Unfortunately the author cannot read your thanks, see upvotes, engage in a conversation, or learn from others’ input. They use a write-only client to access this community.
That would be funny, but there is a difference between Twitter and HN.
In this case, the author wants to use twitter as a microblog -- the use case it was designed for. If they don't want to read other input on their twitter, why would they?
Meanwhile HN is explicitly designed as a community with a focus on curiosity, exploration, and discussion... none of which your comment provides.
Twitter has features to Share, Like, Subscribe, Explore via Hashtags. Twitter does not have a feature to "Edit". I'm unclear how we can look at these core strategic choices and decide it's designed not as a community, but as a blogging engine.
The point is not that twitter cannot be used as a community, but that it has been a microblogging platform as long as it has existed. In addition, each of the features you listed can be quite useful for discovery in a blogging type situation.
> Twitter, online microblogging service for distributing short messages among groups of recipients via personal computer or mobile telephone.
Regardless, another client that treats the microblogging side of twitter as it's sole focus is not unreasonable. Much like reddit.com being better suited to memes and images and old.reddit.com is better suited to discussion, different clients can have different focuses, which is a Good Thing.
Twitter, true to its name, is a bunch of little birdies chirping all around one big tree. Mostly noise, worth it for the occasional song. Like most chit-chatter at most parties. I could show up to a party, get on a soapbox, do my monologue, then leave. But I won't make any friends or impact that way, even if these parties is where the audience is.
Even the "Stoic & Enlightened" accounts like Naval regularly engage with the birdies around them.
> Mostly noise. Like most chit-chatter at most parties. I could show up to the party, get on a soapbox, do my monologue, then leave. But I won't make any friends or impact that way, even if these parties is where the audience is.
Good point. However, making friends/impact is not what everyone wants from twitter.
Some people just want a place to put their thoughts out, and don't really care what anyone else is doing.
Edit: I'd like to apologize for being overly aggressive in my first comment. That was uncalled for. This chain clearly has started a discussion, for which I thank you.
> Some people just want a place to put their thoughts out, and don't really care what anyone else is doing.
Not being snarky: this is what personal journals are for.
It's difficult for me to reconcile "I want to put my thoughts out, but for as many people as possible to see them, and without caring about impact". At best, it feels like void navel-gazing, and at worst it might be a source of so much thoughtless/marginalizing content on Twitter: because the author did not care what their words will do to the reader. The feedback loop is essential not only for enriching the overall community, but for enriching our own understanding.
> "I want to put my thoughts out, but for as many people as possible to see them, and without caring about impact".
I suppose I've interpreted the thought process differently. I see it as "I'm going to put my thoughts out, maybe someone will find it interesting.", with the key difference of not caring about many people see/interact.
> at worst it might be a source of so much thoughtless/marginalizing content on Twitter: because the author did not care what their words will do to the reader.
Alternately, this could be caused by echo chambers where people scream endless affirmation at you because you said something that lines up with their political views.
Neither method of using Twitter is more wrong or more right, just different.
Props to both of you for keeping it civil. Genuinely interesting to see slightly opposing views work out through discussion - something that wouldn't be possible in a write-only scenario...
> Genuinely interesting to see slightly opposing views work out through discussion[.]
One of the reasons HN is one of the few places I actually post on the internet. People here are generally willing to discuss in good faith.
> something that wouldn't be possible in a write-only scenario...
/me sighs
yes. That was the whole point of the conversation, and why we are having this discussion in a forum designed for discussion, instead of in a platform that is equally designed for microblogging and discussion.
In addition, it's perfectly possible to put contact info in your twitter bio. Someone is just as capable of looking at that and emailing you as they would be if you were blogging off your own website.
Twitter allows for this just as many blogs (like books) don't have comment sections but have the author accessible via email or not at all. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to publish.
Where it's written, if it's designed so, doesn't really matter. I mean it's not practical to do so over text, but email? Yes.
There are even a subsection of people who never engage in twitter and just consume...
You can still allow people to visit your site and email you... But many people tweet successfully without replying to anyone.
If you disagree with what these non repliers say, stop reading.
Other readers don't need protection. They need exposure to more ideas, not fewer.
Hacker News would actually be the opposite if I was going to go single-sided with it. I don’t normally participate in the conversations but I love reading them.
This conversation though just happened to touch on something I’ve been experimenting with so I was compelled to comment.
That said, give me the read only client for HN (I know this exist already) :)
