I hate when articles hide behind an invented "Twitter backlash", and then include 4-5 tweets with a handful of retweets. 6,000 tweets are sent every single second. You could build a narrative for anything with that logic.
If your best example is a grammatically challenged tweet that racked up 4 favs and a retweet... you're probably inventing a controversy.
Here's some insane examples from the first page of a Google News search for "Twitter Backlash":
Ever try searching for trending outrage hashtags on Twitter? Generally it's 99.9% outrage over the outrage, with no real tweets expressing the original supposed outrage.
Comments
I hate when articles hide behind an invented "Twitter backlash", and then include 4-5 tweets with a handful of retweets. 6,000 tweets are sent every single second. You could build a narrative for anything with that logic.
If your best example is a grammatically challenged tweet that racked up 4 favs and a retweet... you're probably inventing a controversy.
Here's some insane examples from the first page of a Google News search for "Twitter Backlash":
http://www.prweek.com/article/1372418/apple-faces-twitter-ba...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ruby-rose-faces-b...
http://www.eonline.com/news/711079/raven-symone-angers-twitt...
http://www.her.ie/life/bloomingdales-forced-to-apologise-to-...
Ever try searching for trending outrage hashtags on Twitter? Generally it's 99.9% outrage over the outrage, with no real tweets expressing the original supposed outrage.
"Twitterstorm", "Fury on social medias", the signature of "outrage as a business".
Ah yes, remember #fuckParis? I can't believe that was real.
http://combatblog.net/?p=8246