On Using Twitter(medium.com)
medium.com
On Using Twitter
https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/on-using-twitter-84fbd80c8919
149 comments
I learned this in the early 90s on BBSes, MUDs, Usenet, and forums, before I even discovered the Web.
Everything old is new again. Twitter is fine. It’s people who suck. Exercise your own restraint and freedom to associate. Externalizing blame is to throw up your hands and to join all the other naysayers in yelling at clouds.
Everything old is new again. Twitter is fine. It’s people who suck. Exercise your own restraint and freedom to associate. Externalizing blame is to throw up your hands and to join all the other naysayers in yelling at clouds.
Twitter has a machine learning algorithm that actively steers people towards political/controversial content. If you choose to see tweets "recent first" to avoid this, Twitter will accidentally-on-purpose 'forget' this every few days, and return you to the AI-generated anger maximization feed. That's blatantly user-hostile behavior that wasn't present on Usenet or IRC.
You can bypass all of this and turn Twitter into a useful newsfeed:
https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
I feel like they’re burying the lede, so here it is:
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
Try this combined with lists to get chronological feeds that stick and stay stuck.
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
As for the rest of your comment, the personal is political. Twitter is personal. HN, for example, is much more of a water cooler type beat.
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
As for the rest of your comment, the personal is political. Twitter is personal. HN, for example, is much more of a water cooler type beat.
If you use a 3rd-party app you can view in chronological order and it will stick.
There’s also this:
FREE and natively supported and part of Twitter domain itself, on my feed?!
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
FREE and natively supported and part of Twitter domain itself, on my feed?!
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com
Same thing here. Was following smart programmers and engineers on programming related matters. Fast forward a few years and most of them were spending their time talking about completely unrelated US political matters and petty drama 99% of the time and very little actual programming stuff. I just removed Twitter from my phone.
I'm not sure how Twitter works now, but I imagine that a system of bot generated topics rather than direct following would be better suited for people like me.
Hashtags don't work, anybody can put any hashtag they want, even when the tweet is completely unrelated to the hashtag.
I'm not sure how Twitter works now, but I imagine that a system of bot generated topics rather than direct following would be better suited for people like me.
Hashtags don't work, anybody can put any hashtag they want, even when the tweet is completely unrelated to the hashtag.
> and most of them were spending their time talking about completely unrelated US political matters and petty drama 99% of the time and very little actual programming stuff.
And that was one of the brilliant things about Google+:
You could post under different topics so people could read my programming or local posts without having to cope with my religious or political posts (just examples, I never got around to the two last ones I think).
Another thing was - after Google lost the nym wars their ux for using pseudonym accounts became one of the best I was aware of (no, it is not the same as the multiple-logged-in-accounts ux which I find rather unsatisfactory, but I guess parts of it lives on in YouTube were I can still see my pseudonym(s) when I log in.)
And that was one of the brilliant things about Google+:
You could post under different topics so people could read my programming or local posts without having to cope with my religious or political posts (just examples, I never got around to the two last ones I think).
Another thing was - after Google lost the nym wars their ux for using pseudonym accounts became one of the best I was aware of (no, it is not the same as the multiple-logged-in-accounts ux which I find rather unsatisfactory, but I guess parts of it lives on in YouTube were I can still see my pseudonym(s) when I log in.)
>You could post under different topics so people could read my programming or local posts without having to cope with my religious or political posts (just examples, I never got around to the two last ones I think).
I don't think that would work thesedays. If you had a political post, I'd say you'd correctly keep it in its correct circle (based on you highlighting the feature here), but since Google+ was a thing, a new generation of twitter addicts have the mantra of "everything is political, even looking at a keyboard is a political act, politics affects everything you do, even if you just sit there, so that's why my political rant is in your model train collector circle #sorrynotsorry"
So they'd abuse the circles feature with that mantra as an excuse.
I don't think that would work thesedays. If you had a political post, I'd say you'd correctly keep it in its correct circle (based on you highlighting the feature here), but since Google+ was a thing, a new generation of twitter addicts have the mantra of "everything is political, even looking at a keyboard is a political act, politics affects everything you do, even if you just sit there, so that's why my political rant is in your model train collector circle #sorrynotsorry"
So they'd abuse the circles feature with that mantra as an excuse.
Google got it nearly right, but it was still the creator who had to choose the circle to post it in.
I want a social network where I can choose to follow people and some tags - want to be able to follow you, when you are not talking about politics and remain 100% ignorant of any posts you make about politics.
I want a social network where I can choose to follow people and some tags - want to be able to follow you, when you are not talking about politics and remain 100% ignorant of any posts you make about politics.
This is the best way to use twitter.
You get a clear stream of useful, relevant content. Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble".
I want a filter bubble.
The problem in practice is that twitter actively fights you doing this. It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
At this point in time the biggest value of twitter is it's userbase, it's critical mass, people are on twitter, they're not on mastodon.
You get a clear stream of useful, relevant content. Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble".
I want a filter bubble.
The problem in practice is that twitter actively fights you doing this. It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
At this point in time the biggest value of twitter is it's userbase, it's critical mass, people are on twitter, they're not on mastodon.
> The problem in practice is that twitter actively fights you doing this. It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
Even with all the barriers in place, the truth is that Twitter still works better through a third party application.
Your feed comes through relatively unmolested, with just the things you want to follow in the order you want to follow them.
Even with all the barriers in place, the truth is that Twitter still works better through a third party application.
Your feed comes through relatively unmolested, with just the things you want to follow in the order you want to follow them.
> It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
Not if you use Tweetdeck.
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/
Not if you use Tweetdeck.
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/
> You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
If you use a third-party app, you won't get most of that. You'll just get a reverse-chronological timeline of people's tweets and retweets, and I think some allow you to filter out retweets.
If you use a third-party app, you won't get most of that. You'll just get a reverse-chronological timeline of people's tweets and retweets, and I think some allow you to filter out retweets.
> ... Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble".
> I want a filter bubble.
I think describing a "topic-focused, outrage-free" curation strategy as 'filter bubble' is somewhat asinine.
"Filter bubble" is a dirty term because it suggests at best an isolated, distorted view of how things actually are, at worst active exclusion of valid dissent. The point is that important details aren't being noticed in the domain of what has attention.
I understand a lot of outrage comes from righteous minds who want to make the world a better place (or prevent it from becoming a worse place). -- All the same, just excluding outrage feels more like it's (at worst) ignoring 'allegedly important, unrelated things', rather than ignoring 'important, related things'.
I think describing a "topic-focused, outrage-free" curation strategy as 'filter bubble' is somewhat asinine.
"Filter bubble" is a dirty term because it suggests at best an isolated, distorted view of how things actually are, at worst active exclusion of valid dissent. The point is that important details aren't being noticed in the domain of what has attention.
I understand a lot of outrage comes from righteous minds who want to make the world a better place (or prevent it from becoming a worse place). -- All the same, just excluding outrage feels more like it's (at worst) ignoring 'allegedly important, unrelated things', rather than ignoring 'important, related things'.
Relevant from my old comment here:
I have thought about this before. I believe internet lacks enough echo chambers. In real world, people automatically segregate based on their income bracket, community, values, lifestyle, job, family (kids or not?), healthcare, accessibility to various things, etc. People have all sorts of stereotypes and things they expect other people to conform to based on visible factors. This isn't possible online. There is too little information and our stereotypes will never be correct (too big number). It shocks people. In real life, oh that's a catholic person. Of course I would expect them to say this. Too much difference in opinions leads to defensiveness rather than acceptance. You cannot accept 180 degrees but you can accept 10 degrees slightly left.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23937973
I have thought about this before. I believe internet lacks enough echo chambers. In real world, people automatically segregate based on their income bracket, community, values, lifestyle, job, family (kids or not?), healthcare, accessibility to various things, etc. People have all sorts of stereotypes and things they expect other people to conform to based on visible factors. This isn't possible online. There is too little information and our stereotypes will never be correct (too big number). It shocks people. In real life, oh that's a catholic person. Of course I would expect them to say this. Too much difference in opinions leads to defensiveness rather than acceptance. You cannot accept 180 degrees but you can accept 10 degrees slightly left.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23937973
> "topic-focused, outrage-free" curation strategy
In the old days this work was done by an editor and published in a periodical fashion. My recurring quip about social media is that it’s helping us collectively realize the value of good editors.
In the old days this work was done by an editor and published in a periodical fashion. My recurring quip about social media is that it’s helping us collectively realize the value of good editors.
[deleted]
Try using List feature of Twitter. It still is free from Twitter's other crap. Besides, it helps you organize account you follow and doesn't show you any ad (at least this was the case till recently).
You can more or less remove the likes from your feed, by using the 'Not interested in this Tweet', then 'Show less likes from XXX'. Twitter will show those again in a few days, but at least your feed is cleaner for a few days. (I'm only browsing Twitter on browser, so I don't know how that works on the app)
Or maybe using lists
Or maybe using lists
Twitter is a filter bubble in its entirety.
I used to follow a lot of reporters. Even if I agree with the reporting, I noticed that there was just too negativity in my stream that was overwhelming. Everything was just amplified every day and yeah, I agree it's an outrage generating machine. A couple of weeks ago I unfollowed a bunch of blue checkmark accounts (including many reporters), and have also found it's much more pleasant.
> Later on I unfollowed 90% accounts and stuck to those accounts which strictly tweets only about programming, math, history and other such stuffs in robotic manner (I.e. without any hidden agenda or connotations). I unfollowed everyone who have even a slightest chance of tweeting about politics. Also I stopped tweeting and replying to anybody.
I bet you still see politics trending every day in the "Whats Happening" Section. It feels like Engineers at Twitter are working overtime to promote their political agendas, and don't care that some people may not be interested in politics, or their opinions. I deleted my twitter for this reason.
I bet you still see politics trending every day in the "Whats Happening" Section. It feels like Engineers at Twitter are working overtime to promote their political agendas, and don't care that some people may not be interested in politics, or their opinions. I deleted my twitter for this reason.
Honestly, the real danger on the Internet isn't ads. It's these little attention boxes. I block this. I block the stackexchange questions. I block everything. Otherwise I click everything,.
Check RSS'. I use sfeed + sfeed_curses, and Dillo as a browser. No ads, no alerts, no crap.
Also, check gopher too. You can check out HN thru gopher://hngopher.com and avoid commenting, just lurking out the post and the comments. Use lynx, or better, sacc. That way youl'll avoid all the attention traps.
Also, check gopher too. You can check out HN thru gopher://hngopher.com and avoid commenting, just lurking out the post and the comments. Use lynx, or better, sacc. That way youl'll avoid all the attention traps.
Absolutely true on all accounts. Have deliberately removed the app from my phone and logged out on my browser - it was satisfying for a time, but I found myself frustrated with the drama and conflict. I'm convinced the people who are speaking in good faith are absolutely dwarfed by those yelling in bad faith. The medium doesn't lend itself to debate, instead it's just brief snippets of outrage. It's a really poor communication tool for anything actually worth communicating about.
> Later on I unfollowed 90% accounts and stuck to those accounts which strictly tweets only about programming, math, history and other such stuffs in robotic manner (I.e. without any hidden agenda or connotations). I unfollowed everyone who have even a slightest chance of tweeting about politics. Also I stopped tweeting and replying to anybody.
This is the best way to use Twitter, especially your decision to not post or reply to anyone.
We're all prone to say something stupid on online, and if we attach our real identities to those statements, like many people on Twitter, someone somewhere will weaponize it. And, if you have enough "clout" on Twitter, something you tweeted yesterday, or a decade ago, can end your career. This is the world we live in.
This is the best way to use Twitter, especially your decision to not post or reply to anyone.
We're all prone to say something stupid on online, and if we attach our real identities to those statements, like many people on Twitter, someone somewhere will weaponize it. And, if you have enough "clout" on Twitter, something you tweeted yesterday, or a decade ago, can end your career. This is the world we live in.
It’s funny. IMO Hacker News which I only recently discovered is what I was looking for in twitter. Now I’m completely off twitter and with HN I get all the neat computer news that I crave. Also I like that for the most part, people keep the discussion civil and constructive when discussing things over which there may be disagreement.
Like the article states, I think Tweetdeck is more powerful and more useful than normal Twitter. You can see a much broader and deeper view of the topics you are interested in, and see it both at a glance and deeply if you decide to dig in. It's also excellent for watching trends in real time (such as many people tweeting about a conference).
Your normal feed forces you into a much more "all or nothing" approach. Someone who often tweets useful stuff but also lots of noise, you either have to put up with the noise or miss their good stuff. In Tweetdeck, just their good stuff shows up.
Your normal feed forces you into a much more "all or nothing" approach. Someone who often tweets useful stuff but also lots of noise, you either have to put up with the noise or miss their good stuff. In Tweetdeck, just their good stuff shows up.
>Later on I unfollowed 90% accounts and stuck to those accounts which strictly tweets only about programming, math, history and other such stuffs in robotic manner (I.e. without any hidden agenda or connotations).
One thing I noticed in my own time on Twitter was that this is easier said than done. It's very difficult to accurately gauge whether something is 'without any hidden connotations'. I'm not a historian or a biologist or a sociologist. I'm not a scholar of constitutional law.
There may not be an agenda there, perhaps not even an agenda consciously realised by the author, but it's hard to accept the idea that we can escape 'connotations'. Very much like how the best propaganda appears as fact, or how ideology must first present itself as non-ideological, this gets extremely tricky when it comes to something like history, or even biology.
Similarly, the mere presence of a plurality of ideas is insufficient to overcome this.
I suspect that many who would follow your advice will find themselves still trapped in very similar bubbles of ideology, but this time without the knowledge that it really is ideology. This is a more insidious kind of politicisation, because it primes the user to put down their critical guard in the fact of a lack of 'hidden agenda or connotations'.
One thing I noticed in my own time on Twitter was that this is easier said than done. It's very difficult to accurately gauge whether something is 'without any hidden connotations'. I'm not a historian or a biologist or a sociologist. I'm not a scholar of constitutional law.
There may not be an agenda there, perhaps not even an agenda consciously realised by the author, but it's hard to accept the idea that we can escape 'connotations'. Very much like how the best propaganda appears as fact, or how ideology must first present itself as non-ideological, this gets extremely tricky when it comes to something like history, or even biology.
Similarly, the mere presence of a plurality of ideas is insufficient to overcome this.
I suspect that many who would follow your advice will find themselves still trapped in very similar bubbles of ideology, but this time without the knowledge that it really is ideology. This is a more insidious kind of politicisation, because it primes the user to put down their critical guard in the fact of a lack of 'hidden agenda or connotations'.
While your points are good, I don't think that's an issue for OP.
From what I understand he wants to avoid the "professionally outraged", not necessarily to scrub his feed of anything remotely "ideologically-charged".
I don't often go on Twitter anymore, but from what I saw and from what other people report, there seem to be some "wars" going on where people are just shouting random stuff at each other without even so much as attempting to have an actual debate. I can see how following such exchanges can feel tiring and a waste of time. However, most tweets I used to see from people I follow are mostly matter of fact and technology-related.
Of course, they sometime stray from strictly IT talk to more personal things. For example there's a woman who would sometimes tweet about her daughter / being a mom. Could this possibly be a vehicle of some sort of ideology, such as feminism / women in tech / whatever? Sure. But it only comes in once in a while, I can jump over it, and it has never devolved in any kind of screaming match.
From what I understand he wants to avoid the "professionally outraged", not necessarily to scrub his feed of anything remotely "ideologically-charged".
I don't often go on Twitter anymore, but from what I saw and from what other people report, there seem to be some "wars" going on where people are just shouting random stuff at each other without even so much as attempting to have an actual debate. I can see how following such exchanges can feel tiring and a waste of time. However, most tweets I used to see from people I follow are mostly matter of fact and technology-related.
Of course, they sometime stray from strictly IT talk to more personal things. For example there's a woman who would sometimes tweet about her daughter / being a mom. Could this possibly be a vehicle of some sort of ideology, such as feminism / women in tech / whatever? Sure. But it only comes in once in a while, I can jump over it, and it has never devolved in any kind of screaming match.
Historians are taught to be aware of their own biases and attributing value in their research / observations of the past.
Having said that, I think it's far more interesting to look at the medium itself. Marshall McLuhan, after all, did say "the medium is the message" or "the medium is the massage".
Twitter was first conceived as a micro-blogging service. You simply gave status updates about what was going on in your life, or a part of your life, or whatever. Then @ replies, # tags and re-tweets were introduced. Re-tweets weren't even invented by Twitter, it was something users started to do, and then Twitter implemented it as a button:
https://www.annehelmond.nl/2013/01/19/on-retweet-analysis-an...
The same is true for the # tag which was introduced by early user @chrismessina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Messina_(open-source_adv...
Then there's the history of Twitter itself which is mired in strife between the original founders, and changing different strategic visions as things suddenly - and rather unexpectedly - took off, thanks to the mobile revolution. Twitter is, after all a business, and not a very successful one at at that: it only turned it first annual profit in... 2018.
Why this backdrop? Because if you use Twitter, the feed of tweets you see is inherently distorted by this historic context. Twitter is used as channel for direct conversation between individuals... but it was originally never intended to become that. Twitter is used for marketing purposes to wide audiences... but it was never originally intended to be that.
The same is true with most social media. They were conceived by a few founders on a very limited premise - which was indeed rooted in their own personal context of affluence - and everything else became improvisation along the way as users took the concept and then started using those tools in novel, unexpected ways.
None that implies that these platforms don't carry value, are unusable or a lost cause. And neither does it excuse how the strategies and the visions of the past 15 years didn't result in affordances that curb discrimination, polarization and intolerance, but sometimes even reinforced them.
What this means to your average user, then, is that social media present a particular biased representation of reality; just as much as you would find in mainstream media. It's up to the user/reader then to be critical and understand that these continuous feeds of disparate thoughts are only presenting you with so much truth about the world.
Historians are taught that true objective historiography doesn't really exist and a pure fact based overview of history isn't informative. The interpretative nature of historiography doesn't make history any less valuable. As the famous French historian Marc Bloch wrote:
"The ABC of our profession is to avoid these large abstract terms in order to try to discover behind them the only concrete realities, which are human beings."
Marc Bloch was the founder of the Annales School together with other famous historians: their work informed contemporary historiography up until this day. Beyond academics, Bloch saw active combat in World War I, joined the resistance in World War II and was arrested and executed 3 weeks after D-Day. He was also Jewish. Context matters, and Bloch was acutely aware that he wasn't just writing history, he was also very much being part of it's making.
In the same vain, in actively using Twitter, users are shaping it and forming it's history.
Having said that, I think it's far more interesting to look at the medium itself. Marshall McLuhan, after all, did say "the medium is the message" or "the medium is the massage".
Twitter was first conceived as a micro-blogging service. You simply gave status updates about what was going on in your life, or a part of your life, or whatever. Then @ replies, # tags and re-tweets were introduced. Re-tweets weren't even invented by Twitter, it was something users started to do, and then Twitter implemented it as a button:
https://www.annehelmond.nl/2013/01/19/on-retweet-analysis-an...
The same is true for the # tag which was introduced by early user @chrismessina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Messina_(open-source_adv...
Then there's the history of Twitter itself which is mired in strife between the original founders, and changing different strategic visions as things suddenly - and rather unexpectedly - took off, thanks to the mobile revolution. Twitter is, after all a business, and not a very successful one at at that: it only turned it first annual profit in... 2018.
Why this backdrop? Because if you use Twitter, the feed of tweets you see is inherently distorted by this historic context. Twitter is used as channel for direct conversation between individuals... but it was originally never intended to become that. Twitter is used for marketing purposes to wide audiences... but it was never originally intended to be that.
The same is true with most social media. They were conceived by a few founders on a very limited premise - which was indeed rooted in their own personal context of affluence - and everything else became improvisation along the way as users took the concept and then started using those tools in novel, unexpected ways.
None that implies that these platforms don't carry value, are unusable or a lost cause. And neither does it excuse how the strategies and the visions of the past 15 years didn't result in affordances that curb discrimination, polarization and intolerance, but sometimes even reinforced them.
What this means to your average user, then, is that social media present a particular biased representation of reality; just as much as you would find in mainstream media. It's up to the user/reader then to be critical and understand that these continuous feeds of disparate thoughts are only presenting you with so much truth about the world.
Historians are taught that true objective historiography doesn't really exist and a pure fact based overview of history isn't informative. The interpretative nature of historiography doesn't make history any less valuable. As the famous French historian Marc Bloch wrote:
"The ABC of our profession is to avoid these large abstract terms in order to try to discover behind them the only concrete realities, which are human beings."
Marc Bloch was the founder of the Annales School together with other famous historians: their work informed contemporary historiography up until this day. Beyond academics, Bloch saw active combat in World War I, joined the resistance in World War II and was arrested and executed 3 weeks after D-Day. He was also Jewish. Context matters, and Bloch was acutely aware that he wasn't just writing history, he was also very much being part of it's making.
In the same vain, in actively using Twitter, users are shaping it and forming it's history.
I have observed the same thing with famous accounts. I stopped following most of them. I stick with regular people that tweet about interesting project or accounts with some inspiration statements.
As you get older, you just don't have all this free time to sit there and scroll through garbage.
As you get older, you just don't have all this free time to sit there and scroll through garbage.
Totally agree re: "outrage generating machine." Outrage peddling is the easiest and most successful way for media companies to make money, and few media organizations resist that urge.
> strictly tweets only about programming, math, history and other such stuffs in robotic manner (I.e. without any hidden agenda or connotations)
If you are tweeting about programming in a robotic manner while black people are being murdered by police, or while we rush towards a blue ocean event, you do have a hidden agenda.
Pretending that you can talk about the programming in a 'neutral' way is a radically political opinion. I get it, you actively and loudly don't want to discuss anything that isn't immediately interesting to you without making you have to question anything. But at the very least you have to concede that that itself is a strongly political statement.
If you are tweeting about programming in a robotic manner while black people are being murdered by police, or while we rush towards a blue ocean event, you do have a hidden agenda.
Pretending that you can talk about the programming in a 'neutral' way is a radically political opinion. I get it, you actively and loudly don't want to discuss anything that isn't immediately interesting to you without making you have to question anything. But at the very least you have to concede that that itself is a strongly political statement.
> If you are tweeting about programming in a robotic manner...
What do you mean by “in a robotic manner”?
> ...you do have a hidden agenda.
What agenda? Why is it hidden?
> Pretending that you can talk about the programming in a 'neutral' way is a radically political opinion.
Why do you think that’s a political opinion? Why do you think it’s “radical”? What is it radical in relation to?
> I get it, you actively and loudly...
What do you mean by “actively and loudly” here?
> you... don't want to discuss anything that isn't immediately interesting to you
How do you know that? Do you know the GP?
> that itself is a strongly political statement.
What is?
What do you mean by “in a robotic manner”?
> ...you do have a hidden agenda.
What agenda? Why is it hidden?
> Pretending that you can talk about the programming in a 'neutral' way is a radically political opinion.
Why do you think that’s a political opinion? Why do you think it’s “radical”? What is it radical in relation to?
> I get it, you actively and loudly...
What do you mean by “actively and loudly” here?
> you... don't want to discuss anything that isn't immediately interesting to you
How do you know that? Do you know the GP?
> that itself is a strongly political statement.
What is?
>Cultivate a good set of accounts to follow
Man I'm so done with that. Even cultivating a group of accounts on say a topic ... they're still people so I get their angry rants about whatever issue. And I respect their right to be a person and tweet about what they want, but that's a double edged sword as far as my interest goes.
I really don't want to see a twitter spat, ever. Even if I AGREE with someone I'm following I don't want to see them act like a child or sort of yell at me / the world whatever concerns them at the moment ... I just don't, it's not helpful, I'm not learning anything, it's just yelling much of the time.
>Who has time for this?
Amen.
Man I'm so done with that. Even cultivating a group of accounts on say a topic ... they're still people so I get their angry rants about whatever issue. And I respect their right to be a person and tweet about what they want, but that's a double edged sword as far as my interest goes.
I really don't want to see a twitter spat, ever. Even if I AGREE with someone I'm following I don't want to see them act like a child or sort of yell at me / the world whatever concerns them at the moment ... I just don't, it's not helpful, I'm not learning anything, it's just yelling much of the time.
>Who has time for this?
Amen.
i haven't used twitter in a while (and even then was barely a user because it was so overwhelming), but i suspect a lot of the twitter and social media backlash is an impedance mismatch between our signal-seeking antennas and the tidal wave of signal (and noise) that's 300M people chatting at once.
a single human isn't evolutionarily equipped to tease out useful information from that much constant and ever-present signal. we're designed to tell if an eye crinkle means the coincident stream of words are more likely true or false.
we're also constantly making attribution errors via twitter in the same vein, attributing to individuals things that only apply to systems and groups (akin to the idea that there is no average person), generalizing in ways that are bound to be flawed but unable to help our collective selves.
i say all this to disagree with the idea that avoiding (angry) opinion is necessarily the "right way to use twitter". it's maybe a way for an individual to avoid drowning in the deluge of signal, but it does nothing to find the truths that must be washing over us at the same time.
a single human isn't evolutionarily equipped to tease out useful information from that much constant and ever-present signal. we're designed to tell if an eye crinkle means the coincident stream of words are more likely true or false.
we're also constantly making attribution errors via twitter in the same vein, attributing to individuals things that only apply to systems and groups (akin to the idea that there is no average person), generalizing in ways that are bound to be flawed but unable to help our collective selves.
i say all this to disagree with the idea that avoiding (angry) opinion is necessarily the "right way to use twitter". it's maybe a way for an individual to avoid drowning in the deluge of signal, but it does nothing to find the truths that must be washing over us at the same time.
It's an interesting problem because it's akin to going to a cocktail party and having idle chit chat and then someone brings up politics. Even if you agree with the politics of the person, by introducing it into the discussion, you have no choice but to "take a side" and agree with them on things (or not). All of a sudden, some nice banter has turned into a serious discussion. There's a time and place for those discussions, and the problem with twitter is that the discussions are ALWAYS going on, rendering it useless as a place for idle chat.
In person I think it’s easier to be oblique in your response so you don’t have to agree or disagree, or you can agree and disagree in degrees.
This mirrors my experience. Adding one more point, a lot of non-outraged content is manufactured. It was nice at first but then it was plain boring and kind of manipulatistic in nature.
I think it's US-centric though (at least from how I used twitter). The same is true for India and few other countries where you can only find manufactured content.
Maybe it's related to population size. Social media and twitter segregate based on countries rather than states more. Given cities in India have more people than entire countries, the end result of more averages combined will be the same?
Another relevant comment I found:
Only something like 10% of users tweet regularly. I wouldn't be surprised if most twitter accounts are run by PR firms, bots and blue check marks. The other active ones are probably alts of power users who were self aware of their behavior and decided to be anonymous.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/22/21148516/twitter-suspends...
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/17990946/twitter-russian-trol...
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24072286
Easier to explain by manipulation from wealthy and state?
I think it's US-centric though (at least from how I used twitter). The same is true for India and few other countries where you can only find manufactured content.
Maybe it's related to population size. Social media and twitter segregate based on countries rather than states more. Given cities in India have more people than entire countries, the end result of more averages combined will be the same?
Another relevant comment I found:
Only something like 10% of users tweet regularly. I wouldn't be surprised if most twitter accounts are run by PR firms, bots and blue check marks. The other active ones are probably alts of power users who were self aware of their behavior and decided to be anonymous.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/22/21148516/twitter-suspends...
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/17990946/twitter-russian-trol...
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24072286
Easier to explain by manipulation from wealthy and state?
> they're still people so I get their angry rants about whatever issue.
"Why X happened to me and why YOU should be enraged, a thread"
"I'm mad, so I'm going to make a thread, in hopes of it going viral and, later, can be used for my own financial gain: a thread"
"Why X happened to me and why YOU should be enraged, a thread"
"I'm mad, so I'm going to make a thread, in hopes of it going viral and, later, can be used for my own financial gain: a thread"
Don’t follow anyone who has spats. Or mute. Or block the offending party.
My guide to using twitter:
1. Follow people with high signal to noise ratio. These are people whose full time job is creation, and no marketing. Eg. Scientists and engineers and certain types of artists. Politicians not so much.
2. Use the mute feature liberally. Go into settings and mute the name of every major politician in your country, or politicians that are popular world over. On every part of the political landscape. Go to their accounts and block them too. Politics is a mind-killer.
3. Some people tweet good stuff, but retweet crap. You can go to their page and mute their retweets.
4. Follow people you disagree with ideologically. Don't get trapped in echo-chambers.
5. Create lists of people for stuff you are interested in, but don't want to pollute your main timeline with. There you can tolerate a bit lower SNR.
1. Follow people with high signal to noise ratio. These are people whose full time job is creation, and no marketing. Eg. Scientists and engineers and certain types of artists. Politicians not so much.
2. Use the mute feature liberally. Go into settings and mute the name of every major politician in your country, or politicians that are popular world over. On every part of the political landscape. Go to their accounts and block them too. Politics is a mind-killer.
3. Some people tweet good stuff, but retweet crap. You can go to their page and mute their retweets.
4. Follow people you disagree with ideologically. Don't get trapped in echo-chambers.
5. Create lists of people for stuff you are interested in, but don't want to pollute your main timeline with. There you can tolerate a bit lower SNR.
> 4. Follow people you disagree with ideologically. Don't get trapped in echo-chambers.
> 2. Use the mute feature liberally
No point in following them if I've muted everything they say.
Seriously, there are very few people remaining I've seen on the right who are prepared to make arguments that aren't immediately infuriating, based on something clearly wrong, or in support of people and policies who are harmful to my friends.
> 2. Use the mute feature liberally
No point in following them if I've muted everything they say.
Seriously, there are very few people remaining I've seen on the right who are prepared to make arguments that aren't immediately infuriating, based on something clearly wrong, or in support of people and policies who are harmful to my friends.
Echo chambers develop when you are only reading things you already know, not things you agree with. It's about learning new things vs. keeping your worldview narrow. Like if you have an opinion on climate change, reading arguments from deniers doesn't expand your worldview. Reading about how climate change affects different social classes can expand your worldview -- and all be from people you already agree with.
That's not what I mean. Climate-change denial is a very specific issue, and empirical in nature.
When I say ideological difference, I mean people who have different fundamental values. Say socialism vs capitalism. People from both those camps can disagree with each other, but still respect the arguments others make and learn from those arguments.
Obviously, when I say arguments I mean academia level arguments, not party-rally-slogan level arguments.
When I say ideological difference, I mean people who have different fundamental values. Say socialism vs capitalism. People from both those camps can disagree with each other, but still respect the arguments others make and learn from those arguments.
Obviously, when I say arguments I mean academia level arguments, not party-rally-slogan level arguments.
This article has good advice, but doesn't really help me. I actually really want to use Twitter more, but I cannot get over the fact that most of the people I find interesting post 20% interesting stuff, but 80% in-jokes, casual conversations, or memes. This is fine for the people who post once a day, but if there are 10s of them per day I get sick of it.
I don't know how I'm meant to deal with this other than just blindly trusting Twitter's algorithm of what ends up on my home feed (which I don't really want to). Maybe what I want is for Twitter to differentiate between announcement/public style posts and posts that are intended for a smaller community of followers, but that probably goes against the nature of the medium.
I hold myself responsible for this whenever I tweet something as well, but it seems like the only way to do it 100% is to make different accounts for different topics (e.g. one account for tech/programming, one for politics, and one for casual life stuff).
I don't know how I'm meant to deal with this other than just blindly trusting Twitter's algorithm of what ends up on my home feed (which I don't really want to). Maybe what I want is for Twitter to differentiate between announcement/public style posts and posts that are intended for a smaller community of followers, but that probably goes against the nature of the medium.
I hold myself responsible for this whenever I tweet something as well, but it seems like the only way to do it 100% is to make different accounts for different topics (e.g. one account for tech/programming, one for politics, and one for casual life stuff).
I am having a similar but different need.
I want multiple streams like circles from Google Plus (yes the dead Google Plus). It was the only thing I found on Google+ which is missing from all other social medias I am using.
I want multiple streams like circles from Google Plus (yes the dead Google Plus). It was the only thing I found on Google+ which is missing from all other social medias I am using.
i think twitter's model pushes people to post often, so they post more memes/political stuff which i find garbage. I wish it would keep the stuff from interesting people at the top for more days, but it s not happening.
I had the same experience, a few times I've tried to follow a few interesting accounts. It's always the same: a couple of accounts posting memes or sharing random things drown everything else. When I want to waste time with that sort of stuff I can do it more efficiently on reddit.
Interesting the author didn't mention lists which are my favorite way to escape the firehose of Twitter. The trick is to add just /one/ account to a list, and then you can visit that 'list' when you want, rather than that account being forced upon you randomly when you fire up the app.
It's also a quick way to access an account without having to search for the account each time. You're probably thinking that defeats the purpose of a 'list' if there's just one account in it, but it's been my go-to method for a long time now, and I have bookmarked so many useful tweets, and I sometimes even reference these gems in blogposts, or share the tweet with friends on other social media channels.
It's all about having the time to /mull/ and assimilate knowledge rather than drinking from a firehose.
It's also a quick way to access an account without having to search for the account each time. You're probably thinking that defeats the purpose of a 'list' if there's just one account in it, but it's been my go-to method for a long time now, and I have bookmarked so many useful tweets, and I sometimes even reference these gems in blogposts, or share the tweet with friends on other social media channels.
It's all about having the time to /mull/ and assimilate knowledge rather than drinking from a firehose.
I have an honest question for Twitter users of HN: what's the net positive value of Twitter to your life?
It feels like using Twitter or not has been an uninterrupted argument for years, even on HN, as if on one end your rational brain knows Twitter is detrimental to your mental health, but on the other end: it's a great dopamine, and outrage dispenser.
It feels like using Twitter or not has been an uninterrupted argument for years, even on HN, as if on one end your rational brain knows Twitter is detrimental to your mental health, but on the other end: it's a great dopamine, and outrage dispenser.
It's the place where most of the people in my industry (WebGl) seem to gather and showcase their work. Hanging out there too lets me connect with them and has gotten me a considerable amount of work over the last couple of years and allowed me to make professional connection that I would have otherwise missed. I also showcase and advertise my own work there.
I'm extremely careful not to engage in anything related to identity or politics on Twitter. I've added a big list of muted words and accounts (trump, politics, gender, queer, republican, democrat, sanders, etc.). Many of these are topics I find interesting and discussion worthy, but the twitter format doesn't allow space for anyone to formulate actual cohesive thoughts so the result of discussing anything contentious is just people shouting at each other. Once I avoid these topics and stick to discussing tech, twitter is fine.
I'm extremely careful not to engage in anything related to identity or politics on Twitter. I've added a big list of muted words and accounts (trump, politics, gender, queer, republican, democrat, sanders, etc.). Many of these are topics I find interesting and discussion worthy, but the twitter format doesn't allow space for anyone to formulate actual cohesive thoughts so the result of discussing anything contentious is just people shouting at each other. Once I avoid these topics and stick to discussing tech, twitter is fine.
> I've added a big list of muted words and accounts (trump, politics, gender, queer, republican, democrat, sanders, etc.).
Muting is makes using Twitter much easier, when it's working. Sometimes muted words and phrases find their way through the cracks.
Muting is makes using Twitter much easier, when it's working. Sometimes muted words and phrases find their way through the cracks.
I have found twitter to be incredibly useful and truly amazing for finding immediate first-hand information during sudden events (ie: Protests after George Floyd's death, Beirut, Boston Marathon Bombing, things like that.)
For this case to happen, a few things must align:
1) Important and accessible to enough people on that platform such that effective hashtags "coalesce" and the event becomes searchable
2) Recent (or ongoing/changing) enough that new information available in first-hand accounts has not yet made it to news reports.
3) Not flooded or taken over by bots and malicious accounts.
I wish there was a platform (or ideally an open standard linking multiple platforms effectively) where I could have the interaction I just described but on a much smaller scale. An up-to-the-minute first-hand witness of "whats going on". Essentially, the "raw" news. Technologically, Twitter should work just fine for this. But there are significant problems currently with reliability, trust, and misuse that I believe lead to the general problems people have with twitter which then prevent it's use for the type of "first hand accounting" I've described here.
For this case to happen, a few things must align:
1) Important and accessible to enough people on that platform such that effective hashtags "coalesce" and the event becomes searchable
2) Recent (or ongoing/changing) enough that new information available in first-hand accounts has not yet made it to news reports.
3) Not flooded or taken over by bots and malicious accounts.
I wish there was a platform (or ideally an open standard linking multiple platforms effectively) where I could have the interaction I just described but on a much smaller scale. An up-to-the-minute first-hand witness of "whats going on". Essentially, the "raw" news. Technologically, Twitter should work just fine for this. But there are significant problems currently with reliability, trust, and misuse that I believe lead to the general problems people have with twitter which then prevent it's use for the type of "first hand accounting" I've described here.
It's the best place I know to follow specific creators/artists. I'm interested in the work of a select group of pixel artists, game creators, and 3D modelers, I haven't found a best place to see what they are doing. Other platforms would let me follow a "pixel art" group/subreddit/tag but that's not what I want, I'm looking for the content created by some specific people, not the general topic.
But it's the worst platform to have any type of discussion. IMHO if they would remove the "retweet with comment" feature, and start considering comment threads as comments instead of posts (so make a clear distinction between the two), things would be way nicer to navigate, but that will never happen.
The best way so far is to mute everything annoying.
But it's the worst platform to have any type of discussion. IMHO if they would remove the "retweet with comment" feature, and start considering comment threads as comments instead of posts (so make a clear distinction between the two), things would be way nicer to navigate, but that will never happen.
The best way so far is to mute everything annoying.
> It's the best place I know to follow specific creators/artists. I'm interested in the work of a select group of pixel artists, game creators, and 3D modelers, I haven't found a best place to see what they are doing. Other platforms would let me follow a "pixel art" group/subreddit/tag but that's not what I want, I'm looking for the content created by some specific people, not the general topic.
Many of these artists are also likely on Instagram. But that'll require using a Facebook product, if that's not your thing.
Many of these artists are also likely on Instagram. But that'll require using a Facebook product, if that's not your thing.
Yes, that's maybe the case. I haven't tried Instagram for that purpose.
I follow several artists and get lovely art that I wouldn't otherwise have seen, and wouldn't have sought out.
I follow several people in the game development industry, and historically used to see a lot of interesting technical articles being shared on Twitter within this community. That seems to have declined unfortunately, though there is still some.
I follow various people who have a habit of posting dumb funny jokes (usually puns) and memes. Not everyone likes that style of humour, but I do.
I mute or unfollow people if too many of the things they choose to share are things I don't want to see (like outrage bait).
I follow several people in the game development industry, and historically used to see a lot of interesting technical articles being shared on Twitter within this community. That seems to have declined unfortunately, though there is still some.
I follow various people who have a habit of posting dumb funny jokes (usually puns) and memes. Not everyone likes that style of humour, but I do.
I mute or unfollow people if too many of the things they choose to share are things I don't want to see (like outrage bait).
I follow a lot of scientists and such. I do some political arguments (see my other post on this page), but it is far less than most people, and I don't engage with them. The intellectual arguments that scientists make, the papers they post, are worth reading.
Personally, I follow the rule that I will only tweet stuff I would be still excited to read in 5 years.
Personally, I follow the rule that I will only tweet stuff I would be still excited to read in 5 years.
I don’t use twitter, and it seems to me that other OSS programmers who actively use twitter are much better connected than I am. They tweet a new project they’re working on and suddenly it has people trying it out. I don’t begrudge that at all. They’ve put a lot of time into building their reputations. I just wish I could find a way to enjoy twitter so I can get in on that.
> I don’t use twitter, and it seems to me that other OSS programmers who actively use twitter are much better connected than I am.
Many OSS people aren't on Twitter. They're on IRC, Mastodon and mailing lists.
Many OSS people aren't on Twitter. They're on IRC, Mastodon and mailing lists.
Mastodon works under lynx, at least from brutaldon.online.
Much saner, less mobs, less sensationalim, less tribalism, less bullshit.
Much saner, less mobs, less sensationalim, less tribalism, less bullshit.
I follow people I think are smart or interesting who do things beyond tweet. They might tweet to say they've published a new podcast, made a video, etc. They also share articles or perspectives or write up Twitter threads.
Depends on who you follow: the ones I do usually post facts (such as showcasing their work or linking to other people's work) rather than opinions, so it's been a net positive so far.
For example, I probably never would have visited CERN or Chernobyl without it.
For example, I probably never would have visited CERN or Chernobyl without it.
To build a (small, steady) following.
Twitter is full of weird people who are the core potential audience of my creative/intellectual stuff. (HN in contrast is not.)
Twitter is full of weird people who are the core potential audience of my creative/intellectual stuff. (HN in contrast is not.)
Twitter is the best way to keep up with patio11. I am not even joking, he has stopped blogging so now he does twitter streams (that should have been blogs) but they are almost always full of very interesting and frequently useful knowledge.
I also use it to keep up with things that will soon become political issues - that has a much smaller amount of noise to signal, but even so.
Ideally, I would love to be able to follow people only for some tags, but that would make twitter nicer to use so that is not going to happen.
I also use it to keep up with things that will soon become political issues - that has a much smaller amount of noise to signal, but even so.
Ideally, I would love to be able to follow people only for some tags, but that would make twitter nicer to use so that is not going to happen.
I've learned a lot as result of twitter.
I've been exposed to people and thoughts I otherwise wouldn't have. This broaden my perspective.
I've been exposed to people and thoughts I otherwise wouldn't have. This broaden my perspective.
It's the best way to find current information for emerging news when you need it ASAP. EX. lineup/injury news for daily fantasy sports prior to lock.
Can also be pretty handy when you're at a convention/event.
Can also be pretty handy when you're at a convention/event.
I wrote a little blog post on just that, feel free to take a look: https://www.andreykurenkov.com/writing/life/twitter-tips/
TLDR AI research community is quite active on there so it's a good way to keep up with big news and conversations (and more).
I think the usefulness for most people is equal parts keeping up w news/conversations and funny memes.
TLDR AI research community is quite active on there so it's a good way to keep up with big news and conversations (and more).
I think the usefulness for most people is equal parts keeping up w news/conversations and funny memes.
* Amazing insight into the way people work.
* Novel ideas.
* Insight into how VCs think.
* Access to people.
Honestly, I really enjoy John Carmack's feed. He was a childhood hero of mine and it's great to read his stuff.
* Novel ideas.
* Insight into how VCs think.
* Access to people.
Honestly, I really enjoy John Carmack's feed. He was a childhood hero of mine and it's great to read his stuff.
A few accounts that act like dedicated "tips".
"Hey here's a quick CSS tip!"
That's about it in terms of positive interaction where I didn't have to eventually prune that account ... but that's about it.
It probably helps that quick tech / CSS tips sort of fit inside the world of a tweet, but nothing else does.
"Hey here's a quick CSS tip!"
That's about it in terms of positive interaction where I didn't have to eventually prune that account ... but that's about it.
It probably helps that quick tech / CSS tips sort of fit inside the world of a tweet, but nothing else does.
It used to be fun, and in smaller communities still is. Even the politics used to be better. Now social media has destroyed the possibility of rational politics.
Socrates, a world-renown authority on rationality, wasn't that bullish on rational politics -- long before social media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
Twitter is mob media.
It is only social in the most twisted sense of the word. Rarely do you interact in a positive way.
It is only social in the most twisted sense of the word. Rarely do you interact in a positive way.
That is by design. I follow a security researcher who generally get 10-20 comments/likes on his posts. He and his girlfriend broke up. She has 50 follows on Twitter and posted something vaguely implying the break-up was because he was intimidated by her intelligence. He responded saying that it was more complicated than that. That generated thousands of comments. A lot of the comments were related to the me-too movement. The twitter algorithm must had know this would get people engaged and showed it to a lot of people. From a hundred words I have no idea if he was guilty of some sort of sexism or not, and I have no idea how anyone else could come to a conclusion either. But Twitter algorithm doesn't care about the quality of the conversation, only the fact that it keeps people engaged.
* mob of uninformed
My advice would be to create your own echo chamber, not the bad ideologically biased one, but the one that helps you put yourself and your work out there while being able to stay updated on the developments within the community. I feel that twitter is a far better platform to learn than quora, reddit, and what not because of its mainstream nature and authenticity where you can interact with real experts without falling into the linkedin trap(networking for the sake of it and spamming people). The only thing is you will have to excercise at least a little bit of caution and restraint on the side of meandering around mindlessly.
> First, social address: I’m a white, cis, female, straight, abled
Stopped reading there
Stopped reading there
[deleted]
Same. Honestly I was surprised it took so long, given that it was an article about Twitter.
Why?
That phrasing like that is a shibboleth. (It shows the person's beliefs/political attitudes).
From that statement, you can predict what the author's statements on various things will be. Or at least, it's unsurprising.
Listening to a variety of viewpoints in good faith is a good idea. Tribal, internecine discussion is usually much more predictable than that, though. I liked the term "internet of beefs" for that.
I do like the idea of recognizing that people are human, and not just political abstractions. But, I can also understand how natural the 'internet of beefs' stuff makes political abstractions the most convenient way of viewing people.
Listening to a variety of viewpoints in good faith is a good idea. Tribal, internecine discussion is usually much more predictable than that, though. I liked the term "internet of beefs" for that.
I do like the idea of recognizing that people are human, and not just political abstractions. But, I can also understand how natural the 'internet of beefs' stuff makes political abstractions the most convenient way of viewing people.
Because the author is immediately pandering to the potential twitterati reaction to his article?
Her article. As they told you in that sentence. And their byline.
(I know there's some weird campaign against pronouns but that doesn't mean that all people writing on the internet are now "him")
(I know there's some weird campaign against pronouns but that doesn't mean that all people writing on the internet are now "him")
oops, my mistake
Twitter is the new tumblr
Perhaps you should reconsider. Her article directly addresses this type of response.
"Learn to listen to your discomfort. Sometimes I find myself reading something that makes me think, “I respect this person, but would be uncomfortable holding that opinion myself.” In such cases, it’s worthwhile thinking about why I find it uncomfortable. Is it someone speaking from unacknowledged privilege? If so, is this is a good moment to call them in (either in DMs or in public)? Alternatively, is it uncomfortable for me because it challenges my privilege? If so, that is worth sitting with and trying to learn from."
"Learn to listen to your discomfort. Sometimes I find myself reading something that makes me think, “I respect this person, but would be uncomfortable holding that opinion myself.” In such cases, it’s worthwhile thinking about why I find it uncomfortable. Is it someone speaking from unacknowledged privilege? If so, is this is a good moment to call them in (either in DMs or in public)? Alternatively, is it uncomfortable for me because it challenges my privilege? If so, that is worth sitting with and trying to learn from."
My advice: don't use twitter. It is a terrible way to communicate.
PS I'm old school in the sense that I don't have any inclination to tell you about who I am, but rather delight in the simple act of sharing ideas.
PS I'm old school in the sense that I don't have any inclination to tell you about who I am, but rather delight in the simple act of sharing ideas.
I recently wrote about how political twitter is actually the opposite of activism[1].
In short, political twitter gives us false sense of agency. Really we're draining themselves of energy needed to do the real work in their lives. And frankly, we have so little control over political events in the end...
1 - https://softwaredoug.com/blog/2020/08/06/political-twitter-o...
In short, political twitter gives us false sense of agency. Really we're draining themselves of energy needed to do the real work in their lives. And frankly, we have so little control over political events in the end...
1 - https://softwaredoug.com/blog/2020/08/06/political-twitter-o...
One thing this article doesn't mention is that it is worth remembering Twitter has no meaning or importance on the real world. The only people who care about what happens on twitter are other people on twitter. Regular people simply don't care (nor are aware) about twitter.
Think of it like any other social network feed and try not to take it seriously.
Think of it like any other social network feed and try not to take it seriously.
On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand, "the real world" is just the concatenation of many equally irrelevant spaces.
Do any of the countless news sites that integrate twitter commentary into their articles not matter? It feels like twitter is a place that some people go to gather rare species of opinion only to turn around and declare it a widely accepted belief. Interestingly enough the tweets that offer counter opinions are never given any representation.
In other words I can only agree with you if the consensus is that "news" sites don't matter.
In other words I can only agree with you if the consensus is that "news" sites don't matter.
Exactly. Around 75% of the people I know (teenagers, youngsters, adults) from a variety of backgrounds (tech, health, no education, etc) don't have a Twitter account nor check Twitter.
I don't know a single person on TikTok. I don't know any YouTubers. 95% of the people I'm friends with have left Facebook. That says far more about me than it does about the popularity or reach of those platforms.
Anyone who uses themself and their own social reach as an example of why a platform is irrelevant doesn't understand basic demographics.
Anyone who uses themself and their own social reach as an example of why a platform is irrelevant doesn't understand basic demographics.
it is worth remembering Twitter has no meaning or importance on the real world. The only people who care about what happens on twitter are other people on twitter
On the one hand, yes this is true.
But on the other hand, someone needs to tell that to "reputable" news sources such as the BBC who report on Twitter as if it was real news, and therefore shape real public opinion and even public policy.
On the one hand, yes this is true.
But on the other hand, someone needs to tell that to "reputable" news sources such as the BBC who report on Twitter as if it was real news, and therefore shape real public opinion and even public policy.
For the most part this it true but Twitter is often upstream from the news cycle and so is the real world, ahead of time.
I agree. Even though, the echoes in mass media of twitter conversations, or political debates by political actors on the network, makes Twitter much more influential to the people doesn’t care about what’s on twitter (like me).
The journalist and political classes read it religiously. They spend significant portion of their lives interacting with each other through it. It warps their perspectives and priorities, which has national impact.
Unfortunately politicians are a strange breed: they actually listen to the Twitter mob. Virtue signalling to the mob is a great way to get publicity.
[deleted]
Donald Trump's tweets make headlines around the world.
Technically yes, but what impact do they actually have? It's pretty much irrelevant what he says there. Journalists simply like to use it for clicks.
> what impact do they actually have? It's pretty much irrelevant what he says there
They literally cannot be irrelevant because they're official presidential communications - "The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”"
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trum...
They literally cannot be irrelevant because they're official presidential communications - "The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”"
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trum...
there's an impact on stock market:
https://www.athensjournals.gr/business/2018-4-4-2-Colonescu....
see also just a few months ago. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-says-sto...
see also just a few months ago. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-says-sto...
Musk is indeed a good example: Tesla has officially registered his Twitter account as an official communications channel (probably because otherwise they'd get in trouble for him posting financially relevant information there first), so if your job involves trading Tesla shares you pretty much must pay attention to it.
Weird timing. I recently just quit Twitter and deleted everything. I wrote about it:
https://vancelucas.com/blog/scorched-earth-quitting-twitter-...
https://vancelucas.com/blog/scorched-earth-quitting-twitter-...
> Snitch tagging: You may come across a conversation where people are discussing someone else and be tempted to reply by tagging the person discussed. This is snitch tagging and it’s frowned upon. [...]
Hearing about 'snitch tagging' for the first time (I have to admit I am not a frequent twitter user). Is it really frowned upon? I know the act of 'talking about someone and not tagging them' is called subtweeting and it is also frowned upon isn't it?
The takeaway for me is to stay away from threads like this.
Also the advice to 'let the third party know about the conversation privately' is interesting. I can see how it may help you evade backslash but from game-theoretical point of view it seems to me to be worse for the 'subtweeters' as it provides them with less information.
Hearing about 'snitch tagging' for the first time (I have to admit I am not a frequent twitter user). Is it really frowned upon? I know the act of 'talking about someone and not tagging them' is called subtweeting and it is also frowned upon isn't it?
The takeaway for me is to stay away from threads like this.
Also the advice to 'let the third party know about the conversation privately' is interesting. I can see how it may help you evade backslash but from game-theoretical point of view it seems to me to be worse for the 'subtweeters' as it provides them with less information.
X tweeting about Y without naming them is doing so because they wish to avoid a fight. Doubly so when Y has a known angry set of followers. One may even have the other blocked. By snitch tagging you're trying to start a fight between X and Y and potentially Y's followers. Snitch-tagging is for people who want X to be sent death threats but aren't willing to put their own name on them.
Subtweeting is usually just venting about someone or something. And by its nature it's ambiguous.
> The takeaway for me is to stay away from threads like this.
Correct. There's enough fighting on twitter already.
Subtweeting is usually just venting about someone or something. And by its nature it's ambiguous.
> The takeaway for me is to stay away from threads like this.
Correct. There's enough fighting on twitter already.
So it's confirmed then! Twitter is a kindergarten
I was about start complaining about how an article on using twitter is posted on medium and it will have the usual discussion about the influence of social media platforms. But it is a surprisingly well written how-to document. I would suggest others to give it a glance. Most of us are probably aware of the topics discussed but i still enjoyed it.
[deleted]
> My field (#NLProc) is working to maintain fully anonymous review. In such conditions, it’s important to be careful when tweeting about work (your own or others) that is under review.
Interesting! I wasn't aware that anyone was doing double-anonymous peer review. I would love to know how that is working out.
Interesting! I wasn't aware that anyone was doing double-anonymous peer review. I would love to know how that is working out.
I have been reviewer in this field (ACL-related conferences) for a couple years now. Based on the results of the yearly surveys:
One of the biggest challenges was to decide what to do about ArXiv and pre-prints in general - most researchers keep track of new papers on their area, and therefore it is likely that they will be assigned as reviewers for a paper that they have already seen (and for which they already know who the authors are). This issue came up for a vote a couple years ago, and the chosen answer was to not disqualify papers for this outright but to kindly ask authors to refer from doing so.
At the same time, "88% consider double-blind reviewing at ACL conferences to be important", and only 14% of reviewers would penalize a paper for not including a relevant pre-print. This seems to me like a fair compromise. There is also work in progress to either talk to ArXiv to allow for author masking, and/or to create a new pre-print server that allows it. There is a very detailed report on the results of the survey in [1].
A second issue is whether the reviews should be made public, because it could compromise the double-blind process. The general result of the survey [2] was against it, where "support for public review tended to be inversely correlated with reviewing experience (and) female respondents were less likely to support public review than male respondents".
[1] https://www.aclweb.org/portal/sites/default/files/SurveyRepo...
[2] http://acl2019pcblog.fileli.unipi.it/wp-content/uploads/2019...
One of the biggest challenges was to decide what to do about ArXiv and pre-prints in general - most researchers keep track of new papers on their area, and therefore it is likely that they will be assigned as reviewers for a paper that they have already seen (and for which they already know who the authors are). This issue came up for a vote a couple years ago, and the chosen answer was to not disqualify papers for this outright but to kindly ask authors to refer from doing so.
At the same time, "88% consider double-blind reviewing at ACL conferences to be important", and only 14% of reviewers would penalize a paper for not including a relevant pre-print. This seems to me like a fair compromise. There is also work in progress to either talk to ArXiv to allow for author masking, and/or to create a new pre-print server that allows it. There is a very detailed report on the results of the survey in [1].
A second issue is whether the reviews should be made public, because it could compromise the double-blind process. The general result of the survey [2] was against it, where "support for public review tended to be inversely correlated with reviewing experience (and) female respondents were less likely to support public review than male respondents".
[1] https://www.aclweb.org/portal/sites/default/files/SurveyRepo...
[2] http://acl2019pcblog.fileli.unipi.it/wp-content/uploads/2019...
SIGGRAPH switched from single-blind (reviewers know the authors but not vice versa) to double-blind, starting in the 2019 conference:
https://blog.siggraph.org/2018/10/the-magic-of-technical-pap...
https://blog.siggraph.org/2018/10/the-magic-of-technical-pap...
I have a Twitter account. I think I've logged into it on average about once every year for all of 5 minutes. It's actually surprising to me how much engagement I have on Twitter, I guess people find me organically because I gave a talk at a conference or something. I usually have quite a few mentions from months before when I check it.
Nonetheless, I thought Twitter was doomed to create terrible outcomes from the moment it was born. You cannot share any new, meaningful, and serious thought in 140 characters. Every single one of my experiences and attempts to use it afterwards just confirmed my initial belief. I would much rather interact with people on IRC, via mailing lists, or on HN than do so via Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool.
Nonetheless, I thought Twitter was doomed to create terrible outcomes from the moment it was born. You cannot share any new, meaningful, and serious thought in 140 characters. Every single one of my experiences and attempts to use it afterwards just confirmed my initial belief. I would much rather interact with people on IRC, via mailing lists, or on HN than do so via Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool.
> I would much rather interact with people on IRC
Which servers do you prefer?
Which servers do you prefer?
Most of the networks I used to hang out on no longer exist, but I am still primarily on Rizon. I can be found on some other smaller specialty networks as well. I will eventually make the effort to set Matrix up again to see if it's gotten better because at least one of the networks I used to hang on has been revived on Matrix.
> some other smaller specialty networks as well
Like what?
Like what?
I deleted Twitter. 2020 has made it a very very dark place. I'm immediately less anxious.
I tend to use Twitter as a write-only medium. If there's something I want to share with the world, I might tweet about it. But I almost never log in and just start scrolling.
I guess I also use it for occasionally for 1-on-1 communication via DM's and @mentions.
I guess I also use it for occasionally for 1-on-1 communication via DM's and @mentions.
twitter is for scene kids like myspace was; it's ruined by adults with opinions and their job descriptions in their bios.
I am using Twitter instead of a bookmarking service: I tweet links I find interesting. If I ever want to find it again, I search my own twitter user for a relevant key-word. I also tweet out e.g. git or bash tips that I like (and similarly can search for them afterwards).
It's not my only use of Twitter, but I like how this way both stores the link and shares them at the same time.
(btw, @henrikwarne)
It's not my only use of Twitter, but I like how this way both stores the link and shares them at the same time.
(btw, @henrikwarne)
Copy this article into a text editor, search replace "Twitter" for "Reddit" and look at how absurd the whole thing reads.
They're both internet forums with 330M Active users, both have basically the same content and same level of discussion. Think we need to start being more honest about what Twitter actually is and stop pretending it's the real world.
They're both internet forums with 330M Active users, both have basically the same content and same level of discussion. Think we need to start being more honest about what Twitter actually is and stop pretending it's the real world.
For those who use Tweetdeck, you should know that there is a browser add-on called Better TweetDeck that makes it, well, better.
I have a private account, I follow people by private lists only, and never participate. People on twitter are best source of information(hint; do not follow more than two journalists), but Twitter as a discussion platform failed miserably.
Unless your business revolves around social media, there's absolutely no reason to use Twitter. You gain nothing but addiction and frustration, tailoring all of your tweets to the whims of the Algorithm and potential audience.
The fact that the social justice conversation in America talks only about black people, as this post does as well, shows the majority of people only care about social justice issues when the minority group becomes big and loud enough.
I just skimmed through the article (it's long, I don't have time to read the entire thing). I completely disagree about her overall statement. I prefer not to talk politics in my public twitter account that is used to follow people on topics I'm interested in (politics is not one of them). That doesn't mean I don't comment on issues like police brutality, human rights, sexual harassment, etc. But for me those things have nothing to do with politics.
I just skimmed through the article (it's long, I don't have time to read the entire thing). I completely disagree about her overall statement. I prefer not to talk politics in my public twitter account that is used to follow people on topics I'm interested in (politics is not one of them). That doesn't mean I don't comment on issues like police brutality, human rights, sexual harassment, etc. But for me those things have nothing to do with politics.
Just FYI, that's not fact. The social justice movement talks a lot about trans people for instance. It's hard to go to a black lives matter event and not see black trans lives matter signs. And then literally, the post does mention gender and trans.
Right. GP is factually incorrect. The blog post notes a few axes (hence the term intersectionality) commonly under consideration in social justice spheres, most of which are not solely about black people (though there are black people who experience all of the variations along these axes):
> I’m a white, cis, female, straight, abled (currently; this can change) US citizen with a PhD, raised by parents with advanced degrees.
Gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship, education, and affluence, respectively. Another notable one would be incarceration status, at least in the USA.
> I’m a white, cis, female, straight, abled (currently; this can change) US citizen with a PhD, raised by parents with advanced degrees.
Gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship, education, and affluence, respectively. Another notable one would be incarceration status, at least in the USA.
> the social justice conversation in America
On Twitter...
There have been efforts, advocacy, and 'conversation' about lots of such topics beyond just what folks yell about on twitter.
Twitter is a weird little world, and it is not 'in America'.... and arguably there is very little 'conversation' on their either.
On Twitter...
There have been efforts, advocacy, and 'conversation' about lots of such topics beyond just what folks yell about on twitter.
Twitter is a weird little world, and it is not 'in America'.... and arguably there is very little 'conversation' on their either.
The minority group is probably louder but if you've paid attention to demographics it's actually become smaller. But it should tell you a lot about your society that people are grudgingly treated with a little more respect only after they become "big and loud enough."
That doesn't mean I don't comment on issues like police brutality, human rights, sexual harassment, etc. But for me those things have nothing to do with politics.
How could they not? Such issues are frequently the subject of legal contestation, and the writing and administration of laws are inherently political. If you mean that you'd rather focus on policy issues than party identity that's understandable, but they're a corollary of the representative government model. Further, there are relations between the issues you mention, eg the set of people who care a lot (or not) about police brutality tends to overlap with the set of people who prioritize (or discount)_human rights, and so on.
How could they not? Such issues are frequently the subject of legal contestation, and the writing and administration of laws are inherently political. If you mean that you'd rather focus on policy issues than party identity that's understandable, but they're a corollary of the representative government model. Further, there are relations between the issues you mention, eg the set of people who care a lot (or not) about police brutality tends to overlap with the set of people who prioritize (or discount)_human rights, and so on.
However, later on I realized that Twitter is actually a "outrage generating machine". Everyone is outraging over every trivial, even wrong, thing at every chance. This was very toxic. And since I was addicted to Twitter, it was affecting my mental sanity in very subtle ways.
Later on I unfollowed 90% accounts and stuck to those accounts which strictly tweets only about programming, math, history and other such stuffs in robotic manner (I.e. without any hidden agenda or connotations). I unfollowed everyone who have even a slightest chance of tweeting about politics. Also I stopped tweeting and replying to anybody.
Suddenly Twitter became a bit nicer place and now I only spend may be 5-10 min there.
If you can discipline yourself and carefully choose whom to follow, Twitter is great, otherwise it is a toxic hell.Just don't follow any political figure or any people who outrages on daily basis. And don't even try to debate there. It is not a debate plateform. It is broadcasting platform.