the_one_54321 wrote...
MerinTB wrote...
the_one_54321 wrote...
MerinTB wrote...
Twitter is emblematic of so much that is wrong in pop culture.
It's about the worst of Social Networking - it glorifies the impersonal with followers quantity mattering; it celebrates the superfluous with its character limit, tags, and all the enhancing of everything wrong with cell phone texting; it promotes reporting the inane as important, with many just "tweeting" what they just ate or whatever STUPID, WORTHLESS, MINUSCULE thought crosses their ADD rattled brains.
Chatting via text over networks is not a bad thing, it's a great thing. Chat rooms and email are good, useful things for the most part (like everything, they can be abused, sure.) But IM and texting and now Twitter just take things to their most superficial and time-wasting ends.
Twitter is a communication tool. And like all tools, it is what you use it for.
So are guns, poisons, butcher knives, cars, fire alarms -
there are usually rules and ettitquette to prevent the misuse of such things. Some of them - poisons and guns, for example, are heavily regulated. Some, like guns, many believe should be straight-up outlawed.
You argument is pointless. It is like saying "a word is a word" and not expecting there to be libel laws.
You act like Twitter did something. Twitter can't do anything, and it doesn't even actually promote anything. There's next to no advertisements or encouragements on it. If you're going to complain about "pop culture behavior" then complain about "pop culture behavior." Complain about the tools it uses is what is the pointless argument.
I hope you defend pornography and lolita hentai as ferverently as you are being an apologist of Twitter. Because it is obviously not the naked pictures or drawings that are ever controversial.
From the mere fact that so many people DO have a problem with Twitter, that so many intellectuals, scholars, philosophers, religious leaders, professors will look at the Facebook and Twitter phenomenon and point out the dangers goes to show you that it is REASONABLE, even MAINSTREAM, to be able to blame a piece of software, a website, or a communication medium for problems that arise form it's use.
Like P2P networks. Like pirate radio stations.
Next thing you'll claim that Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh hold zero responsibility for the people who listen to the garbage they spew and act on said garbage -
O'Reilly and "Tiller the Baby Killer" hate speech.
While the vandals and murderers and such who committ said crimes are ultimately responsible, there is blame to be laid at the feet of people like Bill O'Reilly, at Fox News, at the cable and satellite providers who air the hate - and, yes, at the television set for it's own part in giving a medium to the hate.
I don't know why you are defending Twitter. I can't understand it. It's like the "guns don't kill people" nonsense - neither do nuclear weapons nor sealed vials of anthrax, but we also don't let everyone have those. In a completely different way, Twitter as a whole is a "tool" of destroying interpersonal communications, of breaking down privacy, and of continuing to erode the attention spawn and literacy of huge swaths of the population.
Something can have a totally benign use - a fatal airborne virus that when kept in a jar of water glows a pretty blue in the dark can be a very cool looking light source, but it's probably in everyone's best interest if it's NOT mass-produced and distributed as light bulbs.
On a more comparative level to Twitter, if Google Maps had an X-Ray function that allowed you to, from any internet connect computer or handheld anywhere in the world, to look inside your home to see if there were burgulars or if your kids were home, while maybe designed with the best intentions and having legitimately positive uses, is still probably better off not being made available as it also allows burgulars to find empty homes or people to spy on other people.
Twitter is, IMO, a far more negative website/software/communication medium than it is a positive. There are other methods of communication that do almost all of the positives it offers BETTER.
---
Same with sharing pictures on Facebook. There are too many strings attached to a Facebook account for that simple function. There are sites like Flickr for photosharing, you can get free blogsites at Blogger or such and post pictures there to share with friends and family. Facebook has hacking, privacy, identity theft, stalking and other such myriad of issues that make it so very not worth it to just "share photos with friends and family." Again, IMO.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
