Michael Albert - what's wrong with facebook and twitter

[Diderooot]

I refuse to get an account, but I do occasionally read some writers' twitter pages. Besides being a source of links, it really is just a series of sentence-long comments. I tried reading a debate between David Graeber and someone on his page over state socialism. It's clear that twitter is an awful medium for conversing. You can't say anything meaningful in sentence long fragments. And I have no clue what a 'flow' is. I doubt most twitterers have even heard the term.

[visionontv]

What about the substance, I understand the abuse but that is a bit shallow... substance please...

[Banelion001]

For constructive comment ... how about letting the guy you invited to actually finish a sentence. If you are not interested in what he has to say just don't invite him. Perhaps the greatest evidence that the view Michael holds is correct is yourself. Obviously your attention span is less than a full sentence and you don't understand a word of what he is saying and if that is how you view communication then MA is absolutely correct and twitter did destroy your mind.

[visionontv]

hay that's me constructive comment please

[padry1509]

The interviewer is a fucking moron.

[SteelCityEcologist]

20:33

20:44

He really had just finished explaining why they don't link on the front page and that they do link on the site. While that was a very comical exchange (at least for me), I can understand why Albert would be a little annoyed at someone sitting directly in front of him and not listening.

Also, I have no idea where Campbell was going with the "flow" of knowledge on twitter vis a vis books and "flow" being "more important". I'm not on twitter, so perhaps that has a lot to do with it.