Is Twitter going to die?

Elon Musk set off another explosive surprise as Q3 kicked off: Twitter has applied a temporary limit to the number of tweets users can read in a day

If you take a quick look at the social media landscape, people's reactions seem like an atomic bomb that could destroy Twitter

However, before joining the rallying cry, simply consider this question:

Out of all Twitter users, who do you think would be the least likely to want Twitter to shut down?

Why is it?

It seems all the attention is immediately drawn to the limits part, few people are talking about why Musk did so, which is the start sentence:

To address extreme levels of data scraping and system manipulation

Although it is not entirely clear what Musk means by "data scraping", given the recent hype around AI generated by chatGPT, there is a good chance that the company uses data scraping to train their LLMs (large language models), such as OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and others.

Several individuals, myself included, have already been impacted by the issues on Twitter.

Perhaps more people would have seen it if the limitation had not been applied. Therefore, consider that this limitation may actually be for the greatest good for the greatest number.

There has been speculation that the real reason for this change is to generate more revenue by encouraging people to subscribe to Twitter Blue, its paid subscription service. However, this cannot be verified unless Musk confirms it himself. Even if it is true, given Musk's description of their financial status in many interviews, Twitter might actually die if it cannot generate profit soon.

Algorithms can make it harder to see different points of view

In the present era, nearly all popular social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and Youtube, employ personalized recommendation algorithms. In fact, even the search result of search engines like Google and Bing are personalized. While this personalization aims to enhance user experience, it unintentionally reinforces our existing beliefs and preferences. As a result, we often find ourselves surrounded by like-minded individuals, isolated in echo chambers that echo our own opinions and perspectives.

This effect is further amplified by the confirmation bias of our human beings, the tendency to seek information that confirms our existing beliefs. Algorithms feed us content that aligns with our preferences, reinforcing our biases and leading to a distorted understanding of reality. This inadvertently reinforces the division and polarization within society as we become more entrenched in our own worldviews. One extreme example is that the all-star basketball player Kyrie Irving once publicly stated that he believed the Earth was flat because of the rabbit hole of YouTube:

Kyrie Irving sorry for saying Earth is flat blames it on a YouTube ‘rabbit hole’

It happens in the software development world every day

As software engineers, we are supposed to know that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that it always involves making trade-offs. However, keep seeing battles between different framework camps makes me realize that the underlying cause lies deeper within human nature.

The most widely discussed topic among frontend frameworks is the comparison between React, Vue, and Angular. I have seen some social media comments that criticized Even You, the author of Vue, for frequently criticizing other frameworks in order to promote Vue. However, I find it difficult to maintain that perspective myself after coming across a single tweet from his personal account. It was written in Chinese, so I translated it into English literally:

I have never insisted that others must acknowledge a certain direction as being more correct or advanced - in fact, this is exactly what I oppose. Because since the first day I started working with Vue, there have been people trying to impose their views on me, demanding that I admit Angular or React as being more "correct.”

I can empathize with this sentiment because I often encounter it while building my own toolkit, ZenStack. It uses a schema-first approach on top of Prisma to simplify web application development. However, some people in the anti-schema camp immediately dismiss the idea of schema or Prisma, without even considering the problems they could solve. In fact, initially, I tried to advocate for a non-schema approach, aware of the potential drawbacks of schema. However, I soon realized that without a schema, solving the major problem of access control would become very difficult for users. So that’s the trade-off we made.

What can we do about it?

I liked how data scientist Cathy O'Neil addressed this issue at the end of Netflix's documentary, The Social Dilemma:

I follow people on Twitter that I disagree with because I want to be exposed to different points of view

I found it to be a practical way to foster critical thinking skills and encourage independent thought.

Additionally, I have developed my own set of theories that serve as a reminder to listen to the different viewpoints:

We are both normal human beings, and I am not inherently smarter than anyone else. If someone holds a different point of view from mine, it means they likely have information that I don't know. I would like to know what it is.

Lastly, there is my favorite quote from Charlie Munger:

I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do

ZenStack is an open-source toolkit that uses the schema-first approach on top of Prisma ORM to unleash its full potential for full-stack development. If you like the idea of using schema as the single source of truth for your backend, you definitely should check it out; If you are anti-schema camp, why not take this as a practice of listening to the different views? 😉

https://github.com/zenstackhq/zenstack