Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

This sounds like something Schumer or Jeffries would believe.  It's copium from a bygone era. 

I agree that BlueSky is fairly worthless, but Twitter is cooked. The platform, algorithm, and "AI" is completely corrupted. There are plenty of leftist/dems that still engage, and nothing moves the needle. 

Compared to what? That’s like saying Pete B going on Fox or democrats running ads on Fox News doesn’t move the needle.
All algorithms of social media are inherently exploitable. Optimizing for the algorithm is the standard business of digital marketers every single day across all platforms. Withdrawing from Twitter, and every single argument I have ever heard for withdrawing from Twitter is just packaging up what leftists are really doing, which is taking their ball and their bat and going home because they don’t think it’s fair.  It’s essentially what the Clinton campaign did when they decided to only devote resources to areas where they already had good numbers and infrastructure in 2016 (and 2008)
So the real question is whether it’s worth it. I think the stakes are simply too high and the opportunity cost is too low to withdraw from the venue, but if you have the luxury to lose without consequences,  bully for you. 

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or in Austin, it's a core function, called a "charrette."

It's just as delusional and fart-sniffing, but it's in french, so it's cool.  I bet they do charrettes in Portland, so there ya go, they're just good policy.

Never heard of a one until getting my master's in community and regional planning at UT in the late 1990s and have actually led a number of planning sessions involving "charrettes" (never in Austin), though I never use that word when interfacing with the public because it's dumb.

They can be helpful at the outset to generate ideas and engage the public, but then very quickly devolve into futile design-by-committee exercises that get bogged down and end in shitty results if you're not careful. A good facilitator with some experience learns fast how to plant ideas to shape the conversation and make the participants feel like they came up with them on their own, so that you get where you know the plan should go (because you've done this shit a thousand times in other places and you're a good planner). Everybody leaves happy, feels they were heard and made a contribution here or there, and knows the whole damn plan doesn't fall on their pointless efforts to reach consensus.

I'm likely not telling you anything you don't already know, so this is mainly for the benefit of the peanut gallery, or those who don't know what the hell we're talking about.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Never heard of a one until getting my master's in community and regional planning at UT in the late 1990s and have actually led a number of planning sessions involving "charrettes" (never in Austin), though I never use that word when interfacing with the public because it's dumb.

They can be helpful at the outset to generate ideas and engage the public, but then very quickly devolve into futile design-by-committee exercises that get bogged down and end in shitty results if you're not careful. A good facilitator with some experience learns fast how to plant ideas to shape the conversation and make the participants feel like they came up with them on their own, so that you get where you know the plan should go (because you've done this shit a thousand times in other places and you're a good planner). Everybody leaves happy, feels they were heard and made a contribution here or there, and knows the whole damn plan doesn't fall on their pointless efforts to reach consensus.

I'm likely not telling you anything you don't already know, so this is mainly for the benefit of the peanut gallery, or those who don't know what the hell we're talking about.

lol here it's sarcastically called the "Seattle Process" and we need more facilitators like you around. It's stopped many a good idea from becoming reality (and to be fair, also has stopped more than a few bad ones from being forced upon us). In a region founded in large part by people from consensus-based communities (Scandinavia, Japan, New England, layered over an existing tribal-based system also largely based on community decision-making) it makes some sense that it took root here. The major problem is that it takes forever to get anything done and issues are often just kicked down the road. 

"Charrette" is a common term in architecture, used from day one in school throughout your career to mean a short, intensive skull session/workshop with your design team or with other closely related peers/consultants to stimulate ideas and (hopefully) solve problems on a given project. As you are working from a fairly common shared knowledge base, it can be very effective and useful. While the idea sounds nice brought into the public realm, the mere fact that by definition you are involving laypeople that may have a stake and may be quite intelligent but that do not often have the specific knowledge required to solve problems in a short duration intensive workshop can be problematic (especially when the agency wants everyone to feel their opinions are weighted equally).

Posted
53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Compared to what? That’s like saying Pete B going on Fox or democrats running ads on Fox News doesn’t move the needle.
All algorithms of social media are inherently exploitable. Optimizing for the algorithm is the standard business of digital marketers every single day across all platforms. Withdrawing from Twitter, and every single argument I have ever heard for withdrawing from Twitter is just packaging up what leftists are really doing, which is taking their ball and their bat and going home because they don’t think it’s fair.  It’s essentially what the Clinton campaign did when they decided to only devote resources to areas where they already had good numbers and infrastructure in 2016 (and 2008)
So the real question is whether it’s worth it. I think the stakes are simply too high and the opportunity cost is too low to withdraw from the venue, but if you have the luxury to lose without consequences,  bully for you. 

TV is a whole other world from social media. Dems going on Fox "forces" the viewer to watch them (unless they change the channel), that's now how it works on Twitter.

Musk controls the Twitter algorithm.  Also, he manipulates his AI Grok (which many users rely on for "facts") anytime it feeds answers that he feels are too "woke" or whatever. 

No one on the right is seeing AOC or Pete or Bernie tweets, unless they are being retweeted with criticism from the right. No one on the left is seeing right winger tweets unless they are retweeted by the left with criticism. The algorithm isn't interested in expanding viewpoints, it's wants to do the exact opposite. The misinformation/disinformation is staggering, to the point that even Dem accounts fall into that trap. 

And again, most of the large left-leaning accounts are still on Twitter. And it is still accomplishing nothing. 



×
×
  • Create New...