2 Comments

I’ve been interacting on that platform for a few months now. I find the idea of active participants seeking depth interesting since it makes being informed a bi-directional interaction instead of “my tv 📺 tells me what is true.” while at the same time comments are limited to 280 characters. It’s difficult to express a complete thought in 280 characters and leads to discussions based on making either-or questions out of a both-ands… (the kids call it engagement farming.)

spaces are trendy at this time. People gather together in voice chats for open discussions, v useful for the idea of a public square to share ideas.

Overall I’m experience has been “x” does interactive discussions well aside from the character limit, but not deep reading. Its interesting to see journalism evolve towards engagement with the audience instead of the one-way ‘we produce, you consume’ aporoach of the past. Maybe there’s hope for humanity if we can care enough to actively participate in the conversations. 🫡

Expand full comment
author

Omnidirectional communication is certainly not a conversation.. My TV gives me headaches with pictures.. Homer Simpson revered this as thinking! Hence it's called, tell-a-vision, look with the eyes see with the mind.. conversations in real life go both ways.. like the tide.. mimicking biological systems is probably a good thing. Circular in nature. Other linear systems are the resource extraction and commodities market as an example. Nothing in nature is a one-way Street or purely linear system that's some sort of construct of the mind.. the imposition of system just as classical media is a narrative or omnidirectional communication. It can certainly stir discourse..

Expand full comment