Twitter is even worse because of the format. At least with facebook people can have their own private spaces with only the people they trully know. Twitter is a just a machine to get people outraged and pissed off and yell at each other.

Yet I see very little pieces written against Twitter, probably because Twitter bought the media with the blue check system, creating an 'elite' class within Twitter.

I think there are several reasons:

- Twitter relationships are based on interests mostly. If I follow people who tweet about math I will see tweets about math. Facebook relationships are based on real-life relationships so the topics in my news feed will be more heterogeneous.

- In Twitter don't see as many content from people I don't follow directly. Sometimes I will see tweets that other of my followed liked or replied to, but it's a minority. In Facebook I end up seeing a lot of comments of people I follow in other publications.

- The suggestion engine of Twitter is not as aggresive as Facebook's. Right now I have three suggestions of profiles to follow (people who follow me or profiles I've visited before), a few trending topics which can be mostly ignored, and that's it. Facebook is constantly suggesting me pages to follow and friends to add (people I don't know at all) and groups to join.

- Twitter is more straightforward in the content you get shown. Yeah, they changed things with the inclusion of tweets liked by other people and replies, but most of the time you see tweets of people you follow. Facebook, however, does this weird thing where it shows you only the content you're more likely to engage with. If that content is conspiracy theories, so be it, even if that means you don't see innocent updates from your friends.

- Privacy controls on Twitter feel easier. Make your account private and that's it, instead of five different controls for each thing you might or might not do on Facebook. Muting and blocking accounts, notifications and keywords also feels easier.

Very succinct description of twitter. I use it mainly for work and I mostly see work related stuff that is trending.

Facebook likes mashing your whole life together, so one post is from a group, another from your high school weirdo that sells MLM products and another one from your racist uncle.

Honestly, Google+ "circle" concept was ahead of its time and I will die on this hill.

I do not think many will disagree about circles. Having circles would make Facebook so much better, but presumably they do not think that that would make them any money.

Hyves pioneered that.

I think you forgot the main reason: journos are on twitter all day every day.

This is a good point. Facebook has a lot of value in community groups where you can find all sorts of friendly people in your area with common interests in hobbies, sports, or what have you.

Twitter has none of this. Twitter rewards abrasive clapbacks, angry arguments, and rage tweeting.

Mainstream media is no better, look at how many pages of newspapers are dedicated to columnists, editorials and opinions instead of news. Why aren't they being criticised? It's exactly the same principle.

In the end it comes down to the fact that people are being conditioned that they should have an opinion or position on everything, because "everything is politics". And many people fall for that and therefore search around for some indication on what opinions are out there.

Instead we should be propagating the message that it's entirely fine not to have an opinion on something that doesn't affect you. Indifference is actually a virtue.

> Why aren't they being criticised?

Because newspapers have editorial boards, ombudsmen, and liability (in the form of libel) for what they print. Facebook has the conceit that it doesn't have any perspective, that it's just a carrier of speech of others. The concern is that Facebook (and YouTube and Twitter) already has preferences (such as for controversy over dry facts) and is developing more (curation through fact checking, etc.).

If Facebook came out and said, "Yeah, we're more or less like Readers Digest but for the internet" I suspect they'll still have detractors, but it will be more of the "I don't like reading Readers Digest" variety, not of the "Someone needs to break up Readers Digest!" one. They might also lose accounts, too, because who wants to write for a paper with clear points of view and biases that work at cross purposes to their own?

In the US - which tends to be the main country articles like this on efocus on - it is almost impossible for public figures such as politicians to sue newspapers for libel, and any suggestion of changing this is immediately met with sinilarly outraged articles about it being a danger to democracy. Also, the editorial boards are just as keen on pushing their preferred narratives regardless of the facts as the papers themselves.

Gawker certainly was held accountable. Facebook blames it's users if similar content is posted. But it also censors and suppresses content. I'm just saying it should pick a lane. Be a carrier or have editorial control.

Mainstream media has gotten a lot worse in the last few decades because subscriptions have tanked and now most of their profit determined by how many clicks facebook and twitter send their way. Newspapers have to choose between competing with buzzfeed or closing their doors.

Real journalism is a casualty of social media too.