> Blogs are long form content, with structure and chapters and long sentences.
They don't have to be. I read blog posts all the time that are three-to-ten paragraphs. Just someone reeling off about some particular thing that's on their mind, taking up exactly as much space as it takes, with no extra space for puffery. That's what the average text post on Facebook (not Facebook Pages) looks like. That's what the average text post on Tumblr looks like. Etc.
The long articles that get posted to Medium et al and shared on HN are the exception, not the rule. They're often not even "blog posts" per se, in any conventional sense; they're editorials or works of journalism, pieces by professional writers. Or they're single-page dives into a subject that go so deep that they could have been whole book. If it takes you multiple days to write, it's not a blog post.
> Twitter threads are the result of someone on social media deciding to talk for a bit more than one post, not some predetermined article someone wants to write.
I don't know about you, but personally, most of my own blog posts are the result of me starting to write an HN comment; realizing it's become too long; and then cutting the text out of the HN comment field and pasting it into my blog's post field, writing the rest of it, and hitting Post.
In other words, for me at least, blog posts are overgrown comments, where they start to seem to hold value out-of-context (though I do usually link the thing I'm replying to, because that's lazier than rewording the post to make it context-free.)
And usually, once I post the post to my blog, I paste the link to the post back into the comment field I was originally typing in. It still serves as a reply to the parent comment. You just have to click through to look at it.
Isn't this the original concept of Twitter? Microblogging, where Twitter acts as the index/"spine" of your blog, and external sites act as the meat on the bones?
> Don't tell others how to tell their stories, that's not your call to make.
Speech is communication. People talk/write/etc. because they want other people to listen to them, and take in what they're saying.
As such, telling someone that their chosen medium sucks for communication, isn't a slight against them; it's feedback about how well their stories are doing at their goal of achieving effective communication.
If a great band sets up an outdoor concert next to an open construction site with tons of workers using jackhammers, I imagine you'd have feedback about that choice for them, wouldn't you? It's certainly their choice... but if their goal is for people to be able to hear the music, then there might be a few things they're not realizing.
>Isn't this the original concept of Twitter? Microblogging,
Fyi based on books about Twitter history... Jack Dorsey's original concept of Twitter was inspired by AOL AIM status messages and not blogging.
>Microblogging, where Twitter acts as the index/"spine" of your blog, and external sites act as the meat on the bones?
Arguably, another Twitter founder Ev Williams (who started Bloggr, Medium) was more into "thoughtful texts" and wanted Twitter to support that. However, when Twitter was a big hit at the 2007 Austin SWSX, it was the "silly" status messages that made Twitter viral.
They don't have to be. I read blog posts all the time that are three-to-ten paragraphs. Just someone reeling off about some particular thing that's on their mind, taking up exactly as much space as it takes, with no extra space for puffery. That's what the average text post on Facebook (not Facebook Pages) looks like. That's what the average text post on Tumblr looks like. Etc.
The long articles that get posted to Medium et al and shared on HN are the exception, not the rule. They're often not even "blog posts" per se, in any conventional sense; they're editorials or works of journalism, pieces by professional writers. Or they're single-page dives into a subject that go so deep that they could have been whole book. If it takes you multiple days to write, it's not a blog post.
> Twitter threads are the result of someone on social media deciding to talk for a bit more than one post, not some predetermined article someone wants to write.
I don't know about you, but personally, most of my own blog posts are the result of me starting to write an HN comment; realizing it's become too long; and then cutting the text out of the HN comment field and pasting it into my blog's post field, writing the rest of it, and hitting Post.
In other words, for me at least, blog posts are overgrown comments, where they start to seem to hold value out-of-context (though I do usually link the thing I'm replying to, because that's lazier than rewording the post to make it context-free.)
And usually, once I post the post to my blog, I paste the link to the post back into the comment field I was originally typing in. It still serves as a reply to the parent comment. You just have to click through to look at it.
Isn't this the original concept of Twitter? Microblogging, where Twitter acts as the index/"spine" of your blog, and external sites act as the meat on the bones?
> Don't tell others how to tell their stories, that's not your call to make.
Speech is communication. People talk/write/etc. because they want other people to listen to them, and take in what they're saying.
As such, telling someone that their chosen medium sucks for communication, isn't a slight against them; it's feedback about how well their stories are doing at their goal of achieving effective communication.
If a great band sets up an outdoor concert next to an open construction site with tons of workers using jackhammers, I imagine you'd have feedback about that choice for them, wouldn't you? It's certainly their choice... but if their goal is for people to be able to hear the music, then there might be a few things they're not realizing.