| || |
This parodies how media focuses on social networking. The title text continues the joke.
This parodies how media focuses on social networking.
The title text continues the joke.
| || |
Revision as of 12:44, 17 July 2013
This parodies how media focuses on social networking. Specifically in the case of revolutions, social media currently are give a lot of weight in countries with limited internet access. A direct parallel is made to the so called Twitter revolution. Obviously, twitter comments don't change the orbit of an asteroid.
People who are not on social media tend to react like Cueball, twitter really makes press coverage more stupid.
The title text continues the joke, negativity on twitter concerning an earth bound asteroid has nothing to do with twitter but rather with the negativity of wiping out life on earth in general. Again, undue weight is given to social media.
- [Cueball at a press conference]
- Cueball: NASA has confirmed that the asteroid is heading directly for us.
- Cueball: ...Yes, a question?
- Audience member 1: What role has social media played in this asteroid's orbit?
- Cueball: *sigh*
- Audience member 1: Has twitter changed the way we respond to asteroid threats?
- Cueball: Well, it's made the press conference questions stupider.
- Audience member 2: Fascinating!
- Audience member 3: What about Facebook?
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
So how have folks responded to this one on Twitter? 188.8.131.52 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
—girl look at that body. Greyson (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This question might have initiated the comic: http://youtu.be/AdHGhSeYcq0?t=51m9s 184.108.40.206 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, this Bill Gates video was released two days before this comic.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's somewhat ironic, that the first statement of Cueball is less than 140 characters long. Also, the whole situation seems similar to that in Earth Unaware by Orson Scott Card ... or maybe I should not tell the ending of the book.
220.127.116.11 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC) qbolec
- I did edit your wiki link, it was broken.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Not ironic, opening line less than 140 characters because social media?!
Monteletourneau (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that this is a press conference. All questions are made by professional journalists, not by simple Twitter users. Xhfz (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that voting booths have only one character per message (sometimes only one bit), and nevertheless many people are interested in their outcome. I changed Twitter by "voting booth" and the following explanation becomes absurd.
- On a voting booth you can send messages with exactly one character. This means that there could not be much content in a single vote, but often many people follow the people voting. People who are not on democracy tend to react like Cueball and come to the conclusion that voting booths make press coverage more stupid, just because those messages lack many detail.
Xhfz (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)