????Twitter正在努力招徠更多新用戶,，同時(shí)留住老用戶,。為了達(dá)到這個(gè)目的，這家網(wǎng)站不惜冒險(xiǎn),，盡其所能地進(jìn)行自我破壞,。

????破壞是對(duì)那些欣賞Twitter無(wú)與倫比、不斷更新的大量實(shí)時(shí)新聞和信息流的用戶而言,。然而,，這部分用戶也許正在日益減少，而更多人使用Twitter只是為了抱怨,、互相爭(zhēng)論,。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，“Twitter掐架”比起敘利亞的故事或是氣候變化的鏈接更加吸引眼球,。不過(guò)對(duì)于將Twitter看作信息源,、而不是一個(gè)實(shí)質(zhì)上難以表意的“對(duì)話”平臺(tái)的用戶來(lái)說(shuō)，這種不諧之音浪費(fèi)時(shí)間,，有損用戶體驗(yàn),。

????但比起如何吸引和留住用戶，Twitter對(duì)于想要嚴(yán)肅成熟地使用服務(wù)的人關(guān)心不足,，這一點(diǎn)可以理解,。不論是作為當(dāng)事人還是旁觀者，大多數(shù)人似乎更喜歡抱怨,。

????這就是為什么Twitter推出了“查看”（View）功能,，以便用戶的對(duì)話更輕松方便。這項(xiàng)功能使得Twitter對(duì)喜愛(ài)觀看掐架的用戶（面對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)吧,，至少有些時(shí)候,，大部分人都會(huì)如此，尤其是牽涉了名人或網(wǎng)絡(luò)名人時(shí)）而言更加友好?，F(xiàn)在,，對(duì)話已經(jīng)按照時(shí)間順序經(jīng)過(guò)了整理。而在之前,，想要繼續(xù)談話幾乎不現(xiàn)實(shí),，因?yàn)槟愠３８悴磺迥硹l信息究竟是回復(fù)的其他哪一條。查看對(duì)話這個(gè)功能解決了這個(gè)問(wèn)題,。

????這也讓Twitter更像Facebook了,。根據(jù)知名技術(shù)博客GigaOm.com創(chuàng)始人奧姆?馬利克的說(shuō)法,，這只是社交媒體平臺(tái)同質(zhì)化的最后一步。Twitter添加了照片功能,、音樂(lè)功能和視頻分享應(yīng)用Vine之后,，查看對(duì)話功能是“Twitter嘗試向Facebook轉(zhuǎn)變的最后一步?！?/p>

????同時(shí),，這也讓Twitter變得更像留言板了。不過(guò)Twitter信息仍然有140字的限制,，對(duì)于那些堅(jiān)持將它用于聊天的用戶而言,，這一點(diǎn)真令人討厭。無(wú)論Twitter的初衷是什么（傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)是,，發(fā)明Twitter是為了讓人們分享中午吃了什么,，而在不久之前，人們也是這么做的）,，字?jǐn)?shù)限制和這項(xiàng)服務(wù)的運(yùn)作方式仍然讓它成為發(fā)布標(biāo)題和鏈接的完美途徑——它也沒(méi)有其他作用了,。Facebook的帖子更好地給用戶提供了發(fā)表思想和論據(jù)（盡管不是都能體現(xiàn)）的機(jī)會(huì)。即便在Twitter查看對(duì)話的功能下,，用戶表達(dá)觀點(diǎn)也受到了嚴(yán)重的限制。這個(gè)平臺(tái)本身就沒(méi)有給對(duì)話提供很大的空間,，因此Twitter的談話幾乎總是流于膚淺,。

????這也許正是許多人喜歡在它上面交流和辯論的緣故。因?yàn)榉浅］p松——這個(gè)系統(tǒng)的特質(zhì)已經(jīng)賦予了你發(fā)表觀點(diǎn)而不解釋它們的借口,。你是不是經(jīng)?？匆?jiàn)人們發(fā)布信息說(shuō)：“好吧，這不是我140個(gè)字能夠說(shuō)清的,，但是……”,？蠢才和智者用140個(gè)字表達(dá)出的觀點(diǎn)相對(duì)而言區(qū)別不大。想要解釋自己觀點(diǎn)的聰明人充其量也只能連發(fā)好幾條信息,，但這也會(huì)讓他的陳述變得令人討厭,。為什么不一口氣在博客或者Facebook或者Google Plus的帖子里闡明自己的觀點(diǎn)，再在Twitter上發(fā)布相關(guān)鏈接呢,？?

????Twitter is working to attract many more new users and keep the ones it has. To that end, the site is risking doing all it can to wreck Twitter.

????Wreck it, that is, for those of us who appreciate Twitter's unmatched utility as a constantly updated, crowdsourced flow of real-time news and information. The people who use it that way might be part of a shrinking minority, however, with more and more people using the service to yammer and argue. "Twitter fights" no doubt bring many more eyeballs to Twitter than do, say, links to stories about Syria or climate change. But for people who use Twitter as an information resource rather than as a platform for inherently inarticulate "conversation," the cacophony wastes time and ruins the experience.

????But Twitter, understandably, cares less about people who want to use its service in a more serious, grown-up way than it does about attraction and retention of users. And most people seem to prefer the yammering -- both as participants and witnesses.

????That's why Twitter has introduced features to make conversations easier to follow View feature, making the service much friendlier to people who like to watch Twitter fights (which, lets face it, is most of us at least some of the time, especially when the fights involve the famous or the Internet-famous). The conversations are now threaded, in chronological order. Previously, it was near-impossible to follow conversations because you were often unsure which tweet was a direct response to which other tweet. The conversation view solves that problem.

????It also makes Twitter a lot more like Facebook (FB), which according to Om Malik is just the latest step in the homogenization of social-media platforms. Having added photos, Vine videos, and music to its service, Twitter's conversation view is "the final step in Twitter's attempt to become like Facebook."

????And it's a lot more like a comments section. But it still has that 140-character limit, which is the very thing that, for some users anyway, makes Twitter so annoying when the accounts they follow insist on using it for conversations. Whatever the initial intention for Twitter (the cliche is that it was invented for people to announce what they had for lunch, which in the early days wasn't far off), the character limit and the way the service works makes it perfect for posting headlines and links -- and not much else. Facebook posts offer much more potential for (if not always realization of) thoughtfulness and substance. Even in conversations view, users are severely limited in the ideas they can express. It is an inherently shallow platform for conversation, so the conversations are almost invariably shallow themselves.

????That might be the very reason so many people like to talk and debate there. It's so easy to be facile -- the excuse for not explicating your ideas after having stated them is built right into the system. How often do you see people tweet something like "Well, this is more than I can say in 140 characters, but ..."? There is relatively little difference between a dumb person expressing a thought in 140 characters and a smart person doing so. Or, at best, a smarter person who wants to explicate an idea has to spread his or her thinking out across several tweets. The presentation thus becomes obnoxious. Why not express those thoughts coherently and all together on a blog or Facebook or Google Plus post, and link to that from Twitter????