alternative B you build, people will keep on suffering with A despite its limitations, because that's where all the other people are. The existence of A sucks away oxygen that B needs to grow.
People who think twitter is a conversation platform are #doingitwrong. Period. People who try to use twitter for conversations and get angry when it doesn't work well or some random stranger barges in and starts hurting their feelings obviously need to realize that there are a ton of other platforms that solve their problem. Namely message boards, any form of chat (irc, IM, etc), blogs, etc.
If millions of people insist on using your product as a conversation platform, it is a conversation platform, no matter what you intended it to be.
A thing is what it is.
Twitter isn't a conversation platform
Who is your provider btw? That sort of bad acting should be named and shamed (on a platform like twitter perhaps?)
Now you've seen one. I think you're confusing emergent with wrong, tbh.
Also, conversations look different when you're looking at them from one of your lists, or if the people you are following are different than the people I follow.
So many clunky issues that you need to be on top of for it to make sense, and this is what's lost on the general person.
They're you're either blind or not looking very hard.
Twitter is a conversation platform. A shitty one perhaps, but one nontheless.
It's only "obviously ok" if (a AND b), where:
(a) "millions of people use it that way"
(b) it's productive and beneficial when used that way.
The (a) is only enough to show that Twitter serves a need people have for certain coversational structure (short messages). Doesn't prove that it's the best tool imaginable tool for the purpose or thats it's the pinnacle where evolution in such networks stops.
Actually, this very thread started with a FA saying that it's not (b).
Edit to add: also, I didn't try to "prove that it's the best tool imaginable tool for the purpose or thats it's the pinnacle where evolution in such networks stops." I just said it's ok.
People are not always the best to judge what benefits them. Case in point: everything from Bush, to heroin addicts, to fast food, to Justin Bieber.
A thing is what it is.
Ah, but that depends on what your definition "\"is\" is" is.
I hope this makes you feel better!
And that depends on what your definition of "\\" is.
That sounds post hoc. It, of course, is what it is and does what it does, but do you have any evidence that this result was well-calculated or planned?
IMO they could have been the killer app. That potential fell a little short and it's just another marketing funnel for TV people.
I agree twitter is not suitable for conversations, and also don't understand why it must go away. Like you said, it does one thing and it does it well.
Now you're in the habit of just shotgunning statements into the crowd, so when you do the same thing on Facebook, you've forgotten how to engage in a more lengthy, rational discussion.
Or, even worse, you've grown up with Twitter and don't understand that people can have lengthy, meaningful conversations via the internet.
They're almost invariably not with tech people, though.
That's, by the way, is his whole point.
Just people people are OK using X now, doesn't mean wanting to take X down is bad, or will necessarily hurt people.
Yeah, and what's the issue with that?
The very idea behind a "society" is that its members take certain decisions about whats OK and what's not. Not everybody has to agree, but everybody can try to convince society for what he thinks it's best or what should be stopped.
That "millions are doing it" is also not an argument. 2/3 of Americans did smoke, and yet it's now banned in most public places and looked down upon. Thousands of businesses did "seggregation" too.
What Alex does is start a discussion and voice his dislike and wish for X to stop. He doesn't rule over anybody, and doesn't force people to stop X with violence.
So I see no problem there.
I've never thought of Twitter as a platform about having a conversation. Its a strange mix of a soapbox and some messaging but its inherently a public medium with the ability to have a public conversations but thats not its focus, its why brands love it, but its not Snapchat/Facebook or Google+.