Can we ban screencaps of tweets?
Discussion on many boards, especially /v/ and /pol/, is being ruined whenever someone posts some offhanded comment from literally who in a thread and everyone feels they have to chip in with their two cents. If someone posts an off-topic tweet in a thread you can be pretty confident that the thread is going to derail into total dogshit. Even if the tweet in question is on-topic it's usually such a retarded stance on the topic that people in the thread only ever end up criticising dumbasses and attacking strawmen rather than actually discussing the issue at hand. It's lowering the quality of dialogue on the site. People start threads with this kind of shit as bait, or use it to flame, or to exaggerate the position of someone they're arguing and throw them in with some greater "them".
The worst part about twitter is that it doesn't fucking matter. Stop posting this fucktarded, irrelevant, inflammatory shit here. And if you see someone post this crap, don't respond. If you want to reply to this shit, GTFO and stay on twitter with the retards who care.
Consider not going to /pol/ or /v/.
>>561833
They're part of 4chan so it matters. I don't go there all that often but it's going to start affecting other boards soon because that's how this shit happens. I see this shit on /int/, /g/, and even occasionally on /a/ already.
>>561836
>it's going to start affecting other boards soon
Well, if we're looking at time as a spectrum, and not a straight line... and "soon" means "close proximity." Then yes, it has fucked other boards.
>>561839
So, would you be in favour of banning it then?
twitter is an essential part of everyday life. i think you should just get over it and stop being an antisocial loser.
desu i feel like a lot of 4chan's issues could be fixed if you needed a twitter account with 1000 followers to post here. it would get rid of a lot of antisocial losers.
>>561847
2/10 b8 m8
you tried
>>561845
No. I am in favor of ignoring things I don't like.
4chan has changed so dramatically from 14 years ago, that you turning up right now and demanding something be done to stop the ebb and flow, of the natural evolution of the clash between media and culture, makes me kind of glass-over.
It's something you don't like. So you shouldn't engage in it at all. You don't like the way the website is changing? I didn't either.
>>561853
You're totally right that internet culture changes over time, which is exactly why moderation policy needs to evolve over time to maintain the site's quality. And I haven't just appeared: I've noticed a trend in the past couple years that I think needs addressing. I wouldn't think it needs addressing if I hadn't already been trying to ignore it for a long time. It's not that I can't accept the website changing, I just don't want that change to be in a direction that makes everything much worse.
>>561858
I don't think so. The userbase has changed and it now fundamentally more activist than it used to be, even in the chanology days. There's a large portion of the /pol/ userbase that wants to feel as though they're making some kind of difference, or at least to feel part of something larger (even it's in a totally vacuous way through twitter) and that never used to be the case. The increased prevalence of twitter shit on /pol/ is because of the upsurged userbase using and giving a shit about the platform
>>561833
Looking at the catalogs I see
2 social media posts on /g/, 2 on /v/, 3 on /sp/, 1 on /co/, 1 on /mu/, and 8 on /pol/
It's easy to see where the root of the problem is.
>>561833
FPBP
If a board is teeming with lusers who think getting assravaged over a literally who's tweets is a good use of their time, then it is not worth visiting.
>>561820
>Please remove the internet from this website
>>561820
I disagree. If you have a politician tweeting about policy, a journalist tweeting breaking news, or a vidya dev tweeting game info then that's legitimate news. Of course there's also a bunch of shit tweets from randos but I prefer the mods judge them on a case by case basis.
Twitter can be a primary source of information, so no.
>>561820
this, seconded, underrated post, concur 100%
>>562437
That's not true.
>>562613
>That's not true.
That's not true.
>>561820
You're 100% right.
The rule should be "If you think their opinion matters, why don't you post there instead of here?" And should apply equally to
-Neogaf
-9gag
-Funnyjunk
And should result in a public ban and autosage of the thread.
If the same thing pops up numerous times, hand out carpet bans.
4chan has no place for chromosome-hoarders who rather post about other places while on 4chan.
>>561833
Consider going back to facebook or twitter where you belong.
