Yearning for President Blog – OAG #9

The Tweet-storm, in the new era of President Tweet, remains a nostalgia-inducing afterimage of the blog and of the era of President Blog, but it may also portend a return or attempted return to coherent, accountable, and consequential civic discussion in a mass society, back from the Great Flood of clicks.

Whatever Twitter offers to discourse or its preliminaries, information does not want only to be free to move on, or free to displace, then be displaced. It also wants to be free to stay, to be appreciated, to be invested with and to be attached to content, for a virtual community even if only a community of two or for a “community within” – the community of mind known to neuroscientists and philosophers, and, if they are right, to each and every one (or more) of us. Information does not want just to negate. It also wants to posit. Information wants to be free to be ephemeral, to be forgotten, to live for an intimate moment and vanish, but it also wants to be free to endure, to be recalled, to survive, to stand and fight as well as to snipe and flee.

The tension turns up in a social media phenomenon I noted a couple of weeks ago in, of course, a Tweet:

When I referred to “unwieldiness,” I meant the difficulties for both author and reader in organizing and responding to a “tweetstorm.” Depending on the app being used to compose and read, the storm1 may be interrupted at multiple points, either by author error or by a by a design not really intended to assemble and exhibit a long series of tweets: As a reader, when interested in a Thread (less often than perhaps once upon a time), I more often than not find myself clicking around looking for a rendering that simply presents the unadorned procession of tweets in order, without premature “conversation,” obstreperous “show more”‘s, and intervening errors.

Developers can seek to bridge the gap between instant impulse and extended consideration in different ways, perhaps with a focus on execution speed at transition points between Twitter and other-than-Twitter host. I hesitate to get into the technical questions before I have done some more work of my own, including on speeding up this very site, but I will note that there has been significant effort on the composition side, in the creation of tools for breaking text into tweets or quickly converting blocks of text into readable images. Why these tools have not caught on more broadly may in turn have to do with negative reactions to tweetstorms.

A storm or drizzle or bleating spate of tweets suggests a kind of bid for dominance, or at least a step on to a virtual soapbox. When I take my tweet-maker in hand and drizzle over your timeline in twenty or fifty emissions, I am defying Twitter’s forced formal egalitarianism, in which every tweet, of the million-follower star as well as of the new egg, takes up the same ca. 140-character moment of space-time.

Now, Twitter is not by any means a realm of complete equality. Still, some alternative options to deliver essentially the same extended content may be illustrative of the key way in which it mostly is.

If I were to compose a ca. 3000-character text, put it on my blog, and then proceed to tweet 25 minimally mutually distinct links to it, one per minute, I might be seen to have obviously spammed my followers’ timelines.

I could instead break the original text itself into 25 different numbered tweets, and likewise tweet them out, one a minute. The result would take up the identical amount of Twitter-turf, each tweet just as much a self-promotion, but, if every tweet was substantially different from every other one, I at least would have satisfied one of the two most basic Twitter imperatives, the presentation of novelty (as novelty for me and possibly for you), even if I’d still be failing on the other, connected imperative, on spontaneous immediacy in answer to the basic Twitter question – “What’s happening?”

The labor and preparation involved would also contradict the imperative of spontaneity, as also visible in the overly prepared Twitter storm, written out somewhere else for just this purpose. The artificial storm would almost certainly lack the aura of a thought in the process of being thought – because it obviously would not be that.

The deficit would be even more apparent were I to storm some major part of this post using David Winer’s “Little Pork Chop,” which partly automates the reconstructive disassembly of text into tweets. The result would partly satisfy both requirements, and also partly fail them: Like the contrived, pre-written but hand-delivered storm, the porked storm would also not be a “real” storm, and it would be even less likely to be received as one. It would take up the same amount of words, but, because Little Pork Chop goes instantly to tweets, rapid fire, the result would be less attention-commanding than the same series of tweets transmitted “the old-fashioned way” over a longer period. (No doubt LPC could be modified to imitate the Tweet Storm, but… that would be dishonest, and might even invite Twitter prohibition.)

The differences between the pork-storm and real storm bring us back to the initial observations on the gap and its difficulties. The aura of novelty and immediacy in the “act of tweeting” before a public consisting potentially or in theory of millions upon millions, or some significant percentage of one’s followership plus who knows how many others via retweets, may be irreplaceable and unique, regardless of how we attempt to mediate between “tweet here now” and the longer wave form of blogging -which latter also once seemed to provide an astonishing advance in bringing widely separated minds together on a topic of mutual interest, but which now seems to over-stress our patience.

Or we could put the matter in political terms, as during the immediate aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election, and in so doing also illustrated another alternative twitter and site mediation:

The Tweet-storm, in the age of President Tweet, remains a nostalgia-inducing afterimage of the blog and of the era of President Blog, but it may also point to a return to the possibility or image of coherent, accountable, and consequential civic discussion in a mass society, back from the Great Flood of clicks.

Notes:

  1. Sam Wilkinson’s term is, indeed, probably better than, say, “Twogging” for a series of tweets all on the same subject, deployed to bypass Twitter’s trademark character limit. I might suggest “Bleeting,” and I’ve also used the term “Tweet-Drizzle,” which seems less pretentious than “storm.” Twitter or rather its Tweeps seem lately to have moved in the direction of the simpler “Thread.” []

Lanced Infinity

WordPresser
Home Page Public Email Twitter Facebook YouTube Github  

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Posted in Internet, Meta, notes, Operation American Greatness, Twitter Tagged with:

Leave a Reply

2 Comments on "Yearning for President Blog – OAG #9"

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins
Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Burt Likko
Guest

Is the in-between point between a Tweet and a blog post the “Facebook essay”?

wpDiscuz

Related Posts:

Noted & Quoted

(0)

President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics.

The allegations, if true, would appear to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics, even as US-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million (£8 million) annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP.

Comment →
(0)

The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Trump’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.

In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a trump supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”

By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.

“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”

Comment →
(1)

If there's anything mitigating the bad news for the White House here, it is that Comey may have also sent subtle signals that the matters under investigation are not principally about the personal conduct of Trump himself. While this is speculation, I do not believe that if Comey had, say, validated large swaths of the Steele dossier or found significant Trump-Russia financial entanglements of a compromising variety, he would have said even as much as he said today. I also don't think he would have announced the scope of the investigation as about the relationship "between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" or "coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts"; these words suggest one step of removal from investigating the President himself. If the latter were the case, I suspect Comey wouldn't have used words suggestive of the Flynn-Manafort-Page cabal.

But that's reading a lot into a relatively small number of tea leaves. What is clear is that this was a very bad day for the President. In it, we learned that there is an open-ended Russia investigation with no timetable for completion, one that's going hang over Trump's head for a long time, and one to which the FBI director is entirely committed.

Comment →

State of the Discussion

bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Yeah, I read C's comments as trying to do a variety of things at the same time, having the effect of making interpretation more difficult. Any [. . .]
Benjamin Wittes: How to Read What Comey Said Today – Lawfare
bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Sure, so why do they have "work Phones" they take home? Even if they don't have fate of the world responsibilities, who they work [. . .]
Isenstadt and Vogel: Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House – POLITICO

Support This Site?