The great Twitter panic of 2022

A fair number of people on Twitter have informed their followers that they have also set up on Mastodon just in case the world ends or some such. I don't doubt that Elon Musk could mess the whole thing up - but chances are things will stay fine in the Twitter world.

Okay, I may lose my blue tick, which would be sad. I was told I ought to get one by an Olympic martial arts competitor, the way you do. We were at some sort of careers fair in Devizes (don't ask me why - I can't remember) and no one seemed to want to talk to either of us, so we chatted for a while and she was adamant that having a blue tick would make all the difference to my social media presence. But looking over the people I follow on Twitter, a mix do and don't have one and it's never made any difference to me - I certainly won't be paying getting on for £100 a year to keep it.

That apart, the outrage seems to be because Twitter may allow various ~~dubious characters~~ individuals back on. But for me, this is pretty much irrelevant. I mostly follow scientists and writers - all lovely people. I've never seen or had any abuse on this social media site that some consider a cesspit. (Perhaps because I don't generally follow politicians or activists.) It's a great way to keep up with the people I follow and, I hope, for people interested in my writing to keep up with me - and I can't see why that should change. Moving off Twitter seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As for the obscure social media site Mastodon - why? I'd never heard of it before this all happened - and most people still haven't. The way it's set up with its separate, individually owned servers seems in some ways rather dodgy - and it certainly seems ti have very limited ability to prevent exactly the type of content that those abandoning Twitter seem to be worried about. For that matter, apparently, any server could be switched off at any time, losing all your content.

it's much more sensible, I would suggest, to stick with Twitter, keep up the networks you've built and ensure the content continues to be as excellent as it has been to date... certainly within my bubble.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog