You think they’re your favorites, but they belong to Twitter


Once upon a time, "retweeting" was something you did by copying the full text of someone else's Tweet and adding "RT @username:" to it. If there was space, you could add your own comment in front.

Then Twitter incorporated retweeting into its software — you just pressed a button to share someone else's message with everyone who follows you. Retweets became a lot easier; and overnight, the old-school technique became known as a "manual" retweet. For a while, old-school users (like me) stuck with it, either out of habit, or as a badge of ur-Twitter cool, or because we actually relished the opportunity to add our two cents. Meanwhile, more modern social-media mavens began complaining that it was a bad practice — it messed up their analytics. Some indignantly told us that manual retweets were actually evil self-promotion, because they go out under your own name rather than that of the author of the original tweet.

Today, those of us who still use it occasionally are like drivers who still like a shift and a clutch. Don't we know the technology has moved on?

Now Twitter is tinkering again! The latest change is that the "favorite" — a tool most users rely on either to bookmark links they want to return to or to send a little head-nod of acknowledgment out to the tweet's creator — is being put to use in a new way. Twitter is experimenting with showing you tweets from users you do not follow if those tweets are favorited by lots of other users (presumably, a lot of other users who you follow).

Like most of Twitter's steady evolution since its debut in 2006, this change pushes the service away from early-adopter enthusiasts and toward a bigger crowd. Twitter already has hundreds of millions of accounts and probably tens of millions of actual real people using it. But that's not enough to support Wall Street's expectations; post-IPO Twitter has billions in its eyes.

Quartz's Dan Frommer thinks that's all OK: "Twitter needs to keep growing," he writes, and "if additions like these…could make Twitter useful to billions of potential users, it will be worth rewriting Twitter’s basic rules."

Over at The Next Web, Jon Russell is less enthusiastic, calling the changes "confusing and seemingly unnecessary." When will Twitter no longer be Twitter?, asks Robinson Meyer in the Atlantic.

Russell argues that, even though you could always look up someone's list of Twitter faves, "favoriting is inherently a private action" — you were saving something for yourself or winking at some specific other person, not broadcasting.

Guess what? Twitter doesn't care. It's doing the same thing that Web platform-builders have been doing since the early days of Web 2.0, when Flickr and Delicious set "public" as the default for bookmarks and photo posts. They did so because there was so much interesting stuff you could surface that way.

Facebook moved that whole dynamic in a different direction by figuring out that if you trained people to share the details of their lives, and then kept changing the rules in ways that made those details more and more public, you could mine a network of billions of people for billions of dollars.

Back in 2007 Jason Kottke observed that what many Web companies do is "take something that everyone does with their friends and make it public and permanent." A decade ago, this technique seemed to be a method of expanding creative horizons, broadening the possibilities of online sharing, and enabling exciting new data mashups. Then we began to see its darker side, as financial incentives drove services to get aggressive about flipping the switch from "private" to "public."

Twitter may find that its "favorites" experiment works well. Maybe it "increases engagement" or improves the experience for casual users. It is also reminding us, as Facebook's mood experiment did, who is in charge, and what their motivations are. They control the vertical; they control the horizontal.

Get Scott’s weekly Wordyard email


  1. These are exactly the sorts of things that we’re thinking about for Known right now, and they’re some of the things that keep me up pondering at night as we decide how our own interactions should work. We’re building out a feed reader of sorts for Known right now to add more glue to the decentralized network that sites on Known form. With this greater social connectivity comes greater opportunity to cross-site sharing, replying, favoriting, etc.

    I’m also one of those people who occasionally puts out an old-fashioned manual retweet. Sometimes I like the opportunity to inject my own brief commentary, and I use tools to save an archive of my tweets that will capture my manual retweets but not regular retweets. I’m conscious of my parents’ reaction when non-manual retweets came out: “Why is this random person showing up in my timeline when I don’t follow them?”

    With favoriting, I recognize that some people use it as a way to show appreciation and some people use it as a way to mark items that they might want to save and return to. Instagram only really considers the first behavior with their liked posts, which I didn’t realize until much later. After building up what I thought was an inspiring collection of liked images that I could return to in the future, I realized my favorites are a) not straightforward to find in Instagram and b) not archived forever. I don’t know how many liked posts Instagram displays for users, but for me it only goes back about 3 months.

    — via

  2. Steve

    > Twitter is experimenting with showing you tweets from users you do not
    > follow if those tweets are favorited by lots of other users (presumably,
    > a lot of other users who you follow).

    Ah… thanks, Scott. there I was, thinking that the twitter client on my iPod Touch was going nuts (the client on the iPad isn’t exhibiting the same behaviour), when all the time it’s just twitter fixing what isn’t broken (yet again).

  3. I frequently retweet “old style” to add extra info (Usually the #indieweb hashtag), though the use case of adding commentary is now managed by linking to a tweet from your tweet.
    Twitter keeps adding “leakage” between publics to try to promote engagement, and is not always aware enough of how this is understood by users, and the adverse effects that this can cause.

    — via

  4. Good piece, Scott! More sobering news from the cybersphere, where “personal” and “pubic” seem to be merging. Will I be forced back to actual sticky notes on my actual desk…. just so only I can see my personal reminders?

  5. Temple

    >> could make Twitter useful to billions of potential users … That’s a big “could” Frommer’s quote is a lot of what if based on a false premise of usefulness now that other people’s favorites can be thrust into your stream. Weird, unexplained logic – and yes I did click on the link for greater context.


Post a comment