I agree with this and I've noticed the same, as a member of the media who came through the 2010s on Twitter. Articles don't travel anymore. I have mixed feelings - I care more about the written word, but the amount of effort devoted to Twitter was ultimately counterproductive - and to me, it's all an argument for newsletters and news publications that can build up their own subscriber bases and email lists. It's why I care about my own Substack. No matter what happens with X or any media outlet, I will carry my thousand-something email list with me. It's a durable investment.
I'm still a little confused on why articles don't travel / get traction like they used to on twitter? Is it because of Elon gaming substack links & slowing them down, or that people (journos included) want to be 'seen' more than heard nowadays?
My own assumption (no evidence to back this up) is that X's algorithm is somewhat similar to Facebook's now. Several years ago, Facebook throttled news articles on their platform and now sharing anything that's not a pure status update means no one sees it. X is quietly pivoting to images and audio. In the end, I don't know how much any of this matters. This feels like, in general, the twilight for social media. Instagram and TikTok are the two relevant platforms left and neither are as robust as they were in 2020-2021.
TWTR is actively suppressing Substack, as Taibbi and @Doomberg have noted. Doomberg runs the most popular Finance Substack, and they've totally left Twitter. They have their Twitter acct on lurker mode, and use Substack Notes now, exclusively.
Why fight the algorithm, when you can build on a platform that has helped and rewarded you?
I remember reading this ( https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/technology/31iht-chinet.1861775.html ) when I was young through a certain kind of chauvinistic and quasi-orientalist prism. And a mere decade later here America was (a valuable lesson that in many things we think we are ahead, we are actually behind).
We produce and produced lots of truly incredible journalism. I don’t think much of that stuff ever went viral though. The death of article virality is probably a good trade off if it is a result of a change that makes internet mobs forming marginally less common.
Who cares about fucking twitter? It was always terrible, and it’s good it’s dying. Maybe journalism can become 92% horseshit instead of 97% horseshit if journalists break their addiction to it?
I agree with this and I've noticed the same, as a member of the media who came through the 2010s on Twitter. Articles don't travel anymore. I have mixed feelings - I care more about the written word, but the amount of effort devoted to Twitter was ultimately counterproductive - and to me, it's all an argument for newsletters and news publications that can build up their own subscriber bases and email lists. It's why I care about my own Substack. No matter what happens with X or any media outlet, I will carry my thousand-something email list with me. It's a durable investment.
I'm still a little confused on why articles don't travel / get traction like they used to on twitter? Is it because of Elon gaming substack links & slowing them down, or that people (journos included) want to be 'seen' more than heard nowadays?
My own assumption (no evidence to back this up) is that X's algorithm is somewhat similar to Facebook's now. Several years ago, Facebook throttled news articles on their platform and now sharing anything that's not a pure status update means no one sees it. X is quietly pivoting to images and audio. In the end, I don't know how much any of this matters. This feels like, in general, the twilight for social media. Instagram and TikTok are the two relevant platforms left and neither are as robust as they were in 2020-2021.
It’s because they don’t want anyone to ever leave the feed. That’s bad for their business (advertising).
But their decisions are making people leave. Twitter's prominence was fueled, in part, by the way the media obsessed over it.
But are people actually leaving? I feel like there are a lot of people saying they are leaving. But how much of that is sustained staying away?
💯
I still can't believe people care about Twitter. I know they do. I know people use it. But I just can't process it.
I just plopped down my nine bucks for this newsletter and felt immediately rewarded by this post. Validated everything I am seeing on the hell site.
TWTR is actively suppressing Substack, as Taibbi and @Doomberg have noted. Doomberg runs the most popular Finance Substack, and they've totally left Twitter. They have their Twitter acct on lurker mode, and use Substack Notes now, exclusively.
Why fight the algorithm, when you can build on a platform that has helped and rewarded you?
I remember reading this ( https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/technology/31iht-chinet.1861775.html ) when I was young through a certain kind of chauvinistic and quasi-orientalist prism. And a mere decade later here America was (a valuable lesson that in many things we think we are ahead, we are actually behind).
We produce and produced lots of truly incredible journalism. I don’t think much of that stuff ever went viral though. The death of article virality is probably a good trade off if it is a result of a change that makes internet mobs forming marginally less common.
Who cares about fucking twitter? It was always terrible, and it’s good it’s dying. Maybe journalism can become 92% horseshit instead of 97% horseshit if journalists break their addiction to it?
You have to break down the article
These guys are crushing it on Twitter essentially repackaging old news with images.
They tweet out the links to individual sources, but share a narrative in the process. More than just tweeting old the article link
https://twitter.com/bpoppenheimer
https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan
Emma Carmichael, like everyone associated with Gawker, is white trash, Ethan. Jesus.
Fantastic, Ethan. I’ve noticed this as well. Thank you for explaining it all as only you can.