It's my personal belief that the endless arguing as you describe is the main point of Twitter for a lot of people; they're not there to settle an argument or to have their mind changed, they're there for the heated discussions.
And I kinda get it, I was there for it as well and to this day will make shitposts on the internet with no intent to actually engage with any replies <_<
There's no function similar to "likes", "upvotes", or "reddit gold" that incentivizes good faith communication either. The features are too ambiguous. One community on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ invented their own "delta" awards, where you submit a stance, people try to convince you otherwise, and if they do, they're awarded a "delta".
It's a small community, but it's an interesting experiment at what online communication could be.
> It's my personal belief that the endless arguing as you describe is the main point of Twitter for a lot of people; they're not there to settle an argument or to have their mind changed, they're there for the heated discussions.
'twas ever thus - some people just like arguing. Give them an amplifier and they'll never stop. Usenet was the same, back in the day, so its nothing new.
I would recognize that as just another form of bad faith communication. If you’re not in a debate to listen, learn and see things from another perspective you are just in it for emotional reasons (“I want to be right”,”Look how cool I am”,”My way or the highway”, etc)
And I kinda get it, I was there for it as well and to this day will make shitposts on the internet with no intent to actually engage with any replies <_<