The Silence Is Deafening (2020)
This article accurately describes a problem, but while it claims to talk about digital media in general, it is really just talking about Twitter.<p>Here&#x27;s the giveaway:<p><i>&gt; A huge part of the problem is that digital spaces generally have no equivalent of a disapproving glare.</i><p>Every. Single. Platform. has an equivalent to this - except Twitter. Reddit (and HN) have visible downvotes. YouTube&#x27;s downvotes, invisible though they now are, can at least influence the recommender algorithm. Even Facebook has &quot;frowny emoji&quot; reactions. But on Twitter, the only way to express disapproval is to &quot;join the conversation&quot; - thereby amplifying it, and incurring all the negative consequences Devon explores.<p>It&#x27;s engagement genius. (Accidental genius, naturally - like most of Twitter&#x27;s &quot;core game loop&quot;, it&#x27;s an unforseen, emergent phenomenon about which its inventors seem faintly embarrassed). The &quot;grifter&quot; problem Devon mentions exists almost exclusively on Twitter, <i>because it&#x27;s incentivised by the platform!</i><p>Normally I wouldn&#x27;t get so heated about this stuff, but Twitter has attracted a critical mass of the world&#x27;s journalists, so its incentives flow directly into The National Conversation(TM). This has visibly malign results, prompting many people to look for ways to fix it. This is a noble aim, but won&#x27;t get anywhere if we regard Twitter&#x27;s design decisions as immutable and inevitable, rather than a deliberate choice.