Comment by fshbbdssbbgdd
1 year ago
Unless you are working as a journalist, or for some other reason you need to respond immediately to world events, you could just abstain.
1 year ago
Unless you are working as a journalist, or for some other reason you need to respond immediately to world events, you could just abstain.
> you could just abstain.
True for the most part. But occasionally there's good reason to want to know some information sooner rather than later: outbreaks of war, dangerous/breaking events in your localised area, dangerous weather alerts etc.
all of those should have a primary source. Twitter is merely a secondary source.
So to avoid twitter, you can subscribe to the primary source.
At least it used to be this way. But then a few official places that annouce things have turned to use twitter as their primary source.
Twitter was useful when you didn't know the source. Keyword searches brought you everyone talking about a topic, and trending showed you topics people were talking about (and, by extension, the people talking about them). Not everything that might be significant to you is necessarily going to be discussed within your close networks or covered adequately by media-of-record.
If CNN has decided not to cover the protest happening outside your downtown office and you don't want to go up to a rowdy crowd to figure out what's going on, Twitter would (have) be(en) the place to drum up intel (with which to decide if you need to go home early that day or not).
Twitter was great for reporting on court cases. For example, last year the Biden administration essentially made millions of Americans into felons via an obscure ATF rule change. The rule has since been enjoined by at least three federal courts, which anyone who follows @2aupdates would know about because he crawls the PACER feeds. My local newspaper has been following this story, but as recently as last week reported that the rule was still in effect. I submitted a correction and they fixed it.