The new silent majority: People who don't tweet(axios.com)
axios.com
The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
https://www.axios.com/political-polarization-twitter-cable-news-ac9699c6-260d-4141-b511-5c7193566ea1.html
767 comments
One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else.
If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship.
If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while.
Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyone. Your friends will always have opinions or lifestyles you will find disagreeable - that is the nature of human existence.
Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
My $0.02 is that it's easier to fall back to rules of polite conversation than fix our compulsive need for agreement.
If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship.
If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while.
Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyone. Your friends will always have opinions or lifestyles you will find disagreeable - that is the nature of human existence.
Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
My $0.02 is that it's easier to fall back to rules of polite conversation than fix our compulsive need for agreement.
My favorite theory comes from an HN comment describing it as the "toaster fucker problem." I'd attempt to re-explain it, but the original comment is great (and easy to search for. Not many mentions of the phrase "toaster fucker" on HN.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362
My roommate basically put it in his project for university as a similar theory to Toaster Fucker. I too have a personal similar theory where I just refer to the 'village idiot'.
They all basically revolve around one truth I think.
The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to radicalize others. Whether it be for the left, right, or even some weird alt thing.
Penny Arcade even has their own comic strip theory called "G.I.F.T of the Internet".
Theirs is more simplistic though in that it stipulates that the anonymity of the net is the problem insofar that it gives people a fake sense of security to be who they really are on the inside. For better or worse. Usually worse.
I think all of our ideas on the matter basically resonate on the same singular issue. That people were already nuts to begin with. The internet is just making easier to identify which are fucking screwballs and ... the rest.
But then that poses a new problem. Mob mentality even of righteous people is still just as toxic as the mob mentality of fucking idiots.
They all basically revolve around one truth I think.
The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to radicalize others. Whether it be for the left, right, or even some weird alt thing.
Penny Arcade even has their own comic strip theory called "G.I.F.T of the Internet".
Theirs is more simplistic though in that it stipulates that the anonymity of the net is the problem insofar that it gives people a fake sense of security to be who they really are on the inside. For better or worse. Usually worse.
I think all of our ideas on the matter basically resonate on the same singular issue. That people were already nuts to begin with. The internet is just making easier to identify which are fucking screwballs and ... the rest.
But then that poses a new problem. Mob mentality even of righteous people is still just as toxic as the mob mentality of fucking idiots.
I don’t think so - my impression is that it’s feed algorithms pushing the most incendiary topics to people because they get the most engagement.
Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all.
So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.
Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all.
So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.
Not only the most incendiary topics but the most incendiary people as well! So the crazy angry neighbor who AFK has two friends gets 500 followers on Twitter, and lots of "likes" on various partisan sites. That rush of approval causes the neighbor to invest even more of their time online where they feel important. This wouldn't be possible without network effects, so I agree, the algorithm can't be discounted or disambiguated from the phenomenon as a whole.
Yeah, we shouldn't discount the algorithms put in place by people; but we should also keep in mind that those algorithms only operate based on inputs from people. If the outputs the algorithms are giving you are not desirable, then it is solely the fault of the people who are feeding that algorithm in the way they are, etc and so forth. Algorithms are not sentient nor have agency over the results of their actions.
We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
Algorithms are designed, evaluated and impoved by organizations, so are not a point of blame at all. They’re not accidentally putting divisive stuff to the top, the analytics, devs and management all surely see the consequences and decide that the algos are aligned with the business .
Many Organizations generally are within some sort of
competitive landscape - companies in the market,
non profits with donations, city and state govts for tax base. So they all will optimize for effectiveness towards some metric to some degree, restricted by whatever fear of backlash or consequences they may have.
No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing.
Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn).
If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing.
Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn).
If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
But it's still people at the end of it. The "algorithm" didn't come up with the topic, didn't write the article, didn't perform the actions. People did. People bought the ads. People promoted the content. And ultimately, people also wrote the "algorithm".
Some hyperbole, but considering the real world consequences right now maybe not as much as we’d like to believe - People are also the ones who use chemical weapons to gas their opponents in particularly nasty wars.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
Incendiary topics draw more attention, thus more likes / reshares. Feed algorithms can amplify this effect, but it's always there, unfortunately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Likes and reshares are often consumed via feed like interfaces though?
I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.
It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.
It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
> Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive
Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
Thank you for this.
Not to quote taco girl too overly much; but how about both?
Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs.
To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them.
So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs.
To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them.
So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
Not quite.
If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation.
If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation.
If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation.
If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation.
If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation.
If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation.
If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
I feel like all of this just means that teaching proper critical thinking in schools again would solve most of this. Along with maybe an educational update for those who missed it.
While it would help a little, you’ll always have a minimum of 25% (probably more like 50%+) of folks who lack the degree of emotional self control necessary for any sort of rational learning to override the emotional response.
They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want.
Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.
They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want.
Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.
TV talk shows basically had the same formula as Twitter. You don't invite the common, adjusted and perhaps boring personalities, you invite the most polarizing and special personalities you can find. Now they can share their craziness on Twitter together. The press is hostage in an attention economy and must further showcase people like that for financial stability.
Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.
Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.
> The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people.
I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media?
Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to.
We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down.
If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process)
There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media?
Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to.
We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down.
If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process)
There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
I'll take a look at this link later and possibly look up that book too. I do want to say a few things however that so far it seems every replier seems to be mistaking as a larger whole.
These people seem to think that humans aren't at fault for the actions of their creations. They seem to think that algorithms are capable of having agency for their actions... This couldn't be further from the case.
As for the content of your reply however, thanks for being a little more nuanced in it all. Yes, a self contained echo chamber is definitely not going to help things. That said, what you are saying is effectively saying as well "If you proofread your own comments, you are risking radicalizing yourself off your own ideas." But further than that, you are also stating "Those ideas are just half baked".
Well in some people's cases that may be true, but as per the usual problem with most of these arguements; it leaps right past the true actionable agent in the problem and heads straight for blaming X thing that people have little control over. Psychology is one of those things that people have less control over than other people would like to believe. I know this because I have had to literally retrain psychologists over stuff like this during the times they figured they were fixing me. HAH, jokes on them.
(It was always something like "Those people don't control your actions" and I would always reply with "When did the chain of actions and consequences begin in your mind over this subject matter?". To this they would usually start it with 'me', when I would correct them and say "it starts with the person before I, because my actions are based off the consequences of their actions. Therefore while they may not 'Make me' do anything, they certainly do present possible options for me to take, and I tend to take the ones that they like the least; usually due to them being the correct action."
Now, from that little bit of a side story, do you see how your opinion of psychology being the answer might be a bit of problem in its own right? Your assumption basically ignores the fact that there is a chain of consequences for every action taken by every single person connected to said subject matter.
So while the person proofreading their comment might be 'radicalizing themselves' using their own propoganda; you are making the mistake of thinking that just because they have X opinion other than yours, it must be bad. This is a common mistake made by... drum roll please... radicalized people. Especially so in regards to folk who are on the internet far more than they should be? I end that with a question mark because it's mostly an observation so far that I cannot concretely say is for certain the problem and cause to the problem.
And so now we are back to the crux of your point. The half baked idea that gets reiterated over and over again due to be re-read. How half baked is my reply to you? How half baked is your reply to me? Was my original comment even half baked to begin with, or is that just your view of the situation through your own subjective and thus potentially biased viewpoint? Get the point?
The problem is many things DyslexicAtheist. But all of them stem from one single source. Humans. This is why I blame them and not the algorithms or the psychology itself. Why?
Because both are creations of humans. Psychology is just an attempt to understand something we didn't create, so we created a method of understanding it. Faulty as it may be, it has its uses. Algorithms are the same thing in a way. We created the fabric of which they exist, but we still don't understand fully how they operate. Or to put it a better way, we don't fully understand yet how to create them to make them operate exactly how we want. And then furthermore from there, we also do know how to create them well enough to make them do exactly what we want from time to time as well; which has its own problems.
Youtube's algorithm is a good example of the creators only having a partial understanding of how their creation works. (If they are to be believed every time they say "we aren't sure how this works")
Twitters is on the other hand a good example of them making an algorithm to do exactly what they want it to do, and it does it really well. To horrific results.
Both together are my point insofar that algorithms and psychology are only part of the general overall answer. They are not the end all or be all. Humanity is that, in regards to this problem. We are the one factor that if removed, all the problems cease to exist. But we can't exactly go removing ourselves... Well, we can... but that has new problems attached to it.
Meanwhile, the people with the half baked ideas as you put it, are just stating their opinions. You may call them half baked, but who are you to judge others opinions when yours probably aren't that great either to begin with? right?
And that right there is the real source of all the problems. People's ego's.
Once you get over your ego, all of this becomes much easier to understand and accept. But getting a human to do that is fucking hard.
These people seem to think that humans aren't at fault for the actions of their creations. They seem to think that algorithms are capable of having agency for their actions... This couldn't be further from the case.
As for the content of your reply however, thanks for being a little more nuanced in it all. Yes, a self contained echo chamber is definitely not going to help things. That said, what you are saying is effectively saying as well "If you proofread your own comments, you are risking radicalizing yourself off your own ideas." But further than that, you are also stating "Those ideas are just half baked".
Well in some people's cases that may be true, but as per the usual problem with most of these arguements; it leaps right past the true actionable agent in the problem and heads straight for blaming X thing that people have little control over. Psychology is one of those things that people have less control over than other people would like to believe. I know this because I have had to literally retrain psychologists over stuff like this during the times they figured they were fixing me. HAH, jokes on them.
(It was always something like "Those people don't control your actions" and I would always reply with "When did the chain of actions and consequences begin in your mind over this subject matter?". To this they would usually start it with 'me', when I would correct them and say "it starts with the person before I, because my actions are based off the consequences of their actions. Therefore while they may not 'Make me' do anything, they certainly do present possible options for me to take, and I tend to take the ones that they like the least; usually due to them being the correct action."
Now, from that little bit of a side story, do you see how your opinion of psychology being the answer might be a bit of problem in its own right? Your assumption basically ignores the fact that there is a chain of consequences for every action taken by every single person connected to said subject matter.
So while the person proofreading their comment might be 'radicalizing themselves' using their own propoganda; you are making the mistake of thinking that just because they have X opinion other than yours, it must be bad. This is a common mistake made by... drum roll please... radicalized people. Especially so in regards to folk who are on the internet far more than they should be? I end that with a question mark because it's mostly an observation so far that I cannot concretely say is for certain the problem and cause to the problem.
And so now we are back to the crux of your point. The half baked idea that gets reiterated over and over again due to be re-read. How half baked is my reply to you? How half baked is your reply to me? Was my original comment even half baked to begin with, or is that just your view of the situation through your own subjective and thus potentially biased viewpoint? Get the point?
The problem is many things DyslexicAtheist. But all of them stem from one single source. Humans. This is why I blame them and not the algorithms or the psychology itself. Why?
Because both are creations of humans. Psychology is just an attempt to understand something we didn't create, so we created a method of understanding it. Faulty as it may be, it has its uses. Algorithms are the same thing in a way. We created the fabric of which they exist, but we still don't understand fully how they operate. Or to put it a better way, we don't fully understand yet how to create them to make them operate exactly how we want. And then furthermore from there, we also do know how to create them well enough to make them do exactly what we want from time to time as well; which has its own problems.
Youtube's algorithm is a good example of the creators only having a partial understanding of how their creation works. (If they are to be believed every time they say "we aren't sure how this works")
Twitters is on the other hand a good example of them making an algorithm to do exactly what they want it to do, and it does it really well. To horrific results.
Both together are my point insofar that algorithms and psychology are only part of the general overall answer. They are not the end all or be all. Humanity is that, in regards to this problem. We are the one factor that if removed, all the problems cease to exist. But we can't exactly go removing ourselves... Well, we can... but that has new problems attached to it.
Meanwhile, the people with the half baked ideas as you put it, are just stating their opinions. You may call them half baked, but who are you to judge others opinions when yours probably aren't that great either to begin with? right?
And that right there is the real source of all the problems. People's ego's.
Once you get over your ego, all of this becomes much easier to understand and accept. But getting a human to do that is fucking hard.
You are underestimating the effect that the speed and range of message transmission have on the kinds of ideologies that people can carry.
Actually, I understand it quite properly. I was merely just putting into easier to understand terms for others who might need it.
I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has.
That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet.
All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs.
So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now.
And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us.
So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.
I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has.
That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet.
All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs.
So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now.
And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us.
So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.
This basically keeps the status quo and gatekeeps any marginal opinion. Today's toaster fucking is tomorrow's right to repair or yesterday's abortion rights. It only helps to preserve the system.
I for one am happy about all the toaster fuckers who have a place to talk about it, maybe get help if they think they need it. The alternative would be that we all get mashed into an amorphous blob of the same middle of the road opinions that keep everyone happy.
Yuck.
I for one am happy about all the toaster fuckers who have a place to talk about it, maybe get help if they think they need it. The alternative would be that we all get mashed into an amorphous blob of the same middle of the road opinions that keep everyone happy.
Yuck.
Fun fact, this theory actually comes from a 4chan post.
Here's the original 4chan post post
https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/5ofih3/beforeafter_t...
https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/5ofih3/beforeafter_t...
> linking a rebbit post of a 4chan thread on HN
What a time to be alive
What a time to be alive
4chan has taught me a lot about the internet. They're the epitome of the red team.
It's a funny analogy, but there is a spectrum, no? Surely you could acknowledge that there is a spectrum somewhere between Black, Gay, Trans, and Toaster Fucker?
It's extremely easy to dismiss all of these as equally irrelevant. In fact many do (not saying you are) - "I don't care if you are black, white or purple. I treat everyone equally". "I don't care if you're straight, gay, or curvy - what you do in the bedroom is no business of mine". These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances. And being asked to be treated equally gets perceived as asking for special treatment until it becomes ridiculous: "Gay people want special treatment by asking gay marriage - they're not being discriminated - they can already marry someone of the opposite sex".
It's easy not to care about race or sexuality when society treats yours as irrelevant.
It's extremely easy to dismiss all of these as equally irrelevant. In fact many do (not saying you are) - "I don't care if you are black, white or purple. I treat everyone equally". "I don't care if you're straight, gay, or curvy - what you do in the bedroom is no business of mine". These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances. And being asked to be treated equally gets perceived as asking for special treatment until it becomes ridiculous: "Gay people want special treatment by asking gay marriage - they're not being discriminated - they can already marry someone of the opposite sex".
It's easy not to care about race or sexuality when society treats yours as irrelevant.
>These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances.
So, what would you have us do?
I treat each individual as an individual and interact with them based on their individual actions, not based on any immutable characteristics.
I fully support inclusion, diversity, honesty and good citizenship and speak out when I see bigotry, hatred and abuse.
It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly?
Should I, as a middle-aged, heterosexual, "white" male, carry around lots of cash so I can give every woman, POC, differently-abled and LGBTQ+ person I encounter US$20? As "reparations" for the white male privilege that I never asked for, don't want and actively argue against?
This may seem like some sort of anti-progressive rant, but it's not.
So, other than trying hard to be a decent human being and interacting with and about others based on their actions rather than some immutable characteristics, calling out hatred and bigotry when I see it and supporting political candidates who do the same, what exactly do you propose that I do?
So, what would you have us do?
I treat each individual as an individual and interact with them based on their individual actions, not based on any immutable characteristics.
I fully support inclusion, diversity, honesty and good citizenship and speak out when I see bigotry, hatred and abuse.
It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly?
Should I, as a middle-aged, heterosexual, "white" male, carry around lots of cash so I can give every woman, POC, differently-abled and LGBTQ+ person I encounter US$20? As "reparations" for the white male privilege that I never asked for, don't want and actively argue against?
This may seem like some sort of anti-progressive rant, but it's not.
So, other than trying hard to be a decent human being and interacting with and about others based on their actions rather than some immutable characteristics, calling out hatred and bigotry when I see it and supporting political candidates who do the same, what exactly do you propose that I do?
You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. Hell, you shouldn't feel guilt at all for privilege; it's just something you're meant to be aware of when looking at things outside your frame of reference.
All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances.
What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.
All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances.
What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.
>You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt.
I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?
I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit.
Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way.
My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them.
Others who've read my comment appear to agree.
>Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues,
Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
More's the pity.
I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?
I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit.
Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way.
My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them.
Others who've read my comment appear to agree.
>Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues,
Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
More's the pity.
> I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?
Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US.
> Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.
> I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.
Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US.
> Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.
> I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.
Taking a single thing I said without context is quite disingenuous.
I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. Do you mean the bit about conservative talking heads? I assumed that's who you meant when you were talking about the sand shovelers.
From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
>Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you.
That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance.
I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance.
...a lack of familiarity with institutional or
systemic change made me think you might be
missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's
really common in the US.
I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean for that to come across as patronising or as some kind of sanctimonious forgiving of sin, I was just wary that a lot of people tend to get their backs up around the topic of systemic problems and wanted to be clear that I wasn't attacking you. You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems.
> you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.
> you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.
There is a huge difference of who asks. The answer to if I support BLM is different and can even contradict itself if the family of George Floyd asks or some corporate media that runs a populist ad campaign. I still believe people were scammed out of their money, that their good nature was taken advantage of.
Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that. I do think that treating people differently will breed animosity and it does not solve any problem.
Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that. I do think that treating people differently will breed animosity and it does not solve any problem.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the BLM stuff. You would support them privately but not publicly?
> Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that.
This is a perfect demonstration of the "head in the sand" position that leads to conservatism that I was talking about. The whole point of "black girls code" is that black girls have less opportunity to get into programming, which is a form of systemic racism given that programming is a lucrative career. It's not an identity thing, it's an access thing - it's an outreach program.
It's also absurd to claim that black women never face discrimination in the workplace.
You seem to be starting from a belief that equal opportunity and discrimination based on race are solved problems and then putting yourself in opposition to programs that try to alleviate these problems (which actually do still exist).
> Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that.
This is a perfect demonstration of the "head in the sand" position that leads to conservatism that I was talking about. The whole point of "black girls code" is that black girls have less opportunity to get into programming, which is a form of systemic racism given that programming is a lucrative career. It's not an identity thing, it's an access thing - it's an outreach program.
It's also absurd to claim that black women never face discrimination in the workplace.
You seem to be starting from a belief that equal opportunity and discrimination based on race are solved problems and then putting yourself in opposition to programs that try to alleviate these problems (which actually do still exist).
I doesn't have to do with public or private support. I think people were scammed to a significant degree. To offer solidarity means to let yourself be exploited too.
I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me.
There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.
I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me.
There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.
You keep avoiding explicitly saying what you mean. By scamming, do you mean the houses bought by Patrice Cullors? The ones she bought with the profits from her bestselling book, where there's no evidence donations were involved?
The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is?
Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?
The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is?
Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?
> Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?
Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.
Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.
This is so pointless; every time I try to get a concrete example out of you, you pivot. First you dislike BLM but don't give a reason, then you dislike black girls code but then "have no problem with outreach programs", now you're vaguely hinting at affirmative action being racist because it considers race. Just figure it out yourself.
>but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.
New?
Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"?
I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime.
Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies?
Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"?
Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world?
What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies.
And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to.
So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed?
Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin?
If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.
New?
Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"?
I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime.
Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies?
Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"?
Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world?
What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies.
And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to.
So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed?
Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin?
If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.
>It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly?
I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.
I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.
If everyone get the way GP did, the issues would cease to exist. Not only is it at WORST neutral, it’s exactly what everyone SHOULD be doing.
Sure, but no-one was actually criticizing GP for not doing enough, or doing the wrong thing.
Getting everyone to neutral won't fix society because it requires MORE than Neutrality to undo the past damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo
I don't get what being black has to do with this theory though. It's not like it was hard to find a black community before? Nevermind that it's not exactly a trait that has anything to do with what community you are in the first place!
I completely disagree with this on basically all these points. Implicit bias only has shaky theoretical foundations and you don't have to be ashamed of being biased in the first place. Of course you have bias for friends and family. Principles and laws keep you from nepotism. But emotional ties are almost completely irrelevant here. The mafia isn't a real family.
These position are as non-judgemental as it gets. Gay marriage is a separate issue but many support it because of such positions.
Dominant society in liberal democracies impose almost no values on anything related to that and it is even part of the curriculum to educate people on different sexuality. But I think that problem is solved since a few generations. In many countries at least. Saying such positions would be judgemental is actually moving backwards again.
These position are as non-judgemental as it gets. Gay marriage is a separate issue but many support it because of such positions.
Dominant society in liberal democracies impose almost no values on anything related to that and it is even part of the curriculum to educate people on different sexuality. But I think that problem is solved since a few generations. In many countries at least. Saying such positions would be judgemental is actually moving backwards again.
The author of the original comment didn't seem to believe there's a spectrum - note the response to this comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668896
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668896
4channers made a comic of this concept a few years ago, but it was something like "gay dragonkin neonazis" instead of toaster lovers.
Seems someone adjusted the story for a wider audience.
Same author, further down in the thread:
> All these twitter/facebook/youtube bans are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, Parler is gaining steam
Did not age nearly as well.
> All these twitter/facebook/youtube bans are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, Parler is gaining steam
Did not age nearly as well.
Why? Parler was gaining steam until a consortium of megacorporations aligned to erase it from the internet.
Not much value in being wrong for the 'right' reason
It's a naive and overly courageous assumption that people around you are competent and capable. For instance, I've yet to see someone play proper tennis, do proper pullups, play proper guitar, etc.
At some point you have to branch off and learn from others.
At some point you have to branch off and learn from others.
This is why I love HN. Brilliant theory and one I want to circulate but might... no will... need to replace 'toaster fucker' with something more PC to avoid a call from the HR robots.
The counter to that is - sometimes the toaster fuckers are right. See: civil rights, women's suffrage, LGBT.
My pet dream: Everybody Gets One, maybe two, things to be "radical" about. You reckon the earth is flat? Sure. You don't get that AND vaccines are micro-chipped AND an antisemitic 9/11 theory. Spend that token wisely.
My pet dream: Everybody Gets One, maybe two, things to be "radical" about. You reckon the earth is flat? Sure. You don't get that AND vaccines are micro-chipped AND an antisemitic 9/11 theory. Spend that token wisely.
wow, the internet and the "coalescing of the fringe", which is probably a more apt phrase and characterization of this phenomenon.
A brilliant comment indeed.
...Wow.
That resonates hard with some stuff I'm seein' now.
That resonates hard with some stuff I'm seein' now.
dskwww(2)
"If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while."
I have a slightly different view of this. People's opinions on things are always in flux, even if they sway heavily toward one side. What we see on social media is a person's opinions without the context of a human interaction. On social media, we see Sue's emotional response to politics without her having to negotiate that emotional response in relationship to another person sitting in front of her. She may "believe" what she says in the moment she types it, but put her in a room with a friend who disagrees and you can watch how her views shift, push back, concede, change, challenge, etc. On social media, there's very little of this taking place, because there's zero human intimacy at work. It belief in a vacuum not in relationship.
I have a slightly different view of this. People's opinions on things are always in flux, even if they sway heavily toward one side. What we see on social media is a person's opinions without the context of a human interaction. On social media, we see Sue's emotional response to politics without her having to negotiate that emotional response in relationship to another person sitting in front of her. She may "believe" what she says in the moment she types it, but put her in a room with a friend who disagrees and you can watch how her views shift, push back, concede, change, challenge, etc. On social media, there's very little of this taking place, because there's zero human intimacy at work. It belief in a vacuum not in relationship.
and writing it down in public may make it a lot harder for Sue to change her views, or walk back an over reach after those interactions happen since at any point in the future she could be confronted with her prior dissonant statements.
This is an interesting idea: I wish you could Follow a combination of a person and the #topic they post to. You could choose to follow "all of" a person, but more realistically the default behavior would be to attach to posts from a particular topic that person is generating. This would be similar to your example of playing a game of Catan with someone and enjoying just that limited bandwidth you have with them. Knowing and seeing all of who they are is not common in our business relationships, or friendships.. I think you're right, and I appreciate how you articulated it.
Someone below this mentioned this was how Google+ was intended to work.
Someone below this mentioned this was how Google+ was intended to work.
I thought I saw someone proposing that Twitter do something like this, basically allowing sub-accounts. For example, I speak some Spanish and would love to tweet in Spanish, but those who follow me and don't speak Spanish may feel annoyed for it to pop up all the time. So I'd love to have sub-accounts, where I have my main account and people can choose which sub-accounts to follow.
I'd love the same for a podcast. I don't want to create 5 separate podcast channels, I want to have a main one and then have sub-channels that people can subscribe to.
It doesn't have to be this structure, it can be another way to allow us to have more power over the feed that we're seeing, giving us filter/search/sort/algorithm options.
So, in short, I love your suggestion and wish the next generation of social network implements it in some shape, whether that be from the incumbents or new ones.
I'd love the same for a podcast. I don't want to create 5 separate podcast channels, I want to have a main one and then have sub-channels that people can subscribe to.
It doesn't have to be this structure, it can be another way to allow us to have more power over the feed that we're seeing, giving us filter/search/sort/algorithm options.
So, in short, I love your suggestion and wish the next generation of social network implements it in some shape, whether that be from the incumbents or new ones.
Twitter seems set on going the opposite direction. The fact that likes are mixed in with posts in the main feed is infuriating, because anyone who is just using the like function as a like function instead of a lesser version of RT just floods the feed with random shit.
That is the obvious solution, but Twitter may lose revenue.
Twitter needs to incentivize using hashtags.
John Carmack can add hashtags to his tweets.
Someone can create an account that hashtags and quote retweet John Carmack’s tweets.
Twitter needs to incentivize using hashtags.
John Carmack can add hashtags to his tweets.
Someone can create an account that hashtags and quote retweet John Carmack’s tweets.
I think circles were too tied to privacy. Public posts ended up mushed together just like twitter.
Now I'm annoyed that in 2022 I'm understanding Google+ better. I want to follow the /intersect/ of "Jane Smith" and "Catan". Both of these are topics. I might be broadly interested in "computers", and "board games", or interested in just my friend "Jane Smith". I likely don't want to know everything Jane is posting - or those posting things about her - but when I choose to Follow her, I should be prompted with a list of topics I've subscribed to that would narrow the posts I see which intersect with Jane. Also - G+ or Twitter - would be working to autotag posts into topics/subjects to help me identify how I want to intersect with those posts. (If the author themselves don't apply tags)
I can see why limiting what you're presented with never took off from a marketing point of view. I think this is rad though.
I can see why limiting what you're presented with never took off from a marketing point of view. I think this is rad though.
The problem is I don't think Google+ ever worked that way either. You used circles to decide who to send to, but there wasn't a good way to filter as a receiver.
This is what I believe family/friend group chats on platforms such as WhatsApp are.
They are great in my experience, but if people started posting politics news I could see how they could turn bad.
They are great in my experience, but if people started posting politics news I could see how they could turn bad.
zaargy(1)
I think you bring your whole self to an in person encounter much more than you do to a social media presence. The difference is, there's no concept of proximity. Everything you say on social is shouted to the entire room, so if you want to say anything, you have to say it to everyone. In a personal encounter, you react to the people near you. If they recoil, you might explain. On social, many people are reacting in different ways and even more not reacting at all. So how do you react to all of those reactions? (You don't)
> If they recoil, you might explain.
Or shift the subset of your views that you're exposing to a set that would result in a mutually enjoyable conversation.
In person you can also be passively present and still interacting without saying much. But on twitter you're not even in the room unless you speak and generate reactions, the most reliable way to get a reaction is to be irritating rather than cooperate to generate a mutually good time.
Or shift the subset of your views that you're exposing to a set that would result in a mutually enjoyable conversation.
In person you can also be passively present and still interacting without saying much. But on twitter you're not even in the room unless you speak and generate reactions, the most reliable way to get a reaction is to be irritating rather than cooperate to generate a mutually good time.
It's the same as with any public discourse these days. If your audience is practically infinite, you have to have an extreme and attention-grabbing viewpoint, otherwise you're just one in a sea of many. If you're only talking to a handful of people, be it in real life or on social media, you don't need the extremism and can afford moderate opinions and nuance.
> One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else.
The common theory is roughly the opposite of this: people disproportionately share their better moments on social media. Its users project the impression of having a much better life than they actually have. This bias is one of the reasons social media is so awful for 'FOMO'.
edit Of course, that's not a direct contradiction of your point. The positive/negative dimension is different from the which-aspect-of-your-life dimension.
The common theory is roughly the opposite of this: people disproportionately share their better moments on social media. Its users project the impression of having a much better life than they actually have. This bias is one of the reasons social media is so awful for 'FOMO'.
edit Of course, that's not a direct contradiction of your point. The positive/negative dimension is different from the which-aspect-of-your-life dimension.
I think your comment and the parent's comment can be in agreement if you think about people in your social media as now sharing an office with you. You get to be stuck in a room with them for eight hours a day while they share their personal drama, monger gossip, and boast about their work accomplishments.
> share their better moments
share their more extreme moments. Not automatically "better", there is an awful lot of tweeting where people are essentially exposing their mental illness and successfully soliciting support. While no one is going to FOMO on misfortune itself, people certainly do FOMO on the attention announcing your misfortune (and as a result identifying with it) brings.
share their more extreme moments. Not automatically "better", there is an awful lot of tweeting where people are essentially exposing their mental illness and successfully soliciting support. While no one is going to FOMO on misfortune itself, people certainly do FOMO on the attention announcing your misfortune (and as a result identifying with it) brings.
This was one of the ideas behind Google+ - "circles". You could put other people in different broadcast "circles" and then you wouldn't end up announcing your weird fetish preferences or drug use to your grandma or your coworkers - at least not intentionally.
Wouldn't work in practice - no one is going to pass an opportunity to broadcast their political views to as many people as possible.
Google+ also relied on users to correctly categorize their posts to the right stream or interest. Software developers tend to be good at dividing things into near little categories. Other users not so much.
I don't know. I definitely think some people would just mass broadcast to everyone.
Using the example above, there's nothing stopping that person from bringing their whole self to board game night. They're choosing to avoid certain topics with a certain group of people, so I would expect some of that behavior to cary over to social media.
If I think about something like the "close friends" feature on instagram, I have some friends who just share way too much with everyone, but I've got others who use that feature pretty heavily.
Using the example above, there's nothing stopping that person from bringing their whole self to board game night. They're choosing to avoid certain topics with a certain group of people, so I would expect some of that behavior to cary over to social media.
If I think about something like the "close friends" feature on instagram, I have some friends who just share way too much with everyone, but I've got others who use that feature pretty heavily.
> Using the example above, there's nothing stopping that person from bringing their whole self to board game night.
Not true, unless they're hosting.
Not true, unless they're hosting.
I disagree. I think the types of people this article is about - the silent majority of non-tweeters - are happy to compartmentalise different aspects of their lives within different circles. It's the tweeting minority who feel like they need to broadcast their every righteous thought to as many people as possible.
> no one is going to pass an opportunity to broadcast their political views
I expect most people that held a job prior to social media (or-- really, holds a job in most industries except tech outside of a few cities) will happily tell you that people readily pass on such opportunities.
I expect most people that held a job prior to social media (or-- really, holds a job in most industries except tech outside of a few cities) will happily tell you that people readily pass on such opportunities.
In the Canadian warehouse I worked in you had guys red faced bitching about Trudeau at least once a week.
This was also during the trade war, so these same guys were shit talking Trump and calling him a fucking retard too.
Good timez(?)
This was also during the trade war, so these same guys were shit talking Trump and calling him a fucking retard too.
Good timez(?)
Presumably people are losing a lot of followers on Twitter broadcasting their political views when they are mostly followed for some other reason. These people might be motivated to correctly categorise their Tweets.
Yeah - you're probably right
>Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
The original American Experiment allowed this sort of thing. Big Important Nationwide things happened at the federal level; everything else was done by the States. It's a pretty good idea.
All social media suffers from the "talking to nobody/talking to everybody" aspect. A post on a social media site is really just you talking to yourself out loud. But it's a public place, and therefore everybody can hear you. So they talk out loud to themselves, but at you.
If this sounds like a gaggle of homeless people shouting at each other about everything and nothing, that's because it is exactly that, only with a $25B market cap and a P/E ratio that looks more like the onset of hypertension.
The original American Experiment allowed this sort of thing. Big Important Nationwide things happened at the federal level; everything else was done by the States. It's a pretty good idea.
All social media suffers from the "talking to nobody/talking to everybody" aspect. A post on a social media site is really just you talking to yourself out loud. But it's a public place, and therefore everybody can hear you. So they talk out loud to themselves, but at you.
If this sounds like a gaggle of homeless people shouting at each other about everything and nothing, that's because it is exactly that, only with a $25B market cap and a P/E ratio that looks more like the onset of hypertension.
I feel that if you're expecting your 'whole friend' to be exactly compatible with your opinions, you're not really looking for friends, you're looking for confirmation for your own opinions. I fully expect to disagree with a lot of things my friends say or think, and that there will be arguments. When we do argue, sometimes they change their mind, sometimes I change mine but mostly we agree to disagree. What makes a difference between a friend and a non-friend is that even if we disagree on some fundamental things and a lot of trivial things, our core values more or less align, and both sides respect the other and realize that there is no way you're right about everything. If you are, you don't have friends. You have followers and sycophants.
> If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship.
> If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while.
> Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyone. Your friends will always have opinions or lifestyles you will find disagreeable - that is the nature of human existence.
This hits the nail on the head perfectly, IMHO. Unfortunately, even the activities you describe have become politicized. For example, Settlers of Catan rebranding to just Catan.
> If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while.
> Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyone. Your friends will always have opinions or lifestyles you will find disagreeable - that is the nature of human existence.
This hits the nail on the head perfectly, IMHO. Unfortunately, even the activities you describe have become politicized. For example, Settlers of Catan rebranding to just Catan.
Living in the hole I am living in seems to shield me from this. I had no idea that "Settlers of Catan" has been rebranded to just "Catan" or why. In my circles we call it "Settlers", "Settlers of Catan" or just "Catan" interchangeably all the time. The "controversial" one is "Settlers" if you talk to someone you might also play a round of Settlers the computer game with (as in these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Settlers)
What is politicized about that? I had no idea the name had ever changed, but thanks to your comment, just spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure out why and no Internet sources citing the fact that a rebrand happened give a reason at all. The only somewhat "political" theory seems to be a Reddit thread citing a Dutch publication claiming the rebrand happened because of pressure from Palestinians complaining that it supported Jewish West Bank settlements. Apart from that being ridiculous in the first place, that theory was quickly debunked in the same thread by both the maker of the game disavowing that and they and players pointing out the rebrand had actually happened in Germany years earlier and was only then being reflected in the Dutch version.
Yeah. I have a semi-recent copy and the box says "Catan – Trade Build Settle", so that definitely seems like a regular rebranding. And people who see politics everywhere are projecting that it is political.
It reminds me of that time I was somewhat viciously verbally assaulted and accused of "self-censorship" for saying strawperson instead of strawman. I just like it better and have always said it that way, but that person was so deep in a culture war mindset that they couldn't imagine I'd chosen that phrasing without any political thought given to it. Sometimes a spade is just a spade and not a leftist mind control plot.
Yep. I find it really amusing how those people are constantly policing other people's language and life, while they spend their free time complaining that it's them that are being policed. Textbook projection.
It is being politicized, just not by the makers of Catan.
Yeah, just to clarify: the point of my anecdote is that even things like board games, which are supposed to be fun and relaxing, are being politicized by some people over topics like name changes.
I will say in this case Catan is cool and feels natural, like what people would call it if they're still playing the game a hundred years from now. So maybe it was politically sparked but the rebrand feels solid.
I had noticed the name change myself, but never consider it was politically motivated until you brought it up (especially considering mine is called "Catan: Trade Build Settle"). You're Sue in this case.
I, in turn, unfortunately had to listen to fellow players complain about the name change throughout a whole game the other week.
It seems like they read a lot of politics into a fairly simple issue. As brands go on, they try to simplify and occupy more space. I would be shocked if properties didn't see being able to simplify and maintain the brand as being a huge win.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. My point was just that even things which are supposed to be relaxing and apolitical like board games, are being politicized over things like discussing name changes. And that sucks.
Excellent theory. I think it's more than that - you now have tidbits of her opinion on every little thing without the benefit of nonverbal communication, empathy and nuance that you would if you actually talked to her for the same amount of time.
these two comments put together are so on point. it's almost as if we as a species are still learning how to communicate in this internet age
What's funny here are that the example issues you listed are exactly the issues that the vast majority of Americans actually do agree on. Those are wedge issues that were carefully crafted by political parties to try and create a division in popular opinion when there isn't one. It's a fairly common political strategy nowadays.
That is probably a sign you are trapped in an echo chamber.
Those three issues are polling in the 50-60% range on Pew research, and tend to fluctuate heavily based on recent events and question wording.
Those three issues are polling in the 50-60% range on Pew research, and tend to fluctuate heavily based on recent events and question wording.
not saying it is, but what happens if polling is an echo chamber too?
> (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc)
> exactly the issues that the vast majority of Americans actually do agree on.
cite?
> exactly the issues that the vast majority of Americans actually do agree on.
cite?
You think the vast majority of Americans agree on abortion? I'm pretty sure that, no, they do not. The division is real, not just a political strategy.
Since 1975 the percentage of Americans that think abortion should be illegal in all cases has hovered around 15-20%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Abortion isn't an either or position. There are quite a few position and this stat only shows a single one: 15-20% believe it should be illegal in all cases. What about the subset who believe it should only be legal for rape victims. Or only plan B style drugs (I'm not sure how the linked data classifies the responses, but some people do consider such drugs on the same level as abortion). Or only by first trimester. Or only by second trimester. Or until birth? Or some other position that I am not able to remember off the top of my head?
[deleted]
> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are going to agree to disagree about whether they should be allowed to discuss their sexuality.
Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are going to agree to disagree about whether they should be allowed to discuss their sexuality.
I'd be fine with either not discussing relationships in public, or openly discussing both straight and non-straight relationships. Not sure which is more likely though.
You constructed a straw man out of his comments very effectively. I didn’t gather that he meant you can’t mention your life, significant other, etc. I read it as maybe don’t discuss the political aspects of LGBT issues, etc
If you don't understand that the problem is that detractors have made simply being LGBTQ+ a political issue, you are not qualified to have an opinion here.
I'm curious what you think you mean because there is no good answer.
I also wouldn't have had to comment at all if people weren't casually asking people to instate don't ask don't tell in social settings.
I'm curious what you think you mean because there is no good answer.
I also wouldn't have had to comment at all if people weren't casually asking people to instate don't ask don't tell in social settings.
Remember to interpret someone's arguments in the strongest possible sense. Chastising others is great for moral superiority but it is a poor tool for discussion.
You know, telling people they're acting morally superior when they're confronting the fact that people are calling aspects of their identity controversial and acting like said parts of their identity simply shouldn't be discussed in public is not a good look.
I never said aspects of your identity are controversial. You are looking to be offended here, not have a conversation.
No, you didn't. The original person did. You then told me I was making a straw man by calling him out for it.
You could have just as easily not commented and I could have been dealing with the original commenter. You decided to comment, defending his absurdity. You don't get to now tell me I am "looking to be offended," especially when you take the side of the less reasonable position.
You could have just as easily not commented and I could have been dealing with the original commenter. You decided to comment, defending his absurdity. You don't get to now tell me I am "looking to be offended," especially when you take the side of the less reasonable position.
Do you really think the whole spectrum of LGBTQ identities isn't controversial?
We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no?
And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or any such nonsense as that. It was mostly that if you have hot takes on deep in-community debates (I give several examples above), maybe don't share them on twitter and disown everyone around you who disagrees.
Again, read arguments in the strongest possible sense. Read the entire context.
We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no?
And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or any such nonsense as that. It was mostly that if you have hot takes on deep in-community debates (I give several examples above), maybe don't share them on twitter and disown everyone around you who disagrees.
Again, read arguments in the strongest possible sense. Read the entire context.
So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument:
1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole.
Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions?
Am I to believe that you're saying that we shouldn't talk about whether trans people should be allowed to change their names without gender/sex reassignment surgery, even though straight people regularly change their names, get plastic surgery, and what-have-you?
There are no good answers. The very fact that you've not acknowledged that there is no good answer is the problem here. You could just accept that you're wrong, that this is offensive no matter how it is interpreted. But no, you feel an incessant need to defend yourself because you, as a straight man, couldn't possibly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and, thus, couldn't possibly be offending people.
2) You have yet to acknowledge the fact that you could just casually throw that in there without a second thought is the problem. The fact that you didn't need to think "does LGBTQ+ really belong here?" Your very doing that contributes to anti-LGBTQ+ and "don't say gay" mentalities.
1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole.
Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions?
Am I to believe that you're saying that we shouldn't talk about whether trans people should be allowed to change their names without gender/sex reassignment surgery, even though straight people regularly change their names, get plastic surgery, and what-have-you?
There are no good answers. The very fact that you've not acknowledged that there is no good answer is the problem here. You could just accept that you're wrong, that this is offensive no matter how it is interpreted. But no, you feel an incessant need to defend yourself because you, as a straight man, couldn't possibly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and, thus, couldn't possibly be offending people.
2) You have yet to acknowledge the fact that you could just casually throw that in there without a second thought is the problem. The fact that you didn't need to think "does LGBTQ+ really belong here?" Your very doing that contributes to anti-LGBTQ+ and "don't say gay" mentalities.
> Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions?
Are we to think you're honestly too stupid to see that discussing marriage rights is something totally different than talking about their actual marriages? We can, if you want. If not, we'd have to conclude it's a conscious tactic; twisting facts and your opponent's words into something they didn't say or doesn't happen.
We could then think this is a constant tactic of yours... But I'd prefer to ascribe it to temporary rhetorical overheating in discussing a burning cause. Hope you've put out the flames and cooled down now.
Are we to think you're honestly too stupid to see that discussing marriage rights is something totally different than talking about their actual marriages? We can, if you want. If not, we'd have to conclude it's a conscious tactic; twisting facts and your opponent's words into something they didn't say or doesn't happen.
We could then think this is a constant tactic of yours... But I'd prefer to ascribe it to temporary rhetorical overheating in discussing a burning cause. Hope you've put out the flames and cooled down now.
We live in a world where gay people still have to worry about being arrested for merely being gay in several countries! God help you if you're visibly trans and in a bad neighborhood!
What world do you live in where being _any_ of the LGBTQ spectrum is some overall totally safe and hunky dory existence!?
And if that wasn't bad enough, your fellow LGBTQ friends likely have all kinds of "ready to rip your throat out" hot takes - or did we already forget the shunning and rejection of Buck Angel?
What world do you live in where being _any_ of the LGBTQ spectrum is some overall totally safe and hunky dory existence!?
And if that wasn't bad enough, your fellow LGBTQ friends likely have all kinds of "ready to rip your throat out" hot takes - or did we already forget the shunning and rejection of Buck Angel?
Nobody can stop you if you want to be oppressed but that is not in any way representative of LGBT.
Nobody can stop you from trying to shut down arguments by telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws somehow isn't a form of oppression that is above and beyond what would be called a microaggression, but, if you did, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't part of the oppressed party and aren't qualified to speak on their behalf.
> telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws
Discussing your existence?!? Who the F said your existence can't be mentioned?!?
You're really not doing your cause any good with these ever more ridiculously hysterical arguments.
Discussing your existence?!? Who the F said your existence can't be mentioned?!?
You're really not doing your cause any good with these ever more ridiculously hysterical arguments.
> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
Two out of three of those aren't just random positions. If you believe someone else is literally advocating for murdering children, I can see why you would judge them. Similarly, if you see people oppressing people like you for some reason, you should judge them.
I will admit, I have no idea what the disagreement in modern society is with relation the LGBTQ people. Like, I can articulate both sides of the abortion debate. Hell, I can even understand the sides about firearms. But what is the dispute about LGBTQ?
Two out of three of those aren't just random positions. If you believe someone else is literally advocating for murdering children, I can see why you would judge them. Similarly, if you see people oppressing people like you for some reason, you should judge them.
I will admit, I have no idea what the disagreement in modern society is with relation the LGBTQ people. Like, I can articulate both sides of the abortion debate. Hell, I can even understand the sides about firearms. But what is the dispute about LGBTQ?
The T part is contentious.
Blue side wants trans women to be treated identically to women, based on their personal conception of identity, not necessarily tied to any external or societal factor. So if they say they're a trans woman, you call them "she" regardless of how masculine they make look or dress. Being trans is a valid and inherent part of a person. We need to educate children that gender is a social construct.
Red side disagrees with the notion that personal identity overrides societal norms. It's an imposition, or a farce, to call a man in a dress a woman. Why should we change thousands of years of grammar because some people are nutcases? Being trans is a mental illness that instead of being treated is being celebrated and normalized, in turn harming society. It's a shame you're ill, but keep that out of our schools and get help.
You can see how these viewpoints are not going to get along
Blue side wants trans women to be treated identically to women, based on their personal conception of identity, not necessarily tied to any external or societal factor. So if they say they're a trans woman, you call them "she" regardless of how masculine they make look or dress. Being trans is a valid and inherent part of a person. We need to educate children that gender is a social construct.
Red side disagrees with the notion that personal identity overrides societal norms. It's an imposition, or a farce, to call a man in a dress a woman. Why should we change thousands of years of grammar because some people are nutcases? Being trans is a mental illness that instead of being treated is being celebrated and normalized, in turn harming society. It's a shame you're ill, but keep that out of our schools and get help.
You can see how these viewpoints are not going to get along
Trans activists vs certain feminists is a big debate currently.
I agree with this. I've found that in order to maintain my relationships with some good friends, I've had to stop following them on twitter (and other social media).
On twitter, it's really easy for my to ignore all the insane and stupid things that complete strangers blather about on there all the time. There's a ton of noise, but just enough signal for me to check in regularly.
But then suddenly I see a ridiculous post from someone I truly care about. Someone who I've known for years and know their spouse and kids and families. I can read their post in their voice as if it were said to me, personally. And now I'm angered and incensed and putting up maps and charts and pins in my head preparing a response that this person whom I care about deserves.
But they weren't talking to me. They were shouting something crazy into a cacophony of crazy strangers. If we were at dinner we would have a long, deep, and nuanced conversation on the subject and we'd listen to each other's points and respond accordingly. But in 240 chars they're wrong and now I will reserve two hours of mental capacity to argue with myself about why.
Nope. Just block them, knowing I'll see them next time they're in town, and we'll have a real conversations about real things in a forum more befitting two people trying to understand each other.
On twitter, it's really easy for my to ignore all the insane and stupid things that complete strangers blather about on there all the time. There's a ton of noise, but just enough signal for me to check in regularly.
But then suddenly I see a ridiculous post from someone I truly care about. Someone who I've known for years and know their spouse and kids and families. I can read their post in their voice as if it were said to me, personally. And now I'm angered and incensed and putting up maps and charts and pins in my head preparing a response that this person whom I care about deserves.
But they weren't talking to me. They were shouting something crazy into a cacophony of crazy strangers. If we were at dinner we would have a long, deep, and nuanced conversation on the subject and we'd listen to each other's points and respond accordingly. But in 240 chars they're wrong and now I will reserve two hours of mental capacity to argue with myself about why.
Nope. Just block them, knowing I'll see them next time they're in town, and we'll have a real conversations about real things in a forum more befitting two people trying to understand each other.
Wrong. Facebook whistleblower says company made profits from making people suffer. People suffer from reading cesspool produce. Facebook used big data insight to expose users to cesspool produce.
Twitter isn't dumber.
(Assume this was written with kindness)
Twitter isn't dumber.
(Assume this was written with kindness)
Eloquently expressed. Further thoughts:
1. Reaction/Social Interplay:
If you play Catan (or tennis or amateur theatre group etc) with a person for long enough you will come to know these bits about them. However, as most small country town people know, you ignore or otherwise put up with "their stupidity" while trying not to shove what they see as "your stupidity" in their face. This is respect for others.
Such respect helps preserve the alliance to get the outcome you want - a game of Catan. Hence, even Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable isn't all bad, they like to play Catan like you do right?
As you eloquently advise, the internet doesn't "hide your stupidity from others" so that is grating. It also doesn't promote people ignoring your stupidity. It promotes "engagement"...
2. Shared experience
Experience is how humans build trust/relationships. Y'know, a first date cliche is a movie then coffee or dinner. The shared movie experience forms a basis to trust each other ("Well they didn't yabber on the phone the whole time so they're not all bad...") and then talking about the experience after may yield new insights on that experience. And those insights are attributed to that person alone ("I didn't think of it that way, very good point Sue." or "Nope. That's just stupid Sue.") even though the experience itself is already in the past!
Even though virtual experiences can be such a basis - IE Game of Thrones as "viral" thing - I submit that in person experiences are more powerful by far.
You tolerate Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable in person to get your fix of Catan. But you wouldn't do that for a virtual Sue, you'd just move onto Bob, Mary, Joe or Jane or whoever else the game's matchmaker throws up.
1. Reaction/Social Interplay:
If you play Catan (or tennis or amateur theatre group etc) with a person for long enough you will come to know these bits about them. However, as most small country town people know, you ignore or otherwise put up with "their stupidity" while trying not to shove what they see as "your stupidity" in their face. This is respect for others.
Such respect helps preserve the alliance to get the outcome you want - a game of Catan. Hence, even Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable isn't all bad, they like to play Catan like you do right?
As you eloquently advise, the internet doesn't "hide your stupidity from others" so that is grating. It also doesn't promote people ignoring your stupidity. It promotes "engagement"...
2. Shared experience
Experience is how humans build trust/relationships. Y'know, a first date cliche is a movie then coffee or dinner. The shared movie experience forms a basis to trust each other ("Well they didn't yabber on the phone the whole time so they're not all bad...") and then talking about the experience after may yield new insights on that experience. And those insights are attributed to that person alone ("I didn't think of it that way, very good point Sue." or "Nope. That's just stupid Sue.") even though the experience itself is already in the past!
Even though virtual experiences can be such a basis - IE Game of Thrones as "viral" thing - I submit that in person experiences are more powerful by far.
You tolerate Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable in person to get your fix of Catan. But you wouldn't do that for a virtual Sue, you'd just move onto Bob, Mary, Joe or Jane or whoever else the game's matchmaker throws up.
> us to the whole of someone else.
I think this hits on a critical aspect of cyberspace's impact but phrased in a new way for me.
My view has been that it allows individuals to split their personalties and actions into discrete entities based on a blend of the account/platform/information environment and relative cause the account/platform exists in support of.
But another way to look at it is what you've said - the whole person comes out through the various personalities they have online.
There is a niche but famous sci-fi book called True Names* about a similar idea: people have their true name in real life, and a digital nym that's just as valid per the impact of the nym's existence as the name. Operating the balance, and making a choice which to embrace (name vs. nym) is the big question.
The novella was written prior to cloud computing and twitter/reddit/VR, and reading it now with all that tech in place is really something.
I think this hits on a critical aspect of cyberspace's impact but phrased in a new way for me.
My view has been that it allows individuals to split their personalties and actions into discrete entities based on a blend of the account/platform/information environment and relative cause the account/platform exists in support of.
But another way to look at it is what you've said - the whole person comes out through the various personalities they have online.
There is a niche but famous sci-fi book called True Names* about a similar idea: people have their true name in real life, and a digital nym that's just as valid per the impact of the nym's existence as the name. Operating the balance, and making a choice which to embrace (name vs. nym) is the big question.
The novella was written prior to cloud computing and twitter/reddit/VR, and reading it now with all that tech in place is really something.
This is point on.
My wife is quite active on social while I'm not part of any social media (HN doesn't count, right?). We both have quite a different options about some political issues than our friends. It's been strange observing how her views about our friends are more negative and polarised than mine. Like, I don't really know or care what they think about politics, or what they think about my views. They are my friends and it's okay we disagree on stuff. When I meet them we seldom discuss about the dividing things, but when we do, we do so in respectful manner.
I think when meeting in person we tend to find similarities with each other. In social media it's the opposite.
My wife is quite active on social while I'm not part of any social media (HN doesn't count, right?). We both have quite a different options about some political issues than our friends. It's been strange observing how her views about our friends are more negative and polarised than mine. Like, I don't really know or care what they think about politics, or what they think about my views. They are my friends and it's okay we disagree on stuff. When I meet them we seldom discuss about the dividing things, but when we do, we do so in respectful manner.
I think when meeting in person we tend to find similarities with each other. In social media it's the opposite.
I have a similar theory. That, in social media, we touch a different part of a person, than, say, irl.
I think that when we read, or we're on the computer, we are in a kind of trance. Our unconscious self is exposed.
It expresses itself, we all harbor a lot of dark feelings. And we are reactive. It's not a rational self. It's a self that gropes for the good stuff and kicks against the bad stuff and that's about it. Like an animal.
It is also exposed and vulnerable. So when the flame hits we feel it deeply.
I imagine us all to be like that demon in The Exorcist. A raging ego trapped in a world of words. Playing mind games. And when we are told that it's holy water, it burns just fine.
I think that when we read, or we're on the computer, we are in a kind of trance. Our unconscious self is exposed.
It expresses itself, we all harbor a lot of dark feelings. And we are reactive. It's not a rational self. It's a self that gropes for the good stuff and kicks against the bad stuff and that's about it. Like an animal.
It is also exposed and vulnerable. So when the flame hits we feel it deeply.
I imagine us all to be like that demon in The Exorcist. A raging ego trapped in a world of words. Playing mind games. And when we are told that it's holy water, it burns just fine.
What you're describing is called "context collapse." Pre-social media you had face that you presented in different contexts, now you have one flattened out "you" feed.
I've had people show me things at work on things like reddit and I always try and avoid looking at their username simply because I don't want to be tempted to check what kinds of things they post. I've seen co-workers reddit accounts before and it is almost always surprising and feels too personal. I feel like I am learning things I don't care or need to know about a coworker.
I totally agree that social media has made this a bigger issue than it used to be before social media. It also doesn't help that these social media sites are likely trying to feed you some intentionally controversial content as fear/anger can keep you engaged. Facebook showing a coworkers controversial political opinion on a matter right at the top of your feed feels intentional.
I've also found social media, as well as the mass media constantly bombards you with the idea that you must pick a "side". If someone is anti-immigration, pro-abortion, pro firearms, and pro lgbtq you'd think it would make some of these online peoples heads explode. It's like they think it's not possible to have opinions and beliefs that align with both political "sides". The division that social media and mass media companies push is what I find is one of the most toxic things in the world currently. Trying to profit off creating hatred. It's pretty disgusting.
I totally agree that social media has made this a bigger issue than it used to be before social media. It also doesn't help that these social media sites are likely trying to feed you some intentionally controversial content as fear/anger can keep you engaged. Facebook showing a coworkers controversial political opinion on a matter right at the top of your feed feels intentional.
I've also found social media, as well as the mass media constantly bombards you with the idea that you must pick a "side". If someone is anti-immigration, pro-abortion, pro firearms, and pro lgbtq you'd think it would make some of these online peoples heads explode. It's like they think it's not possible to have opinions and beliefs that align with both political "sides". The division that social media and mass media companies push is what I find is one of the most toxic things in the world currently. Trying to profit off creating hatred. It's pretty disgusting.
> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
There’s a third option, which is that discussion can lead to actual moral progress where society decides that certain views are just beyond the pale. A few decades ago people might have ‘agreed to disagree’ on whether interracial marriage was ok. Now society has formed a consensus on this issue and anyone who’s opposed to interracial marriage is part of an isolated fringe.
Saying that we should agree to disagree on controversial issues sounds superficially reasonable - especially when you’re exhausted from reading some awful twitter thread. It won’t necessarily sound so great in retrospect. It’s also a luxury that people directly affected by the relevant issues don’t always have.
The real problem isn't people debating controversial issues, which is fine and healthy and necessary for progress. The problem is the way that platforms like Twitter incentivize hot takes, rapid response, bullying, and other behavior that's not conducive to rational discussion.
Also, anyone who thinks that intemperate public discourse on controversial topics is a new phenomenon should check out some of the things that Thomas Moore and Martin Luther said to each other: https://meansandmatters.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/my-favorite...
There’s a third option, which is that discussion can lead to actual moral progress where society decides that certain views are just beyond the pale. A few decades ago people might have ‘agreed to disagree’ on whether interracial marriage was ok. Now society has formed a consensus on this issue and anyone who’s opposed to interracial marriage is part of an isolated fringe.
Saying that we should agree to disagree on controversial issues sounds superficially reasonable - especially when you’re exhausted from reading some awful twitter thread. It won’t necessarily sound so great in retrospect. It’s also a luxury that people directly affected by the relevant issues don’t always have.
The real problem isn't people debating controversial issues, which is fine and healthy and necessary for progress. The problem is the way that platforms like Twitter incentivize hot takes, rapid response, bullying, and other behavior that's not conducive to rational discussion.
Also, anyone who thinks that intemperate public discourse on controversial topics is a new phenomenon should check out some of the things that Thomas Moore and Martin Luther said to each other: https://meansandmatters.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/my-favorite...
> One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else.
We are naturally inclined to be negative. Or, said differently, it takes a LOT less effort to be negative than positive. On social media it's just way too easy for people to pile on.
We are naturally inclined to be negative. Or, said differently, it takes a LOT less effort to be negative than positive. On social media it's just way too easy for people to pile on.
people are negative on social media for the same reason that most news is horrifying: it gets attention. social media is socializing made into a game. show people their score and they'll want to make that number go up.
One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else
Thing is, personal social media accounts don't expose you to the whole of someone else, they expose you to that part of someone without the buffer of small talk, low-level real life social interactions, non-verbal cues, work/school/routine-based camaraderie, and, as you put it, enjoying a beer and playing some Catan.
The problem is that without that part of social interaction, you end up with raw opinion or dogma which doesn't have any "soft" dimension or transition layer, and that causes people to be reactionary rather than accepting.
Thing is, personal social media accounts don't expose you to the whole of someone else, they expose you to that part of someone without the buffer of small talk, low-level real life social interactions, non-verbal cues, work/school/routine-based camaraderie, and, as you put it, enjoying a beer and playing some Catan.
The problem is that without that part of social interaction, you end up with raw opinion or dogma which doesn't have any "soft" dimension or transition layer, and that causes people to be reactionary rather than accepting.
I used to say, half jokingly, people need to learn to shut the **** up, myself included. Meaning just because you have an opinion you don't have an obligation to share it with everyone else. Me writing this comment illustrates that.
Maybe part of it is just that typing text into a post doesn't viscerally feel like standing in front of a group of hundreds of people and shouting over a megaphone. I noticed that in myself when I first got into Facebook way back - when it was still novel, I tended to post 'stream of consciousness' type stuff. You intellectually know that your post is going to be seen by a lot of people, but _in the moment_ it doesn't _feel_ like that.
I imagine that many people have a similar experience. You're yelling into a megaphone but it feels more like you're writing an entry in your diary.
I imagine that many people have a similar experience. You're yelling into a megaphone but it feels more like you're writing an entry in your diary.
My conclusion (without any scientific verification) is people make assumption about my social media use. (I feel I've written this somewhere else)
I use Facebook for my entertainment, reacting on car memes, sarcastic memes and genuinely car things and sports. Oh and I watch TV on Facebook. meeting people real life in this city has been.... ehhh special. (But I think the things I do on Facebook isn't special, there isn't that much politics.)
I don't forget the times that I laughed so hard some posts, because it so funny.
But at the end of the day... it's people and nothing is going to fix that.
I use Facebook for my entertainment, reacting on car memes, sarcastic memes and genuinely car things and sports. Oh and I watch TV on Facebook. meeting people real life in this city has been.... ehhh special. (But I think the things I do on Facebook isn't special, there isn't that much politics.)
I don't forget the times that I laughed so hard some posts, because it so funny.
But at the end of the day... it's people and nothing is going to fix that.
I'm sort of the opposite. I'm attracted to Twitter because a) I get to learn the whole person and b) even "heroes" are very accessible. We're all humans trying to figure it out.
It's Sue's decision whether to share the full range of her ideas and personality or not.
It's the algorithm's decision to serve up the choicest bits with the highest polarization scores bc that seems to have the highest correlation with overall engagement.
And feeding the compulsive need for argument seems to be the more profitable strategy over providing a framework for truly polite conversation.
It's the algorithm's decision to serve up the choicest bits with the highest polarization scores bc that seems to have the highest correlation with overall engagement.
And feeding the compulsive need for argument seems to be the more profitable strategy over providing a framework for truly polite conversation.
That's half of it. The other problem is that now you are connected to Edna's unsavoury friends, and can now easily argue with them about any of these issues. Edna's dad might randomly join a conversation you were having about something unrelated.
We're not really equipped to be so connected to people we don't agree with about everything.
We're not really equipped to be so connected to people we don't agree with about everything.
> Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyone.
Well... that would only be true in an urban environment. And historically, urban environments accounted for an insignificant share of the population.
The normal historical experience was that you knew everything about everyone else and they knew everything about you.
Well... that would only be true in an urban environment. And historically, urban environments accounted for an insignificant share of the population.
The normal historical experience was that you knew everything about everyone else and they knew everything about you.
What's kind of scary to me is that newly minted adults never knew a single Sue before social media.
This is actually an excellent explanation that I’d never thought through before. Totally makes sense. Rarely would you see “the whole” of your whole Dunbar group + a few hundred more — so makes sense why it could turn into such a cesspool. Really interesting idea.
I just want to say, hugely insightful comment. Or at the very least it helps me feel better about my decision to not be on any social media other than HN (not even Reddit) because of the things you describe. You hit the nail right on the head.
Well said. I buy into your theory and $0.02. If we fall back to rules of polite conversation than trying to "fix" our compulsions then we don't even need a social network with filters or circles.
> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.
You can't 'agree to disagree' on those topics though, specially when laws ban abortion, for example. If you think we should do that, then making laws regarding those things (abortion, "don't say gay") would need to be completely forbidden and you would need to let people do what they want.
You can't 'agree to disagree' on those topics though, specially when laws ban abortion, for example. If you think we should do that, then making laws regarding those things (abortion, "don't say gay") would need to be completely forbidden and you would need to let people do what they want.
However, it's a lot easier to argue your case face to face. Perhaps it's because people are cooler within punching distance, but I think it's simply because they see the human being talking to them. Their imagination can't substitute you with a caricature of your side.
This only seems true for the people who share TMI on social media. Still seems like a pretty specific subset of the population.
>One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else.
Yes! A thousand times yes! You are speaking out of my heart with that comment. That's what most current social networks get wrong. Just because I know someone, or met someone IRL and am now connected on the platform, I do not want to always know what they are up to. It's a pull not a push!
Yes! A thousand times yes! You are speaking out of my heart with that comment. That's what most current social networks get wrong. Just because I know someone, or met someone IRL and am now connected on the platform, I do not want to always know what they are up to. It's a pull not a push!
So you don't like to watch Kim Karhshan?
Yes, social media is essentially a wall of noise. It's someone throwing their ego into sharp relief. Instead of a handshake and an opportunity to judge a book by its cover, you're greeted by a literal and loud book cover of the person along with blurb.
Except... is it their ego? Or is it some surrogate persona?
It has always struck me as more of a performance. And that's the problem with social media. Rather than encouraging an individual to be themselves and arrive at their own values independently, it on the contrary encourages inauthenticity -- perhaps not intentionally by the developers of the websites in the beginning, but it emerges through behaviour of the users.
Rather than accepting of all people, people with deviant-discourse views are vilified very publicly, and either remove themselves from the platform or instead surround themselves with supporters from the deviant side. Social media does bring people together, but it doesn't bring everyone together, it just promotes the formation of ideological tribes.
This effect of uniting and dividing people into tribes isn't constrained to social media. Marketing, advertising, indeed many aspects of how capitalist society has evolved has a similar effect of forming tribes. Adverts and marketing tell people that they should do a thing, and then those who agree gravitate to that product, and those who disagree gravitate toward an opposing product or a steadfast disapproval of any product in the space, and they come to define themselves by that approval or disapproval.
Ask a person to define who they are. They will tell their name, their age, their occupation, where they were born and/or live, and then they'll most likely move on to what they like and dislike, what they believe and don't believe. They define themselves according to details they think are important to others and in relation to other things, usually things made by corporations or governments/bodies of power.
- A name doesn't define a person, it's simply how you refer to them in conversation or get their attention without ambiguity in the presence of other humans.
- Age also doesn't define a person. People look older and younger than they actually are all the time, and in my experience it has little bearing on the person's wisdom or intrigue.
- Occupation matters not. All you need is the understanding that your occupation is what you do to pay for food, water, shelter and your hobbies/downtime. It can also be what you actually want to achieve with your life, but this isn't essential as long as you have awareness.
- What a person likes and dislikes is not a defining feature, it's at best an expression of a person's taste. It is a description of a relation between a person and other things. Tastes are easily feigned to please others, easily changed and highly likely to change over time, and while they can be used to stereotype people, I'm pretty sure stereotyping people is considered a bad thing to do.
- Belief and disbelief aren't defining and also don't make a great deal of sense, since to believe is to hold that something is true without data -- holding that something is true OR false without data is nonsensical, and thus pointless to communicate to others, because they'll either have the same nonsensical belief or an opposing one, and probably won't be very amenable to having their belief(s) changed since there is no data to argue from.
Ultimately, people don't know who they are, they know what their profile page(s) should say, and these "defining" characteristics are most likely things for which they are a willing standard bearer, things that they want to shine out like a lighthouse to attract or ward off the types of people they will get along with and not get along with. There are people that do have a notion of who they are, but I suspect they are likely too scared to reveal it, precisely because people are polarised, capricious, and unforgiving.
Perhaps that's what it is, social media actually encourages people to both fall in line with a stereotype and to stereotype others. Certainly, I think social media also distorts the personality of the user as well. I avoid social media like the plague, primarily because the content social media sites generate is of little interest to me. I have absolutely no understanding of why anyone would want to do social media stuff -- so I cannot speak from any personal experience.
I've created a profile on some of them for the sake of communicating with someone who refused to communicate by other means, but never have I felt inclined to use the platforms because... it's just not for me, I don't understand it. I prefer to toil in the shadows and live my life, without sharing it.
Anyway, something I have observed throughout my life is that the personality is performative, i.e. most people will act differently if they have an audience. It either causes them to withdraw and hide features of who they are, or it will encourage them to reveal as much of themselves as possible and even to fabricate features of their persona that aren't authentic.
This kind of behaviour is easy enough to observe in work contexts, and my intuition tells me that social media must surely have a similar effect on people. With thousands of people watching out for what banal thought you share next.
The result is that not only are you exposed to the whole of the other, but you're exposed to the super-other that forms (depending on the subject type) through audience demand and expectations, or through the subject's desire to provoke a certain reaction in their audience, or indeed to attract a certain audience to serve their agenda.
Much of the social media landscape is essentially just memetic. Probably quite fascinating to study if you're interested in how utterly twisted and inauthentic people can become by living an observed and performed life, rather than simply living according to their own principles, resolute and only subject to observation when necessary to achieve, say, professional or academic goals.
* * *
I'd like to bring up something Douglas Adams wrote about in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. He imagined an alien race called the Belcerabons, who enjoyed peace and success, no doubt in part thanks to their being a wholly quiet civilization. A Galactic Tribunal of other races, envious of their success and perceived smugness, infected them with a disease that gave them the curse of forced telepathy -- every thought would be broadcast from each Belcerabon to the rest of their kind. The only way that they could silence the artillery of communicating their every thought to each other was to constantly talk to each other instead, probably preferable just to retain some control over communicating private or awkward thoughts and instead talking about the weather etc.
While Adams was undoubtedly poking fun at the sorry state of the human race when it comes to those nauseating conversations about the local weather conditions and what was eaten for lunch on a previous day, I do find it amusing that constantly bombarding one another with banalities ought to be considered a curse, and yet we have somehow managed to develop our civilization around technological platforms for that very purpose.
Except... is it their ego? Or is it some surrogate persona?
It has always struck me as more of a performance. And that's the problem with social media. Rather than encouraging an individual to be themselves and arrive at their own values independently, it on the contrary encourages inauthenticity -- perhaps not intentionally by the developers of the websites in the beginning, but it emerges through behaviour of the users.
Rather than accepting of all people, people with deviant-discourse views are vilified very publicly, and either remove themselves from the platform or instead surround themselves with supporters from the deviant side. Social media does bring people together, but it doesn't bring everyone together, it just promotes the formation of ideological tribes.
This effect of uniting and dividing people into tribes isn't constrained to social media. Marketing, advertising, indeed many aspects of how capitalist society has evolved has a similar effect of forming tribes. Adverts and marketing tell people that they should do a thing, and then those who agree gravitate to that product, and those who disagree gravitate toward an opposing product or a steadfast disapproval of any product in the space, and they come to define themselves by that approval or disapproval.
Ask a person to define who they are. They will tell their name, their age, their occupation, where they were born and/or live, and then they'll most likely move on to what they like and dislike, what they believe and don't believe. They define themselves according to details they think are important to others and in relation to other things, usually things made by corporations or governments/bodies of power.
- A name doesn't define a person, it's simply how you refer to them in conversation or get their attention without ambiguity in the presence of other humans.
- Age also doesn't define a person. People look older and younger than they actually are all the time, and in my experience it has little bearing on the person's wisdom or intrigue.
- Occupation matters not. All you need is the understanding that your occupation is what you do to pay for food, water, shelter and your hobbies/downtime. It can also be what you actually want to achieve with your life, but this isn't essential as long as you have awareness.
- What a person likes and dislikes is not a defining feature, it's at best an expression of a person's taste. It is a description of a relation between a person and other things. Tastes are easily feigned to please others, easily changed and highly likely to change over time, and while they can be used to stereotype people, I'm pretty sure stereotyping people is considered a bad thing to do.
- Belief and disbelief aren't defining and also don't make a great deal of sense, since to believe is to hold that something is true without data -- holding that something is true OR false without data is nonsensical, and thus pointless to communicate to others, because they'll either have the same nonsensical belief or an opposing one, and probably won't be very amenable to having their belief(s) changed since there is no data to argue from.
Ultimately, people don't know who they are, they know what their profile page(s) should say, and these "defining" characteristics are most likely things for which they are a willing standard bearer, things that they want to shine out like a lighthouse to attract or ward off the types of people they will get along with and not get along with. There are people that do have a notion of who they are, but I suspect they are likely too scared to reveal it, precisely because people are polarised, capricious, and unforgiving.
Perhaps that's what it is, social media actually encourages people to both fall in line with a stereotype and to stereotype others. Certainly, I think social media also distorts the personality of the user as well. I avoid social media like the plague, primarily because the content social media sites generate is of little interest to me. I have absolutely no understanding of why anyone would want to do social media stuff -- so I cannot speak from any personal experience.
I've created a profile on some of them for the sake of communicating with someone who refused to communicate by other means, but never have I felt inclined to use the platforms because... it's just not for me, I don't understand it. I prefer to toil in the shadows and live my life, without sharing it.
Anyway, something I have observed throughout my life is that the personality is performative, i.e. most people will act differently if they have an audience. It either causes them to withdraw and hide features of who they are, or it will encourage them to reveal as much of themselves as possible and even to fabricate features of their persona that aren't authentic.
This kind of behaviour is easy enough to observe in work contexts, and my intuition tells me that social media must surely have a similar effect on people. With thousands of people watching out for what banal thought you share next.
The result is that not only are you exposed to the whole of the other, but you're exposed to the super-other that forms (depending on the subject type) through audience demand and expectations, or through the subject's desire to provoke a certain reaction in their audience, or indeed to attract a certain audience to serve their agenda.
Much of the social media landscape is essentially just memetic. Probably quite fascinating to study if you're interested in how utterly twisted and inauthentic people can become by living an observed and performed life, rather than simply living according to their own principles, resolute and only subject to observation when necessary to achieve, say, professional or academic goals.
* * *
I'd like to bring up something Douglas Adams wrote about in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. He imagined an alien race called the Belcerabons, who enjoyed peace and success, no doubt in part thanks to their being a wholly quiet civilization. A Galactic Tribunal of other races, envious of their success and perceived smugness, infected them with a disease that gave them the curse of forced telepathy -- every thought would be broadcast from each Belcerabon to the rest of their kind. The only way that they could silence the artillery of communicating their every thought to each other was to constantly talk to each other instead, probably preferable just to retain some control over communicating private or awkward thoughts and instead talking about the weather etc.
While Adams was undoubtedly poking fun at the sorry state of the human race when it comes to those nauseating conversations about the local weather conditions and what was eaten for lunch on a previous day, I do find it amusing that constantly bombarding one another with banalities ought to be considered a curse, and yet we have somehow managed to develop our civilization around technological platforms for that very purpose.
While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things.
For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.
For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.
> For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.
Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?
Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?
Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life.
It's not as polarised these days, but it was within my lifetime that consensual homosexual sex between adults was illegal in many parts of the world. It still is in some countries. You cannot "agree to disagree" when someone believes you are broken or sinful or whatever and wants to put you in jail.
That's just one example.
I'm straight, white dude. It's very easy for me to ignore issues like this, because most of the time, they're in my favour. That's just the world.
It's not as polarised these days, but it was within my lifetime that consensual homosexual sex between adults was illegal in many parts of the world. It still is in some countries. You cannot "agree to disagree" when someone believes you are broken or sinful or whatever and wants to put you in jail.
That's just one example.
I'm straight, white dude. It's very easy for me to ignore issues like this, because most of the time, they're in my favour. That's just the world.
I think part of the problem is the circumstances of two people meeting on social media. It's like one of those break-the-ice prompts for new coworkers, but instead of lighthearted nonsense, the card says "the gays are evil, discuss!".
In the real world, two very different people might meet and start to build a history and a good deal of rapport and trust with each other before ever getting anywhere close to a divisive issue. When they do eventually get there, without a mob watching, without the fear of every word going in the permanent record, the conversation would likely be far less of a dumpster fire, and minds might actually be changed.
As it is, a lot of the discourse you see online is indescribably bad, and I think a lot of it is down to throwing two strangers into a conversation that they would never naturally arrive at upon first meeting.
In the real world, two very different people might meet and start to build a history and a good deal of rapport and trust with each other before ever getting anywhere close to a divisive issue. When they do eventually get there, without a mob watching, without the fear of every word going in the permanent record, the conversation would likely be far less of a dumpster fire, and minds might actually be changed.
As it is, a lot of the discourse you see online is indescribably bad, and I think a lot of it is down to throwing two strangers into a conversation that they would never naturally arrive at upon first meeting.
> Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life.
the conversations are about important things that effect your life, the conversations themselves aren't important and don't actually effect your life.
the conversations are about important things that effect your life, the conversations themselves aren't important and don't actually effect your life.
I find this argument compelling, but the counter-point is: what change is politicing everything going to affect? Will political comments on a codebase make it safer to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia? If not, combining those two things feels like an exercise in futility.
>Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life.
I believe it’s very important to be able to calmly and genially argue points which are important to you. There may not be any value in merely being able to argue calmly and politely for points in which you have no interest.
I believe it’s very important to be able to calmly and genially argue points which are important to you. There may not be any value in merely being able to argue calmly and politely for points in which you have no interest.
As someone who is on the LGBTQ spectrum, people that actively advocate for me not being able to exist in civil society without doing anything but trying to be authentic about myself are really not people I want in my life.
I absolutely hate that my ability to participate in modern society without harassment for things that are inherent to my existence is limited and I hope that one day we can move past this kind of foolishness as a species.
I absolutely hate that my ability to participate in modern society without harassment for things that are inherent to my existence is limited and I hope that one day we can move past this kind of foolishness as a species.
Texas just unveiled a law that proposes putting parents who support their children's gender transition in jail for child abuse.
That means one side thinks the other side is a child abuser, and the other side thinks that bigots are going to throw them in prison for being a supportive parent.
This is not something you can be "polite" about.
That means one side thinks the other side is a child abuser, and the other side thinks that bigots are going to throw them in prison for being a supportive parent.
This is not something you can be "polite" about.
1. It was an order, not a law
2. It was a clarification of existing rules
3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense.
The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse.
Here is the order for your reading pleasure:
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...
2. It was a clarification of existing rules
3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense.
The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse.
Here is the order for your reading pleasure:
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...
"As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to
a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that
can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration
of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen."
Where "subject" appears to be the most general form possible, as far as I can tell from context.
Even puberty blockers are on this list! You're not supporting a gender transition if you can't touch hormones at all.
Where "subject" appears to be the most general form possible, as far as I can tell from context.
Even puberty blockers are on this list! You're not supporting a gender transition if you can't touch hormones at all.
> "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to ... removals of otherwise healthy body parts"
Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision!
In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.
Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision!
In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.
I don't think gender transition for kids is compatible with child sex laws. If a kid can't consent to sex, even if they're verbally willing and consenting, how on earth can they consent to cutting off their penis? Seems a bit absurd to me
The problem is that the order extends to puberty blockers, which are a safe and reversible treatment for kids to keep them from maturing into their undesired gender until they're old enough to opt into more drastic treatments like hormones and surgeries... or not, as they choose.
Edit: also wtf does that have to do with sex? Do you mean the larger subject of child consent in general? Because contract law would be a less extreme example of children not having power of informed consent.
Edit: also wtf does that have to do with sex? Do you mean the larger subject of child consent in general? Because contract law would be a less extreme example of children not having power of informed consent.
neither side decided anything though, the governer did. so all the talk aboit it online is just moving air around.
It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, whether conscious or not, make the life of the minority absolutely terrible.
With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even acknowledges that you can be trans.
With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even acknowledges that you can be trans.
Issue is usually in defining terms like 'transphobe' - I've encountered folks who define that as someone who wouldn't be willing to sleep with or be attracted to a trans person in the same way as a biological female. I think that's an example of an area people are just going to have to agree to disagree.
I know what you mean, even though I want trans people to feel comfortable in everyday life, dressing how they want and so on without prejudice, apparently it's 'transphobic' to recognise the material reality that transwomen are men and transmen are women. This activism really does feel like a religious cult that hounds non-believers.
That's a bit of a strawman. That's not transphobic. Nobody is obligated to have sex with anyone, trans or cis, period. That's not even up for discussion.
If one, however, goes out of their way to harass transexual people when stating this preference, then yeah, it's a bit transphobic. Intention matters.
If one, however, goes out of their way to harass transexual people when stating this preference, then yeah, it's a bit transphobic. Intention matters.
I did just literally get into an argument with an acquaintance last week because she was insisting that it was not an ok or valid thing for someone to not want to date trans women as a category if they were ok with dating women. So I wouldn't call it a strawman.
I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one
I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one
What I said doesn't contradict any of what your acquaintance said. You can freely refuse to individually date as many trans women as you want, just as you could refuse to date a woman that is too old for you, or even too skinny, or too fat. Or just unattractive. But making a fuss out of it is an issue.
Whoever brought it up has some deep unresolved issues, however. Or was fishing for an argument.
EDIT: It's like fetishes. Preferences are fine and should be respected, but they're also better kept off private. Telling people of a specific ethnicity you're "into them" is also kinda creepy.
Whoever brought it up has some deep unresolved issues, however. Or was fishing for an argument.
EDIT: It's like fetishes. Preferences are fine and should be respected, but they're also better kept off private. Telling people of a specific ethnicity you're "into them" is also kinda creepy.
> Whoever brought it up has some deep unresolved issues, however. Or was fishing for an argument.
This was in the context one of those kink quizzes regarding what things someone was into, so genders, fetishes, bodily features, sex acts, etc. It isn't like someone just announced to a bar "I'd never date a transperson" out of nowhere.
This was in the context one of those kink quizzes regarding what things someone was into, so genders, fetishes, bodily features, sex acts, etc. It isn't like someone just announced to a bar "I'd never date a transperson" out of nowhere.
That's an interesting take. Do you recall their points?
I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.
I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.
> I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.
They'd consider it fetishism, unless said person was also trans and only preferred other trans people because of wanting that shared life experience.
Their point was that thinking of trans women as different to women as a group was inherently bigoted.
They'd consider it fetishism, unless said person was also trans and only preferred other trans people because of wanting that shared life experience.
Their point was that thinking of trans women as different to women as a group was inherently bigoted.
> That's a bit of a strawman.
I think that depends on your social circle.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 has some examples of people for whom this was clearly not a strawman as of 5 months ago.
I think that depends on your social circle.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 has some examples of people for whom this was clearly not a strawman as of 5 months ago.
Let's throw in a more complex example. Is someone who identifies as a "trap" trans? Is that self identification trans-phobic? Is it a valid self identity? What if someone identifies as a "trap" but not trans?
I've never heard of anyone identifying as a "trap" unironically. This sounds like a straw man.
I would equate a trans woman calling themselves a trap to being the same as a black person calling themselves the N word. It's a way of taking back a slur.
I would equate a trans woman calling themselves a trap to being the same as a black person calling themselves the N word. It's a way of taking back a slur.
This was such a hot debate on a set of subreddits it caused a collapse of a huge subreddit, the ousting of a powermod, and several spinoff subreddits. Admittedly it was a few years ago, but it was an interesting fight to watch from the sidelines.
My preference here is to refer to people however they want to be referred to. When I adopted that view, I thought it was very safe but it has actually landed me in hot water many times. I still stand by it though.
My preference here is to refer to people however they want to be referred to. When I adopted that view, I thought it was very safe but it has actually landed me in hot water many times. I still stand by it though.
A person referring to themselves using a common slur does not mean they want others to refer to them as that.
To hundreds of thousands of people who use that as an identity, it is not a slur.
You can call whatever this bizarre and obviously false claim is what you want, but this entire subthread is very transparently an attempt to justify using a slur. It has very "why can't I say the n word" energy.
This is an extremely poor faith interpretation of a reasonable argument: if someone asks me to call them a word that is often perceived as a slur, because they belong to a member of that group and would like to "reclaim" it, should I do so? Am I being racist by using the word? This is not a clear question like you present it to be, and has absolutely nothing to do with an inherent desire to use slurs against marginalized people.
To be clear, do you think black people calling each the N word means it is not a slur to them? Because you would be incredibly wrong.
That's more a problem of vagueness and guessing than real complexity, because it's slang with unclear/multiple meanings. Some people use "trap" to mean transgender, some people use it to mean transvestite. Everything beyond that is based on intent.
Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow.
If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore and you're fighting straw men.
Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq".
Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents.
Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate.
A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq".
Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents.
Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate.
A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient.
I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.
I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient.
I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.
> the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore
On the contrary: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texa...
On the contrary: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texa...
>If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?".
Eeh, it's still "do gay people get basic rights" for many even in the United States. I've seen folks have last wills overturned by family through insidious legal maneuvers. I've seen doctors refuse to contact patients with biopsy results because their patients were trans. And I've seen folks even withhold paychecks from LGBT folks because of their religious nonsense. So, basic rights are still a matter of contention until it becomes not merely a legal formality that LGBT folks are equal under the law but that the entire population does not even think that they have a chance to violate those formalities and that they feel bad about thinking of doing such a thing. Until that happens, LGBT discussions will always go back to "do gay people have basic rights?".
Eeh, it's still "do gay people get basic rights" for many even in the United States. I've seen folks have last wills overturned by family through insidious legal maneuvers. I've seen doctors refuse to contact patients with biopsy results because their patients were trans. And I've seen folks even withhold paychecks from LGBT folks because of their religious nonsense. So, basic rights are still a matter of contention until it becomes not merely a legal formality that LGBT folks are equal under the law but that the entire population does not even think that they have a chance to violate those formalities and that they feel bad about thinking of doing such a thing. Until that happens, LGBT discussions will always go back to "do gay people have basic rights?".
> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?
For gay, it means keeping secret over pretty large and important parts of life. As was explained to me by gay who was super civil, but did grumbled and complained about a lot of stuff that was said when it was safe to talk more openly.
For gay, it means keeping secret over pretty large and important parts of life. As was explained to me by gay who was super civil, but did grumbled and complained about a lot of stuff that was said when it was safe to talk more openly.
Whenever one group is deciding on what rights another group has, it seems inevitable that civility and friendliness will at some point get left behind.
Should tha baker have the right to refuse baking a gay wedding cake or some group has the power to decide what rights another group has? As a gay man the LGBT groups keep declining in the quality of their fights and, having survived their own usefulness, they invent fights that inevitably clash with others liberties and belief. No, I do need that cake, there are other bakeries.
neither group decides anything, they're just a few thousand people talking online.
Not when their opinion means I can't bequeath my prized personal possessions to my partner without burdensome legal complications. I've seen wills being disregarded when it comes to same-sex partners all the time because the surviving family disagreed with their dead loved one so such an extent as to try to find a legal loophole to get out of following their last wishes.
'Let's agree to disagree that you deserve the same rights as me' is just a really hard pill to swallow for LGBTQ+ people.
You can choose to hold that opinion if you want, but most LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones will choose not to interact with you as a result.
You can choose to hold that opinion if you want, but most LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones will choose not to interact with you as a result.
but actually, they do. thus, social media as it exists today is a bunch of people all trying to own the other side. they live to interact with people they disagree with, the harder the disagreement the better.
I can't really parse what you're saying. Who is 'they'?
[deleted]
> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?
Of course, let's put the transphobes and trans people on the same room. That should play out well, like KKK and black people and Nazis and the Jews, right?
Of course, let's put the transphobes and trans people on the same room. That should play out well, like KKK and black people and Nazis and the Jews, right?
Within LGBTQ communities there are mass disagreements. Should women-only spaces include trans people? Is the word "transsexual" a valid identity even when self chosen?
There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it".
The trick is that it's not a boolean question. Someone can be gay and anti-trans and this is trivially true.
There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it".
The trick is that it's not a boolean question. Someone can be gay and anti-trans and this is trivially true.
> There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it".
I've seen a shirt that says "Bi now, gay later"
I've seen a shirt that says "Bi now, gay later"
A close friend of mine is, well, gay (as in man gay), and he doesn't have the fondest opinion of lesbians. He's also quite critical about trans people. He does like other (especially beautiful) men a lot, so that gay part is definitely covered, he's not in the closet by any means or anything like that.
I always find these "screw your rights, I've got mine" types funny. At the end of the day, once conservatives finish tarring and feathering trans people, they're up next. Our rights do not exist in a vacuum; we're all in the same boat. Sure, gender and sexuality stuff isn't the same, but we share a lot of issues and (most importantly) gay men would never have gotten any rights if they were duking it out alone (and neither would the rest of the acronym, for that matter).
I think I know why gay men tend to take this view way more often than the rest of the acronym, though: straight men don't hit on gay men, but straight men constantly hit on lesbians. If I had a nickel every time I heard "I can turn you straight," I'd be closing in on a couple dollars by now.
I think I know why gay men tend to take this view way more often than the rest of the acronym, though: straight men don't hit on gay men, but straight men constantly hit on lesbians. If I had a nickel every time I heard "I can turn you straight," I'd be closing in on a couple dollars by now.
I'm LGBT and I don't consider the other side evil. I also grew up in the south and know that by yelling at them, you only make them turn their heads away. Sitting down and talking with someone is not impossible. We have more in common than not.
Oftentimes a position, belief, or disagreement is a projection of other underlying fears and discomforts. Or maybe it's simply rigidly structured views that need additional time to process new shapes.
If an intergalactic enemy suddenly showed up on our doorsteps and started attacking us, we'd all band together.
Oftentimes a position, belief, or disagreement is a projection of other underlying fears and discomforts. Or maybe it's simply rigidly structured views that need additional time to process new shapes.
If an intergalactic enemy suddenly showed up on our doorsteps and started attacking us, we'd all band together.
The bulk of the Left wing has moved past the whole "coddle them" method where the comfort of the other side is prioritized above all, while the entire time they are passing laws to marginalize and harass people and rolling back the Voting Rights Act.
I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.
The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.
It was added in the '90s.
https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/
https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/
According to wikipedia "LGBT" was from 1988 and "LGB" itself was spreading in the "mid to late 80s".
If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.
If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.
But the topic can never come up in organic conversation altogether.
Maybe, but you have to imagine at some point, things that are in the news will get discussed over a beer.
And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner.
Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.
And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner.
Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.
Since when has "I'm pregnant" been a socially-acceptable cue to start ranting about your views on abortion in either direction?
Generally, no, one does not respond to someone saying they're pregnant by suggesting an abortion. That's usually considered rude :D
But not all pregnancies are wanted. I have had friends talk to me about their decision wrt an unwanted pregnancy.
But not all pregnancies are wanted. I have had friends talk to me about their decision wrt an unwanted pregnancy.
CodeGlitch(1)
Im not sure that the apolitical stance many people believe to hold is such an apolitical stance. In fact, living in any state and taking part in any kind of society is political in and of itself.
You do not get to take part in any community without having a political stance - being part of a community is communicating that you agree with the morals and values of the community and wilfully accept them - thats the basis and general agreement of a community, it's what differentiates a group of people from a community.
Now, Im not sure that turning a blind eye to the consequences that this has is inherently wrong, that surely depends on what impact the concrete political/moral/ethical stance has, but I disagree with the notion that, really, anything is apolitical. In context, everything is political, and we have to live with the notion that anything we do has impact on other people, as long as the consequences of the the thing we are doing is visible to other people.
You do not get to take part in any community without having a political stance - being part of a community is communicating that you agree with the morals and values of the community and wilfully accept them - thats the basis and general agreement of a community, it's what differentiates a group of people from a community.
Now, Im not sure that turning a blind eye to the consequences that this has is inherently wrong, that surely depends on what impact the concrete political/moral/ethical stance has, but I disagree with the notion that, really, anything is apolitical. In context, everything is political, and we have to live with the notion that anything we do has impact on other people, as long as the consequences of the the thing we are doing is visible to other people.
You think everything is political because you've failed to make a distinction between morality, culture, and politics. Politics doesn't have to do with "morals and values". It's not a political stance to have a birthday party for your 3 year old or pray in a church or a mosque.
Your second argument is "everything affects everything else". Using that argument we can prove that we're all mass murderers for keeping our thermostats at 70 degrees. One reason this way of thinking is so useless is that it fails to single out actual murderers (i.e. the person who pulls the trigger).
Your second argument is "everything affects everything else". Using that argument we can prove that we're all mass murderers for keeping our thermostats at 70 degrees. One reason this way of thinking is so useless is that it fails to single out actual murderers (i.e. the person who pulls the trigger).
I think it's blurry. Morals and values are very much at the heart of politics.
It's what drives engagement & wins votes.
One side views abortion as a moral sin. The other thinks that access to healthcare is a value and have a moral obligation to fight for the rights of women.
There are a bunch of issues like that.
For me right now my LGBTQ community is being used by Republicans as an election issue. An example where one side thinks (or pretends to in order to win votes) that it's some political issue, while I and many others feel like it's a direct attack on our lives akin to racism & racist jim crow era laws.
It's what drives engagement & wins votes.
One side views abortion as a moral sin. The other thinks that access to healthcare is a value and have a moral obligation to fight for the rights of women.
There are a bunch of issues like that.
For me right now my LGBTQ community is being used by Republicans as an election issue. An example where one side thinks (or pretends to in order to win votes) that it's some political issue, while I and many others feel like it's a direct attack on our lives akin to racism & racist jim crow era laws.
> One side views abortion as a moral sin. The other thinks that access to healthcare is a value and have a moral obligation to fight for the rights of women.
How about all the people who view abortion as a sin but think it should be legal anyway? You know, like Joe Biden and every other liberal Catholic.
You're just spitting out talking points.
How about all the people who view abortion as a sin but think it should be legal anyway? You know, like Joe Biden and every other liberal Catholic.
You're just spitting out talking points.
Sure. Again politics is blurry, messy, blurry. True dichotomy is rare.
But even that example still mixes morals, values, & politics. Joe Biden values legal autonomy & access.
And it is a fundamental campaign issue. He would not win the Dem primary if he was against abortion. You can't un mix the two it's blurred.
But even that example still mixes morals, values, & politics. Joe Biden values legal autonomy & access.
And it is a fundamental campaign issue. He would not win the Dem primary if he was against abortion. You can't un mix the two it's blurred.
I agree, everything is political, and what we consider to be apolitical is oftentimes just a reflection of what we consider to be acceptable politics. Even objective facts about observable phenomena become political in how we interpret them (or outright reject them, see: flat earth). Back during gamergate, for example, this was a point completely lost on the pro-GG side: lingerie as armor and the sexualization of women was so accepted and widespread, you would have to view women primarily as an accessory for men to get upset over relatively unobjectionable depictions of women and call that "forcing politics into video games." Dan Olson made a great point in the same vein in "Cooking Food On The Internet For Fun And Profit" [0] that even what you eat is political: what you consider normal, exotic, and assume others are familiar with or have access to is a reflection on where you grew up, how you grew up, your wealth, and your values.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EXVrzOACv4
Edit: It's also a lot easier to stay "apolitical" when you don't have any skin in the game (or rather, don't think you do). When your rights don't feel threatened, it's really easy to go with the status quo.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EXVrzOACv4
Edit: It's also a lot easier to stay "apolitical" when you don't have any skin in the game (or rather, don't think you do). When your rights don't feel threatened, it's really easy to go with the status quo.
[deleted]
Yeah. A few years ago I revisited a Twitter account I had registered and not used. And I posted for a while.
And then I realised I hated the trajectory I was on, and I deleted every single post and the account.
I now have an account and, like the article says, I don't post.
Twitter is a bonfire of nastiness.
You either give in to it or you have to commit to spending an awful lot of time ignoring the cesspit of general awfulness, and pretending bad faith is good faith for the purposes of dialogue with sealions who learned their chops through Gamergate.
If you tire of all that (or if you are a woman and tire of the astonishing, violent sexualised nastiness that you disproportionately attract) and make use of the conversation controls so you can continue to peacefully discuss things only with people you want to, everyone else accuses you of being "aFrAiD oF dEbAtE" or censorship, everywhere else. (Including here.)
Stuff that.
And then I realised I hated the trajectory I was on, and I deleted every single post and the account.
I now have an account and, like the article says, I don't post.
Twitter is a bonfire of nastiness.
You either give in to it or you have to commit to spending an awful lot of time ignoring the cesspit of general awfulness, and pretending bad faith is good faith for the purposes of dialogue with sealions who learned their chops through Gamergate.
If you tire of all that (or if you are a woman and tire of the astonishing, violent sexualised nastiness that you disproportionately attract) and make use of the conversation controls so you can continue to peacefully discuss things only with people you want to, everyone else accuses you of being "aFrAiD oF dEbAtE" or censorship, everywhere else. (Including here.)
Stuff that.
I think everything is political, even code.... But the conversation Twitter fosters is not useful. I see people jumping on others for small mistakes or imagined slights, searching for inconsistencies ("On March 3 you said this about apples, on March 7 you said this about oranges -- why don't you have a CONSISTENT STANCE ON FRUITS YOU HYPOCRITE"), etc. And yes, it's so easy to comment from the sidelines; I see people sitting comfortably in Minneapolis or Miami criticizing a journalist tweeting about the refugee situation in Moldova.
Folks try to have nuanced discussion on Twitter but it's not possible when it's so reactionary and atomized. I no longer tweet either. I go on Twitter to find interesting people to follow in other forums, not to talk to anyone. I am a silent tweeter, heh.
Folks try to have nuanced discussion on Twitter but it's not possible when it's so reactionary and atomized. I no longer tweet either. I go on Twitter to find interesting people to follow in other forums, not to talk to anyone. I am a silent tweeter, heh.
You can turn off seeing retweets from accounts you follow on a per-account basis, and more people (including yourself, if you're ever curious to go back to Twitter) should more aggressively use the option to make the site far more enjoyable. Lots of accounts are fine to follow on their own, but complete spam-fests if your feed is full of everything they retweet. Just go to their profile, hit the three dots, and then click "Turn off retweets".
Does Twitter respect this toggled option and persist the state?
I’m a little burned out fighting over user preferences across social media that seem to always toggle themselves back to whatever default the platform wants that day.
I’m a little burned out fighting over user preferences across social media that seem to always toggle themselves back to whatever default the platform wants that day.
I'm not going to promise it never forgets that option, but I've never noticed it forgetting across dozens of accounts I follow, and several years and multiple logins/devices/browsers. It's not like the usual per-device/session timeline options, it's more along the lines and persistence of a mute/block toggle.
Excellent points and completely agreed. Social media has turned the private into the public. The old adage, don’t talk politics and don’t throw stones has been completely abandoned. We used to discuss these divisive topics within the contexts in which it was appropriate to do so. Now, it’s literally everywhere.
I am not sure what the solution is. It’s a societal pandora’s box and it’s open.
I am not sure what the solution is. It’s a societal pandora’s box and it’s open.
One thing that helps (a tiny bit) is to go to newest tweets first instead of the algorithm. This cuts out all of the likes (which are 99% noise for me… I wish I could make it so people didn’t see my likes, that is what retweets are for!)
Still gonna get the retweets, but you won’t get the most “engaging” stuff brought to your attention which tends to be the worst.
Still gonna get the retweets, but you won’t get the most “engaging” stuff brought to your attention which tends to be the worst.
Predictably, when I changed my feed back to newest tweets, I spent wayyyy less time on Twitter. Which is great.
> the stance that everything is political
Which is itself a political stance. It’s not a universal truth but a very narrow political ideology. Never mind that “political” is not a well-defined thing to begin with.
If we can’t agree to neutral territory then one of the sides is going to have to win. Because you can’t bully your way to victory.
We need more meetings of the mind and fewer meetings of unfalsifiable rhetoric. Fewer crusaders and more peacemakers.
Which is itself a political stance. It’s not a universal truth but a very narrow political ideology. Never mind that “political” is not a well-defined thing to begin with.
If we can’t agree to neutral territory then one of the sides is going to have to win. Because you can’t bully your way to victory.
We need more meetings of the mind and fewer meetings of unfalsifiable rhetoric. Fewer crusaders and more peacemakers.
100%, great take. I tried following some tech people I admire and hit the same issue and just unfollowed them. I now only use twitter for the sole-purpose of getting political/world news when I want it. But using it for anything technically interesting is dead to me.
I don't Tweet because Twitter never promotes my post to hashtags and people who might be interested in my content. People I respond to with questions never reply. Basically, nobody reads my stuff. It's a waste of time if you're not already famous.
Tweetdeck. It's the "pro" Twitter client that has strict chrono ordering and won't show likes or trending items. You can also set it to not show any retweets, at all.
Even vanilla Twitter allows you to get strict chrono order by switching your home-page. It does not show "likes" and reduces the use of "trending" iirc.
It does show retweets, though.
It does show retweets, though.
I switched to this view a few days ago and it’s infinitely better. Originally when Twitter rolled out the toggle I figured I’d give the algorithmic feed a chance but eventually it got to the point where 80% of my feed was algorithmically recommended tweets from people I wasn’t following and I got fed up.
The formation of the statement is the problem. Try:
> everything can be viewed through the lens of politics
You wouldn't say "everything is geographical" because that would be absurd (just as absurd as "everything is political") but you could view most topics through the lens of geography if that was the hammer turning all your concerns into nails.
> everything can be viewed through the lens of politics
You wouldn't say "everything is geographical" because that would be absurd (just as absurd as "everything is political") but you could view most topics through the lens of geography if that was the hammer turning all your concerns into nails.
>I realized even they will pollute my feed with politically divisive topics, whether it be from them retweeting something, or liking a tweet, or even entering into the fray themselves
Sorting by "Latest" rather than "Home" makes it so you don't see their likes and replies. I would recommend it to anyone.
Sorting by "Latest" rather than "Home" makes it so you don't see their likes and replies. I would recommend it to anyone.
And you can disable retweets.
I don't use twitter anymore but when I did I used these features to make it less toxic.
I don't use twitter anymore but when I did I used these features to make it less toxic.
[deleted]
I'm only a douchebag if I'm anon. No idea where people are getting that it's OK to be authentic while attached to your real name.
I actually wonder if getting more people involved in politics (well, political activism, which is somewhat distinct from political action) is doing any good. It only works if you involve more people on your side, but it seems like this tends to result with more people getting involved on the other side as well.
Blocking the source (not those retweeting) does work, it simply takes quite awhile to see results.
Ultimately most of the outrage/cancel culture/ and other political tribalism tweets originate from a relatively small fraction of users. I’ve blocked thousands of users over the last few years and it’s working out great. It almost feels like the old days of using Twitter. :)
Ultimately most of the outrage/cancel culture/ and other political tribalism tweets originate from a relatively small fraction of users. I’ve blocked thousands of users over the last few years and it’s working out great. It almost feels like the old days of using Twitter. :)
[deleted]
I follow exactly one person on Twitter. A scientist who I consider particularly interesting. And even then, I get a lot of garbage and political ranting. I realise how it can get entertaining and addictive, but I rather spend my time in a more fulfilling way.
Also, there are so many narcissists there...
Also, there are so many narcissists there...
>I know a lot of folks in my field side by the stance that everything is political, even code.
Conveniently, these are people who want everything to be about their political values and beliefs, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist/nazi.
Conveniently, these are people who want everything to be about their political values and beliefs, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist/nazi.
For a while, I resolved "OK, if anyone retweets this stuff, I will simply unfollow them"
You can also turn off retweets for those people. Twitter does seem to have some idiotic take on what I want to see.
You can also turn off retweets for those people. Twitter does seem to have some idiotic take on what I want to see.
I know a lot of folks in my field side by the stance that everything is political, even code.
Twitter isn't code. Why would you expect someone to limit what they publish to code topics just because you want to limit what you read to just code things? Their Twitter account is their domain. There's no reason why someone shouldn't tweet about code and other stuff if they want to.
I honestly have no idea why people think they should have any say over what someone tweets, and even suggest that people are wrong to tweet the way they do. That level of entitlement is baffling.
Please don't follow me on Twitter. You'll hate my account.
Twitter isn't code. Why would you expect someone to limit what they publish to code topics just because you want to limit what you read to just code things? Their Twitter account is their domain. There's no reason why someone shouldn't tweet about code and other stuff if they want to.
I honestly have no idea why people think they should have any say over what someone tweets, and even suggest that people are wrong to tweet the way they do. That level of entitlement is baffling.
Please don't follow me on Twitter. You'll hate my account.
Nobody said that people can't tweet about any and all aspects of their lives. The point was that some followers may only be interested in one particular part. This would dramatically cut the noise from Twitter, as well as its divisiveness and general unpleasantness.
You can still tweet whatever you want, but Twitter would be more usable for many people if you could cherry pick the signal and get rid of the noise.
You can still tweet whatever you want, but Twitter would be more usable for many people if you could cherry pick the signal and get rid of the noise.
> Please don't follow me on Twitter. You'll hate my account.
Followed, of course, just for that.
Hey, an old retweet of yours already got me blocked by some fuckwit who, like Mike Pence, can't trust himself to be alone with women other than his wife, so that's a win all around! :-D
Followed, of course, just for that.
Hey, an old retweet of yours already got me blocked by some fuckwit who, like Mike Pence, can't trust himself to be alone with women other than his wife, so that's a win all around! :-D
there are filter plugins that will kill off 90% of the garbage if you're dedicated enough to add filter words and tags. You'll never get rid of all of it though. I personally don't tweet, but I do follow people that I admire/enjoy their thoughts. Also a few news feeds just to stay abreast of stuff.
It's almost as if they become infected with a bianry search parasite and the vector is any 50/50 divide
For what it's worth, you can disable retweets for people (and I think your entire feed).
Not for everyone unfortunately. But there is a ruby script that does it for you.
https://gist.github.com/robinsloan/a045d26c513681f13680f319f...
https://gist.github.com/robinsloan/a045d26c513681f13680f319f...
wpietri(5)
"Never pass up a chance to keep your mouth shut"
Words my Dad taught me as I was growing up, but only really sank in the last 5 or so years ago.
Words my Dad taught me as I was growing up, but only really sank in the last 5 or so years ago.
I once worked for a company where several groups were VERY vocal about their complaints about each other. It seemed like bitching about the other team(s) was part of the job. Lots of walls built here and there between teams.
I kept quiet. I decided bitching was too tiresome / nobody was getting anything done, nobody was getting better by having complainants flung at them.
After I established relationships with various folks across the groups, I had folks from every team come to me / were available to me in ways they never would for each other.
My job was 2x easier as far as getting help / information / cooperation compared to the folks complaining non stop.
There were groups I agreed with / disagreed with (one group was straight wrong about nearly everything), but throwing a fit just made for worse relationships.
I still made suggestions to folks whose job it was to manage these groups, politely, gently, often quietly, but if they did or did not fix it / repeating myself wasn't a big focus for me.
I've long since given up on right and wrong (well outside real moral issues) and more about how to get to the end as best as possible with the relationships / people available.
I kept quiet. I decided bitching was too tiresome / nobody was getting anything done, nobody was getting better by having complainants flung at them.
After I established relationships with various folks across the groups, I had folks from every team come to me / were available to me in ways they never would for each other.
My job was 2x easier as far as getting help / information / cooperation compared to the folks complaining non stop.
There were groups I agreed with / disagreed with (one group was straight wrong about nearly everything), but throwing a fit just made for worse relationships.
I still made suggestions to folks whose job it was to manage these groups, politely, gently, often quietly, but if they did or did not fix it / repeating myself wasn't a big focus for me.
I've long since given up on right and wrong (well outside real moral issues) and more about how to get to the end as best as possible with the relationships / people available.
I call this employing tactical empathy and it is the single most important soft skill I learned. It's the only, only effective way to do cross-team coordination, arguably all the way up to C-level to C-level.
The old fashioned term for this is “politeness”
Assuming we're using a shared definition of polite, I disagree!
> having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.
You can be polite while not facilitating the counterparty in a way that's useful to you but in the short term feels like you're giving up something. People often can't get past that temporary feeling of losing so they don't venture into it.
> having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.
You can be polite while not facilitating the counterparty in a way that's useful to you but in the short term feels like you're giving up something. People often can't get past that temporary feeling of losing so they don't venture into it.
Was being a bit tongue in cheek, but yes, it depends on your definition of politeness. I’d argue that being genuinely polite, ie being genuinely respectful and considerate, involves the kind of self sacrifice you’re describing. But I also agree that when most people imagine politeness, they imagine what I’d call “superficial politeness”, not “genuine politeness”
I only recently discovered something that is probably obvious to most other people: someone’s immediate verbal reaction to a message is often different than their long-term behavioural response to it.
“Your team isn’t pulling their weight”
The immediate reaction might be “Yes of course we are, how dare you!”
Now you have two options. It sounds like they have rejected your premise. Do you double down and try to force a verbal capitulation? “No, you are all really doing nothing!”
Or do you leave the seed you have planted: “Oh, alright then, good to hear it.”
The second option works way better. What they said in their immediate reaction is not predictive of the longer-term response. The longer term reaction might be that the team quietly increases their performance. If you went the confrontational approach, you would have ruled that out.
“Your team isn’t pulling their weight”
The immediate reaction might be “Yes of course we are, how dare you!”
Now you have two options. It sounds like they have rejected your premise. Do you double down and try to force a verbal capitulation? “No, you are all really doing nothing!”
Or do you leave the seed you have planted: “Oh, alright then, good to hear it.”
The second option works way better. What they said in their immediate reaction is not predictive of the longer-term response. The longer term reaction might be that the team quietly increases their performance. If you went the confrontational approach, you would have ruled that out.
> right and wrong (well outside real moral issues)
Even moral issues don't have objective right and wrong. The idea that there are base moral facts is ridiculous, and without fully understanding each others priors arguments about ethics are rarely productive.
Even moral issues don't have objective right and wrong. The idea that there are base moral facts is ridiculous, and without fully understanding each others priors arguments about ethics are rarely productive.
> The idea that there are base moral facts is ridiculous
Sexual abuse of toddlers?
Unprovoked abduction and torture?
I think there certainly are base moral facts at the extremes of behaviour. Evil exists. Malevolence exists.
But I agree that most behaviour isn’t so extreme as to be easily judged without the understanding you describe.
Sexual abuse of toddlers?
Unprovoked abduction and torture?
I think there certainly are base moral facts at the extremes of behaviour. Evil exists. Malevolence exists.
But I agree that most behaviour isn’t so extreme as to be easily judged without the understanding you describe.
Oh yeah moral issues are within a context and so on.
Familiar story. Worse when the group that's wrong on nearly everything gets a cozy position from people in charge, where they can get by with minimum effort.
Similar quote by Mark Twain
> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
This seems like a riff on Proverbs: "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues."
This is why people like Queen Elizabeth (specifically, not the rest of the royal family) are widely held in such high regard. She rarely makes any comments about anything that could be discerned as political, and as a result she has stayed largely neutral. Even people like my dad, who is highly conservative and vocally dislikes all celbrities, still thinks she's a saint. I'm not convinced—she keeps her mouth shut because she's done for if she makes a fuss about anything.
I generally agree, though I don't think the "saintliness" even matters. The queen as seen by the public is probably a persona, sure, but so long as the persona stays put, she's a symbol of stability, and that is the whole point of the monarchy.
This even shows up in tech - Bill Gates isn't exactly known for widespread political opinions, and while we all know he was probably not a great person early on, he's now generally contributing to universally approved causes, and otherwise just there, so to some extent he's a symbol of the possibilities available through tech.
Meanwhile, you've got Elon, who I think would be reasonably similar - if he could stay the hell off Twitter and stop overpromising so goddamn often. He could have ended up as a symbol for the commercial space revolution and the surge of EV popularity, but instead he's polarising and often hated.
Generally, polarisation isn't great for authority figures. Even in politics this is sort of true - relatively centrist parties often have broader appeal than extreme views. (Though because politicians are our means of changing things, there's also an aversion to politicians with no opinions at all.)
This even shows up in tech - Bill Gates isn't exactly known for widespread political opinions, and while we all know he was probably not a great person early on, he's now generally contributing to universally approved causes, and otherwise just there, so to some extent he's a symbol of the possibilities available through tech.
Meanwhile, you've got Elon, who I think would be reasonably similar - if he could stay the hell off Twitter and stop overpromising so goddamn often. He could have ended up as a symbol for the commercial space revolution and the surge of EV popularity, but instead he's polarising and often hated.
Generally, polarisation isn't great for authority figures. Even in politics this is sort of true - relatively centrist parties often have broader appeal than extreme views. (Though because politicians are our means of changing things, there's also an aversion to politicians with no opinions at all.)
>he was probably not a great person early on, he's now generally contributing to universally approved causes, and otherwise just there, so to some extent he's a symbol of the possibilities available through tech.
You probably haven't been following Gates lately. His reputation has tarnished in the last couple of years.
You probably haven't been following Gates lately. His reputation has tarnished in the last couple of years.
Do you have a source or examples?
There are people who are adamant Bill Gates is trying to depopulate the Earth through COVID-19 or something. They're wrong, but people do believe that.
[deleted]
I don't really like this quote. Lots of smart people often explain that they ask "stupid" questions and that it's important to get over your shame of being stupid. Questions change you from having a passive role to an active role in understanding. Maybe making the difference between "questions" and "commentary" would be a useful start?
Takes one to know one.
It kind of seems like you are trying to pick a fight with Mark Twain.
I'm pretty sure that quote is an insult and not good faith advise.
It reads more like a humorous and self-deprecating aphorism to me. He was a comedian after all.
Personally, I always read it as "advice" rather than as an insult. Unfortunately, can't seem to find much context for that quote so it's hard to determine what was intended.
Apparently Mark Twain never said it.
If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy).
But I read the quote as essentially saying:
"You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject".
But maybe some people don't take it that way.
If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy).
But I read the quote as essentially saying:
"You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject".
But maybe some people don't take it that way.
> Apparently Mark Twain never said it.
The advice has been written and uttered in various forms for millennia.
> If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy).
Your quote would be different advice; it doesn't have the same meaning nor implications.
> But I read the quote as essentially saying: "You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject".
How many of your personal experiences are you reading into a context-free aphorism of the ages? Friendly suggestion: you may be making this same mistake when interpreting words in other situations.
The advice has been written and uttered in various forms for millennia.
> If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy).
Your quote would be different advice; it doesn't have the same meaning nor implications.
> But I read the quote as essentially saying: "You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject".
How many of your personal experiences are you reading into a context-free aphorism of the ages? Friendly suggestion: you may be making this same mistake when interpreting words in other situations.
[deleted]
"Your quote would be different advice; it doesn't have the same meaning nor implications."
What meanings or implications does the aphorism have other than "some people (fools in this case) shouldn't ever talk?"
We've established you think I've misinterpreted the aphorism and that you suspect there's something socially off with me, but we haven't established what you think the aphorism means. Go on, educate me.
What meanings or implications does the aphorism have other than "some people (fools in this case) shouldn't ever talk?"
We've established you think I've misinterpreted the aphorism and that you suspect there's something socially off with me, but we haven't established what you think the aphorism means. Go on, educate me.
Heh, I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone...I've always thought it was advice, though I realize that I could easily be wrong on that.
Counter-advice: never suffer in silence. Don't keep quiet when there's help available.
Definitely, these two things are about two different kinds of statement though. One which directly affects you, where voicing will dramatically improve your situation. The second type of statement is where you discuss something as a hobby, which might not affect you or your close ones, and where you are under informed, and have little to gain personally, while running the full risk of offending someone.
Agreed, but it seems to take a lot of maturity to know the difference. Very few kids know the difference and some adults never learn.
There's a reason why "...and the wisdom to know the difference" is the end of the serenity prayer.
In the end it's the crux of the whole thing. Is [X terrible thing] something that's like the weather, something that it's useless to yell at? Or is it something like climate change, also nearly useless to yell at, but with enough fighting and unity we could actually make a difference? And the answer for any really difficult question is going to be an hard one, no pithy saying will tell it to you.
(Though, agreed, far too much shouting is of the irrelevant, angry, useless kind.)
In the end it's the crux of the whole thing. Is [X terrible thing] something that's like the weather, something that it's useless to yell at? Or is it something like climate change, also nearly useless to yell at, but with enough fighting and unity we could actually make a difference? And the answer for any really difficult question is going to be an hard one, no pithy saying will tell it to you.
(Though, agreed, far too much shouting is of the irrelevant, angry, useless kind.)
When I was young someone told me something similar (but not exactly the same) - "imagine you have a zip on your mouth and you have to unzip it before speaking". The point was not the zip, but to take the time to think before speaking rather than just saying the first thing that pops into your head.
Social media not only removes that moment of reflection, but it actually spreads explosive verbal diarrhoea. The commercial platforms are incentivised to encourage conflict and divisiveness because it drives traffic therefore profits. If everyone was encouraged to be nice and friendly on social media, people wouldn't spend as much time on it, so less eyeballs on ads and less profit.
I don't think that is the complete picture though. Having spent some time on alternative platforms that don't have the profit motive, I have noticed there is still a tendency for many people to be slightly outrageous, presumably simply because it attracts more engagement, and those sort of people like the attention. Say something sensible and you're not going to get loads of people replying "I agree", so after spending a lot of time writing sensible comments you end up wondering if anyone has actually even read them and you start to think - what's the point?
I wonder how (or even whether) you could design a platform that encourages sensible and penalises outrage.
Social media not only removes that moment of reflection, but it actually spreads explosive verbal diarrhoea. The commercial platforms are incentivised to encourage conflict and divisiveness because it drives traffic therefore profits. If everyone was encouraged to be nice and friendly on social media, people wouldn't spend as much time on it, so less eyeballs on ads and less profit.
I don't think that is the complete picture though. Having spent some time on alternative platforms that don't have the profit motive, I have noticed there is still a tendency for many people to be slightly outrageous, presumably simply because it attracts more engagement, and those sort of people like the attention. Say something sensible and you're not going to get loads of people replying "I agree", so after spending a lot of time writing sensible comments you end up wondering if anyone has actually even read them and you start to think - what's the point?
I wonder how (or even whether) you could design a platform that encourages sensible and penalises outrage.
"Silence is a friend who will never betray you."
—A Russian (or Italian) saying
(works either way, as it turns out)
—A Russian (or Italian) saying
(works either way, as it turns out)
It can have a twisted meaning that could imply a silenced friend will never betray you.. :)
That also means, don't protest. It is safer. It means that especially in the context of Russian history and present.
goes together with the realization that a lot of discussions are really not that interesting to begin with.
Most online discussions regarding divisive political topics are unwinnable (mind made up, bad faith discussion) and more importantly...inconsequential.
The outcome doesn't matter, so it's time wasted.
The outcome doesn't matter, so it's time wasted.
I think there's a lesson to be learned from this wisdom, but putting yourself out there, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes is invaluable.
I would rather reveal my ignorance or say the occasional dumb thing than remain bogged down by my own ignorance or stupidity because I adhere to some proverbs about silence that I read on the internet. Making those mistakes is how I grow.
I would rather reveal my ignorance or say the occasional dumb thing than remain bogged down by my own ignorance or stupidity because I adhere to some proverbs about silence that I read on the internet. Making those mistakes is how I grow.
[deleted]
“He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.”
My uncle taught me that one.
My uncle taught me that one.
As Finnish pro-verb goes: Silence is gold, speaking silver...
"What I should have said was nothing"
This is all cute, but the most important quality for getting jobs and moving up the ladder is self promotion, which requires opening your mouth.
Not really. Anyone can open their mouth. The challenge of "moving up the ladder" is in leveraging your resources (which might include your voice) to provide value to people who can help you. Most of these value exchanges do not happen on Twitter or even in public. Besides, how do you even quantify the series of events that leads someone to (for example) an Ivy League university, a job at McKinsey, a private equity firm, and eventually the top echelon of a company? There is a lot more to this than "opening your mouth" – in fact, "closing your mouth" is probably a better representation of the soft skills required for corporate success than "opening" it.
I bet if you tallied the executives of F500 companies, you would find a vast majority of them do not have a blog, or even a Twitter. And of those that do, you'd find most of them using it as an explicit asset (e.g. a VC tweeting for "thought leadership" that increases dealflow, a CSO building an audience to sell to, etc.). You will not find many of them tweeting personal political opinions, certainly none outside of the orthodoxy.
IMO, it's a miscalculation even to post thoughts aligned with the orthodoxy — you don't know how the environment will change. Five years from now, maybe we'll be cancelling all the people doing the cancelling today.
I bet if you tallied the executives of F500 companies, you would find a vast majority of them do not have a blog, or even a Twitter. And of those that do, you'd find most of them using it as an explicit asset (e.g. a VC tweeting for "thought leadership" that increases dealflow, a CSO building an audience to sell to, etc.). You will not find many of them tweeting personal political opinions, certainly none outside of the orthodoxy.
IMO, it's a miscalculation even to post thoughts aligned with the orthodoxy — you don't know how the environment will change. Five years from now, maybe we'll be cancelling all the people doing the cancelling today.
How do you think recruiters will find you if you dont self promote. How do you think you will compete with others in the same org when you dont talk about your achievements. Even best products and services needs great marketing to suceed. When you can talk about F500 executives, you should know that the auto company valued most in the world is run by a twitter troll thriving on attention and promotion.
What you talk about is what I would prefer the world to be, but the reality is everything depends on marketing and especially marketing in social media.
What you talk about is what I would prefer the world to be, but the reality is everything depends on marketing and especially marketing in social media.
But you aren't? The belief that posting on HN is qualitatively different from all other social media is truly extraordinary.
deanCommie(1)
This article or ones like it are, IMHO, long overdue. There is a bias online for people who are always online. It sounds obvious but "tech" companies and people online ignore or have a blind spot for people who remain offline. "Tech" companies and avid internet users generally see the world through their computers. If something is not represented online, then it is unlikely to register with them as being relevant. For example, as alluded to this by this Axios article, the opinions of people who do not express their opinions online.
It is rare to find someone online advising readers to ditch their pocket computers and disconnect their laptops. It would be like a newspaper pre-internet advising readers to stop buying newspapers. Therefore, everything read online must be weighed against this self-serving bias. Web traffic is the lifeblood of Google, Facebook and their ilk. If people go offline, the losses would be substantial. The civilised world can survive offline, as it did when many of us were born, and for centuries before, but Big Tech and their wannabes cannot. This is because, generally, they are only internediaries (middlemen). They sit on a computer network, observe and manipulate traffic of the people who use it. These companies want people online 24/7. As the article states only a minority of people have complied. Contrary to the title, this offline majority is neither new nor silent.
It is rare to find someone online advising readers to ditch their pocket computers and disconnect their laptops. It would be like a newspaper pre-internet advising readers to stop buying newspapers. Therefore, everything read online must be weighed against this self-serving bias. Web traffic is the lifeblood of Google, Facebook and their ilk. If people go offline, the losses would be substantial. The civilised world can survive offline, as it did when many of us were born, and for centuries before, but Big Tech and their wannabes cannot. This is because, generally, they are only internediaries (middlemen). They sit on a computer network, observe and manipulate traffic of the people who use it. These companies want people online 24/7. As the article states only a minority of people have complied. Contrary to the title, this offline majority is neither new nor silent.
It's an evolution on the Chattering Classes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes
[deleted]
I got my twitter account MyfirstnameMylastname somewhere early in the site's existence, probably around 2009. But never really got the appeal of Twitter so I never used it for anything, I'd check it once every six months or so.
I eventually learned I share a name with a tech journalist who is very active on Twitter, and occasionally I would get tagged instead instead of him. Every time, I would respond with the Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this.
And thus ended my Twitter adventure for good.
I eventually learned I share a name with a tech journalist who is very active on Twitter, and occasionally I would get tagged instead instead of him. Every time, I would respond with the Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this.
And thus ended my Twitter adventure for good.
>Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this
Fucking killjoys.
If twitter is moderating for people who can't even figure out not to take that copypasta seriously[1], then they're showing their hand. There's no end state. No goal. There is no cultural equilibrium point that even perfect moderation could ever achieve.
Therefore, visible attrition is the end state. Twitter has to satisfy the normies who want to be on the internet but don't understand the internet. The moderation is a con because it can't be anything else. Lying "we're working on it, see?" to the monied/powerful normies who's continued use keep Twitter's stock price out of the dumpster.
[1]: It's not that people should recognize copypasta, it's that people should recognize the words of an idiot. This meme became a meme because how well everyone recognized the earnest original author of that post couldn't be taken seriously.
Fucking killjoys.
If twitter is moderating for people who can't even figure out not to take that copypasta seriously[1], then they're showing their hand. There's no end state. No goal. There is no cultural equilibrium point that even perfect moderation could ever achieve.
Therefore, visible attrition is the end state. Twitter has to satisfy the normies who want to be on the internet but don't understand the internet. The moderation is a con because it can't be anything else. Lying "we're working on it, see?" to the monied/powerful normies who's continued use keep Twitter's stock price out of the dumpster.
[1]: It's not that people should recognize copypasta, it's that people should recognize the words of an idiot. This meme became a meme because how well everyone recognized the earnest original author of that post couldn't be taken seriously.
IMO it’s not unreasonable to ban users who are outliers in terms of complaints from other users.
It isn't workable. If you ban the 2% most complained about users there will still be a 2% most complained about users.
There should be something as close as possible to an objective standard of what is and isn't allowed.
There should be something as close as possible to an objective standard of what is and isn't allowed.
If you don't delete historic data when calculating outliers, you can avoid that problem. Or using a dozen other methods. You're describing an extreme strawman of an algorithm.
Do you have any evidence they are doing this? I rather think they are using a threshold like > 10 complaints in a certain time period.
Supposing they do use a threshold based on an absolute value, by what measure would they have chosen this value in the first place? How, when, and why would they review this value? In the end, if their decision process is based purely on a number, it will eventually become a popularity contest or an excluder of outliers. It's turtles all the way down.
[deleted]
everything is to be taken seriously (ie at face value) bc anything more than that would require agreement between those who disagree. (considered to be somewhat of a hard problem.)
>everything is to be taken seriously (ie at face value) bc anything more than that would require agreement between those who disagree.
That's backwards.
Everything should be seen as profoundly not-serious, for precisely the same reason.
That's backwards.
Everything should be seen as profoundly not-serious, for precisely the same reason.
> Every time, I would respond with the Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this.
yeah, people like you should be banned
yeah, people like you should be banned
Is this sarcasm? If not, I'd love to hear the rationale behind this, as to me this seems far less objectionable than lots of things which happen on mainstream Twitter.
I suppose the charitable argument for banning would be: it pollutes Twitter without extending any conversations or bringing anybody joy per se. Basically it's spam.
Certainly on HN that person would/should be banned right away (which is part of the reason HN is the best place on the internet).
But Twitter is a different animal. So are Reddit and 4Chan. Sarcastic copypasta is par for the course.
Certainly on HN that person would/should be banned right away (which is part of the reason HN is the best place on the internet).
But Twitter is a different animal. So are Reddit and 4Chan. Sarcastic copypasta is par for the course.
> it pollutes Twitter without extending any conversations or bringing anybody joy per se. Basically it's spam.
Looking from the outside, this is an accurate description of 99,99% of all messages ever written on twitter. Arguably, the copy pasted text can at least bring a bit of joy which other tweets also fail at.
Looking from the outside, this is an accurate description of 99,99% of all messages ever written on twitter. Arguably, the copy pasted text can at least bring a bit of joy which other tweets also fail at.
I'd never heard of "navy seal copypasta", so I googled it, and to my read, its very hard to see any >wink< >wink< in the text, which ends after a long screed, with threats of violence against the poster. So I think its reasonable to believe that maybe on of the people on the twitter abuse team didn't get the joke and instead saw what on its surface looks like a threat. I don't know twitter's ToS, but I'm guessing that if taken literally that text could violate them.
The part about "gorilla warfare" wasn't a hint?
There’s also the part about “you’re dead”, which is a crime. The one time someone assumes this is a joke and then something bad happens…
No, it wasn’t. There are plenty of people online who both a) can’t spell, and b) are unhinged enough to make genuine threats against a stranger’s life.
Consider that so many people do not care to preserve the environments of online public spaces. While the pollution of digital environments with semiotic trash is less tangible and persistent than the beer cans, cigarette butts, and used needles on the streets of our cities, can you really defend its production? What kinds of cultures, mindsets, and personalities would this breed?
Yes, there are far worse things. But let us hold ourselves to our own high standards and be proud.
Yes, there are far worse things. But let us hold ourselves to our own high standards and be proud.
One man's semiotic trash is another man's humorous treasure.
Note that I'm not saying that I'm a fan of low-quality posts like this, just that I feel that the lion's share of Twitter is low-quality posts, so it seems odd to single out a copy-pasta meme as being unworthy while allowing... well, the rest of Twitter.
Note that I'm not saying that I'm a fan of low-quality posts like this, just that I feel that the lion's share of Twitter is low-quality posts, so it seems odd to single out a copy-pasta meme as being unworthy while allowing... well, the rest of Twitter.
Should have pulled a KenM and just replied with extremely geriatric answers and explanations to everything
On the topic of geriatric twittering, the one time I did not respond with the navy seal copypasta was when some older high school sports coach tagged me instead of his student athlete with the same name (whose twitter handle was completely different). I felt like that would have been too confusing an experience for him.
User who is receiving unsolicited messages from strangers should be the one banned because he decides to respond with a little joke?
I think he spammed the same text every time. Definitely worthy of a ban for any community online or offline.
Spam is unsolicited. You don't get to message someone and cry "spam" when he replies.
Don't get emotionally invested in this. His messages are unsolicited even if they tagged his account. They are also irrelevant which makes them spam.
> also irrelevant
It sounds like you're saying that even if the messages were relevant, such as "you tagged the wrong account", that would be unsolicited?
A single burst of tweets is very solidly solicited when you tag someone, even if it was by mistake.
> Don't get emotionally invested in this.
What in the world do you mean by "emotionally invested"? That reads like a weird way of being unwarrantedly dismissive.
It sounds like you're saying that even if the messages were relevant, such as "you tagged the wrong account", that would be unsolicited?
A single burst of tweets is very solidly solicited when you tag someone, even if it was by mistake.
> Don't get emotionally invested in this.
What in the world do you mean by "emotionally invested"? That reads like a weird way of being unwarrantedly dismissive.
You're not the person I replied to. It was intended to be dismissive in response to "You don't get to message someone and cry "spam" when he replies.".
As for the response, it would be unsolicited by the fact the original tweeter did not ask/want a response from the Meme-ster. They tagged the wrong account.
Take this example:
John says to the person he thinks is Brad: I can't believe the weather today!
Emily says to John: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals.... etc....
John's reaction to Emily: WTF who the hell is this? Why is she saying these things to me?
Now imagine this happens to be a common mistake that multiple make and Emily responds in this way every time...
As for the response, it would be unsolicited by the fact the original tweeter did not ask/want a response from the Meme-ster. They tagged the wrong account.
Take this example:
John says to the person he thinks is Brad: I can't believe the weather today!
Emily says to John: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals.... etc....
John's reaction to Emily: WTF who the hell is this? Why is she saying these things to me?
Now imagine this happens to be a common mistake that multiple make and Emily responds in this way every time...
> Take this example
That's an example of a reply that is "unsolicited" and "also irrelevant", by your criteria.
I'm not trying to defend that combo here. You said such a screed is "also irrelevant", right?
That means even if a reply wasn't irrelevant, even if it was a useful response, it would still be unsolicited. Right?
Is that what you intended to say? Am I misreading something?
That's an example of a reply that is "unsolicited" and "also irrelevant", by your criteria.
I'm not trying to defend that combo here. You said such a screed is "also irrelevant", right?
That means even if a reply wasn't irrelevant, even if it was a useful response, it would still be unsolicited. Right?
Is that what you intended to say? Am I misreading something?
I think your understanding is affected by whatever definition of unsolicited is. Can you share your definition of solicited and unsolicited?
It's basically a synonym for invited. Or from a dictionary: "asked or invited to do, provide, or contribute to something". Unsolicited is the opposite.
If you send someone an invite to a discussion, they're invited, whether you meant to or not. At least long enough to send a single reply (which may be multiple tweets).
Whether their response is a polite "you tagged the wrong person" or some awful screed does not change whether a solicitation happened. Especially because tagging someone is not a request for any specific sort of reply.
Relatedly, if someone is eavesdropping in public and steps into a conversation to make the most wonderful helpful and loved comment in the world, doing that was still unsolicited.
If you send someone an invite to a discussion, they're invited, whether you meant to or not. At least long enough to send a single reply (which may be multiple tweets).
Whether their response is a polite "you tagged the wrong person" or some awful screed does not change whether a solicitation happened. Especially because tagging someone is not a request for any specific sort of reply.
Relatedly, if someone is eavesdropping in public and steps into a conversation to make the most wonderful helpful and loved comment in the world, doing that was still unsolicited.
I disagree completely. If you got a wedding invite to your address and name but you _knew_ it was intended for a person of the same name and similar address.. would you argue that you had a right to go to the wedding by the fact that you received an invite? Yes, it would be helpful for you to notify the sender that you got it by mistake but it doesn't mean you're invited and your message back to the sender wasn't requested because the whole thing happened by mistake.
Also tagging does not necessarily request a reply at all.
This is silly and will go in circles so I will finish by just saying.. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? ....
Also tagging does not necessarily request a reply at all.
This is silly and will go in circles so I will finish by just saying.. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? ....
Yeah I mean realistically, if I did challenge the ban and get them to unban me, I'd just immediately do the same thing again the next time I mistakenly got tagged lol
I don't think so. Banning strikes me as a disproportionate response. People can individually mute him if they want.
A little joke that ends in a death threat.
LOL, similar for me (2008, @FirstnameLastname) but I got banned early 2020 despite not tweeting.[0] I followed lots of CS people that I now have lost.
At least you got banned for doing something to annoy The Twitter.
[0] I appealed and was told I had evaded a previous ban! Obviously…no, no I didn't.
At least you got banned for doing something to annoy The Twitter.
[0] I appealed and was told I had evaded a previous ban! Obviously…no, no I didn't.
I suppose I could have just been randomly banned as well lol. I just assumed that was the reason because I never used it for anything else. They never gave me a reason and I never bothered to challenge it.
Is there something else to learn from this story besides not insulting people?
Yeah, actually a fundamental rule of comedy: always get the audience on your side. If they don't know you, aren't rooting for you, or think you're on the "wrong side", they will misinterpret your joke as a real insult. Comedians directly insult people all the time and get laughs, but only because the audience believes they're on the same side as the comedian.
True, but that's assuming my audience is the people I'm replying to!
Did nobody read the entire copypasta? What comedian jokes using death threats?
To quote Achmed, the dead terrorist: "Silence, I kill you!"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xKlehf_4rRg
It's not only a death threat, it appears to be said by a committed terrorist. ;)
On a more serious note: humor, satire and sarcasm are typically super hard to categorize, especially at scale. It's an unsolved problem.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xKlehf_4rRg
It's not only a death threat, it appears to be said by a committed terrorist. ;)
On a more serious note: humor, satire and sarcasm are typically super hard to categorize, especially at scale. It's an unsolved problem.
[deleted]
I didn’t expect such a constructive reply, thanks!
Twitter is the fastest way for me to feel like I'm a completely worthless human being, especially in the tech sector.
It overwhelmingly emphasizes the following, from my experience:
1. If you are not famous, you don't matter. 2. Front-end engineers are invariably the most important and skillful, and backend engineers really aren't valuable. 3. If you hold any position that's even accidentally politically incorrect, you will be publicly shamed for it, and some people are quite relentless at bringing up tiny past mistakes.
Overall, it seems like a fairly useless space unless you can take advantage of the above 3, or if you want to have the lowest self-esteem possible as rapidly as possible.
It overwhelmingly emphasizes the following, from my experience:
1. If you are not famous, you don't matter. 2. Front-end engineers are invariably the most important and skillful, and backend engineers really aren't valuable. 3. If you hold any position that's even accidentally politically incorrect, you will be publicly shamed for it, and some people are quite relentless at bringing up tiny past mistakes.
Overall, it seems like a fairly useless space unless you can take advantage of the above 3, or if you want to have the lowest self-esteem possible as rapidly as possible.
> 3. If you hold any position that's even accidentally politically incorrect, you will be publicly shamed for it, and some people are quite relentless at bringing up tiny past mistakes.
A friend got disinvited from speaking at an NLP convention, not because of something he said or did, but because his employer was tangentially related to national security contracts. Of course, the person that organized the dis-invite also used it as an opportunity to get themselves ahead.
A friend got disinvited from speaking at an NLP convention, not because of something he said or did, but because his employer was tangentially related to national security contracts. Of course, the person that organized the dis-invite also used it as an opportunity to get themselves ahead.
Wait a minute what kind of NLP you talking about here?
I'm not a fan of twitter either, mainly for reason (3). It is a platform where it's very easy to be publically shamed in an unproportional manner.
In comparison, forums like hacker news and reddit don't focus on the person writing, but focuses on the conversation. People can respond in a mean way (unfortunately) to a comment, but not "to the person", it doesn't have the same dynamic. The potential for huge reach of any single tweet is a big factor in giving twitter this bad dynamic.
That we feel relatively safe to have conversations, to try arguments and to sometimes be wrong about stuff is healthy. Maybe I'm confused and wrong about what I'm writing in this comment. Someone will tell me, but I'll live. :)
In comparison, forums like hacker news and reddit don't focus on the person writing, but focuses on the conversation. People can respond in a mean way (unfortunately) to a comment, but not "to the person", it doesn't have the same dynamic. The potential for huge reach of any single tweet is a big factor in giving twitter this bad dynamic.
That we feel relatively safe to have conversations, to try arguments and to sometimes be wrong about stuff is healthy. Maybe I'm confused and wrong about what I'm writing in this comment. Someone will tell me, but I'll live. :)
the point you are making here is spot on but woefully under acknowledged imo
the conversational semantics of twitter and hn/reddit are completely different; the underlying models can be seen as formally -and sharply- distinct.
the conversational semantics of twitter and hn/reddit are completely different; the underlying models can be seen as formally -and sharply- distinct.
> Front-end engineers are invariably the most important and skillful, and backend engineers really aren't valuable.
Heh, that's interesting. I didn't see a whole lot of that on Twitter (though I kinda see what you mean), but I did know a senior engineer that referred to front-end engineers as "finger-painters".
I think both camps probably kinda looks down on the other a bit. (But I guess the frontend camp is louder on Twitter?)
Heh, that's interesting. I didn't see a whole lot of that on Twitter (though I kinda see what you mean), but I did know a senior engineer that referred to front-end engineers as "finger-painters".
I think both camps probably kinda looks down on the other a bit. (But I guess the frontend camp is louder on Twitter?)
Regardless of what they think I'm still thankful for front-enders. CSS / UI-design/layout...people that enjoy that sorta thing are great because it means I don't have to do it. Maybe they feel the same way about backend work. Whatever, it all works out!
Yeah plus it is a sign of security. It is so much easier and more reasonable to trust a UI that is pixel-perfect throughout all transformations than a glitchy one (the glitch might be farther down the stack). It's just like trusting a bank with impeccable marble in the lobby over one with crappy construction, it tells you how thorough they are about everything else.
>2. Front-end engineers are invariably the most important and skillful, and backend engineers really aren't valuable.
As mainly a back end developer, I find this statement the opposite of reality. :) Good thing I don't post on Twitter.
As mainly a back end developer, I find this statement the opposite of reality. :) Good thing I don't post on Twitter.
I'm in that group. I've consciously cut out Facebook and Twitter in part because of the toxic echo chambers they've become. HN is about the only place I'll wade in sometimes because the level of discourse seems higher.
A little rabbit trail though: Looking at the graph in the article, I'm wondering if US isn't ripe for a party system change. It's not _always_ been Republican vs Democrat in our history. Both sides are incentivized away from supporting a 3rd party out of fear it will help the "other side" and primary systems etc. have entrenched the current 2 party system. But with such great and growing discontent, I wonder if a switch like from Whigs or the handful of other parties won't eventually happen.
A little rabbit trail though: Looking at the graph in the article, I'm wondering if US isn't ripe for a party system change. It's not _always_ been Republican vs Democrat in our history. Both sides are incentivized away from supporting a 3rd party out of fear it will help the "other side" and primary systems etc. have entrenched the current 2 party system. But with such great and growing discontent, I wonder if a switch like from Whigs or the handful of other parties won't eventually happen.
The problem is that "first past the post" voting systems inevitably lead to two party dominance.
Change the voting system across a super majority of elections and we will likely get additional parties. But until then third party votes are wasted, and the Republican and Democratic parties are against changing the system
Change the voting system across a super majority of elections and we will likely get additional parties. But until then third party votes are wasted, and the Republican and Democratic parties are against changing the system
Personally I was encouraged by
> In Gallup's 2021 polling, 29% of Americans identified as Democrats ... 27% as Republicans ... and 42% as independents.
Politics is a dirty but necessary business, and for many of us it's far better to keep parties at arm's length. Of course you can still donate to your favorite candidates regardless. In open-primary states like texas it isn't even necessary to join up, should you feel a need to contribute to certain lesser evils.
> In Gallup's 2021 polling, 29% of Americans identified as Democrats ... 27% as Republicans ... and 42% as independents.
Politics is a dirty but necessary business, and for many of us it's far better to keep parties at arm's length. Of course you can still donate to your favorite candidates regardless. In open-primary states like texas it isn't even necessary to join up, should you feel a need to contribute to certain lesser evils.
> Politics is a dirty but necessary business, and for many of us it’s far better to keep parties at arm’s length.
Studies of voting behavior pretty consistently show that self-identified independents are, on average, either equally or very nearly equally reliably partisan in voting as those who identify with one major party or the other.
Studies of voting behavior pretty consistently show that self-identified independents are, on average, either equally or very nearly equally reliably partisan in voting as those who identify with one major party or the other.
I suspect that there are a LOT of disaffected Republicans who are conservative but not Trumpian authoritarians. In the same way, there are a LOT of disaffected Democrats who are liberals but not woke/cancel culture social justice warriors. So, yeah, I agree - there's room for a new party.
As a European, comments of this nature confuse me a little. This comments suggests an equivalency. But from this side of the pond I haven't seen the Democrats you describe actually in power and implementing policy. Can't say that about the other side. So why would any Democrats who are liberal but not "woke" be frustrated since those elements of their party wield little if any influence.
As an American, I'll try to explain how our two parties (and their voters) work in practice.
The Left (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural.
The Right (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural.
The Left votes for the Democratic Party. The Right votes for the Republican Party. Independents mostly vote one way or another, and a small percentage vote for whoever seems most moderate that particular election.
When governing, the Democratic Party works with the Republican Party to implement:
1. The cultural platform of the Left.
2. The economic platform of the Right.
The cultural platform of the Right and the economic platform of the Left are not implemented.
The Left calls the Democratic-Republican Establishment the "corporate" party and believes the country has moved strongly to the Right over the last 40 years. (They are focusing on the fact that the economic platform of the Right is being implemented.)
The Right calls the Democratic-Republican Establishment the "uniparty" and believes the country has moved strongly to the Left over the last 40 years. (They are focusing on the fact that the cultural platform of the Left is being implemented.)
This is a stable political system because neither a Left voter nor a Right voter wants to vote for the other party, because then they wouldn't even be getting half of what they want! The Democratic-Republican Establishment doesn't care who people vote for, because it wins either way. The important thing is for voters to believe their vote matters—even though it actually doesn't.
The key result is that neither the Left's economic platform nor the Right's cultural platform are ever implemented. (A few legacy cultural issues on the Right, e.g. 2nd Amendment gun rights, still exist. Same with pre-WW2 economic issues on the Left.)
Hope this helps!
The Left (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural.
The Right (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural.
The Left votes for the Democratic Party. The Right votes for the Republican Party. Independents mostly vote one way or another, and a small percentage vote for whoever seems most moderate that particular election.
When governing, the Democratic Party works with the Republican Party to implement:
1. The cultural platform of the Left.
2. The economic platform of the Right.
The cultural platform of the Right and the economic platform of the Left are not implemented.
The Left calls the Democratic-Republican Establishment the "corporate" party and believes the country has moved strongly to the Right over the last 40 years. (They are focusing on the fact that the economic platform of the Right is being implemented.)
The Right calls the Democratic-Republican Establishment the "uniparty" and believes the country has moved strongly to the Left over the last 40 years. (They are focusing on the fact that the cultural platform of the Left is being implemented.)
This is a stable political system because neither a Left voter nor a Right voter wants to vote for the other party, because then they wouldn't even be getting half of what they want! The Democratic-Republican Establishment doesn't care who people vote for, because it wins either way. The important thing is for voters to believe their vote matters—even though it actually doesn't.
The key result is that neither the Left's economic platform nor the Right's cultural platform are ever implemented. (A few legacy cultural issues on the Right, e.g. 2nd Amendment gun rights, still exist. Same with pre-WW2 economic issues on the Left.)
Hope this helps!
Razor sharp analysis, well done.
From my European perspective, I've always considered the Democrats to be a right wing party. Things implemented in other advanced economies decades ago, the very basics of progressive policy, are just nowhere to be seen: a livable minimum wage, universal healthcare, affordable schooling, employment protection, the like.
In other countries, this isn't even called progressive, just "basics". Not even right wing parties try to abolish or undo this foundation.
We do see that media is far more left than the actual population, which is typically center to center-right. The way I see it, the population of almost any developed country is center-right. It makes sense when you think about it. Due to the population pyramid, most people are middle-aged or older. They're already planning for the exit so they want to protect whatever they got. No funny stuff.
The young want to change everything but that's easy when you have no responsibilities or stake in the game. As soon as they acquire the basics of life, they'll join the rest, and try to protect it.
That is the gigantic failure of the left, the inability to connect with the vast majority of the population. Here in Europe, the left has abandoned the (white) working class somewhere in the late nineties, and they've been failing ever since.
From my European perspective, I've always considered the Democrats to be a right wing party. Things implemented in other advanced economies decades ago, the very basics of progressive policy, are just nowhere to be seen: a livable minimum wage, universal healthcare, affordable schooling, employment protection, the like.
In other countries, this isn't even called progressive, just "basics". Not even right wing parties try to abolish or undo this foundation.
We do see that media is far more left than the actual population, which is typically center to center-right. The way I see it, the population of almost any developed country is center-right. It makes sense when you think about it. Due to the population pyramid, most people are middle-aged or older. They're already planning for the exit so they want to protect whatever they got. No funny stuff.
The young want to change everything but that's easy when you have no responsibilities or stake in the game. As soon as they acquire the basics of life, they'll join the rest, and try to protect it.
That is the gigantic failure of the left, the inability to connect with the vast majority of the population. Here in Europe, the left has abandoned the (white) working class somewhere in the late nineties, and they've been failing ever since.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Interesting points. I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I can see the other side easily.
The most recent example I think is when prompted to nominate a supreme court justice, the Democratic president openly said that he would do so with a particular skin tone and gender in mind. That is to say even if he found a better candidate, if they didn't have the type of skin or genitals he preferred, he would not nominate them on that basis.
What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I think.
What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I think.
But the crack pipe thing was completely made up.
And that criticism of the supreme court thing depends on the belief that ability can be narrowed down to a single quantity and he isn't picking out of a bunch of basically equally qualified candidates. I'd disagree with that.
And that criticism of the supreme court thing depends on the belief that ability can be narrowed down to a single quantity and he isn't picking out of a bunch of basically equally qualified candidates. I'd disagree with that.
> But the crack pipe thing was completely made up.
Can you let the New York Times know?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...
Can you let the New York Times know?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...
> there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes
> the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,”
Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.
> the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,”
Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.
What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean? They provide a definition for under resourced:
"Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors:
• By race
• By ethnicity
• By gender (including transgender populations)
• By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...
"Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors:
• By race
• By ethnicity
• By gender (including transgender populations)
• By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...
> What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean?
Is that a real single quote from somewhere, or is that quoting things from entirely different sections? I see safe smoking kits in the big list of harm reduction equipment. But that list of under-resourced populations is over in the "Addressing Behavioral Health Disparities" section, and is next to the list of social determinants of health:
• Economic Stability
• Education Access and Quality
• Health Care Access and Quality
• Neighborhood and Built Environment
• Social and Community Context
Tracking those sets of data seem like a good way to make sure no subgroups are getting missed, including "groups of people who have systematically experienced greater obstacles to health".
Singling out one of those nine separate factors and acting like the "equity" goal is focused on bad behavior, and possibly even encouraging it, rather than "ensuring that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible", is a pretty misleading way to talk about this program.
Also "A safe smoking kit may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm, other materials to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and hepatitis"
Is that a real single quote from somewhere, or is that quoting things from entirely different sections? I see safe smoking kits in the big list of harm reduction equipment. But that list of under-resourced populations is over in the "Addressing Behavioral Health Disparities" section, and is next to the list of social determinants of health:
• Economic Stability
• Education Access and Quality
• Health Care Access and Quality
• Neighborhood and Built Environment
• Social and Community Context
Tracking those sets of data seem like a good way to make sure no subgroups are getting missed, including "groups of people who have systematically experienced greater obstacles to health".
Singling out one of those nine separate factors and acting like the "equity" goal is focused on bad behavior, and possibly even encouraging it, rather than "ensuring that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible", is a pretty misleading way to talk about this program.
Also "A safe smoking kit may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm, other materials to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and hepatitis"
From the New York Times article linked above:
> Some harm reduction programs do include sterile pipes — which are used for smoking methamphetamine and fentanyl as well as crack cocaine — in such kits, with the intent of preventing infectious disease or injury in drug users who might otherwise rely on contaminated paraphernalia.
> Some harm reduction programs do include sterile pipes — which are used for smoking methamphetamine and fentanyl as well as crack cocaine — in such kits, with the intent of preventing infectious disease or injury in drug users who might otherwise rely on contaminated paraphernalia.
Perhaps evidenced by my use of a throwaway, let me give a personal example
For most of my life, I identified and voted largely democrat. Over the last 5-10 years I've found myself far more independent aligned due in part to the issues mentioned of the parent poster. Some of the points of conflict include affirmative action. I am fully supportive of helping underprivileged groups, dedicated funding and corrective policy changes to remove things keeping them down, but do not think explicit affirmative action is the right way to go about that, and in fact feel it weakens ones position and seems clearly hypocritical from one ostensibly seeking equality.
I also take a broad issue with the sheer amount of effort the democrats have focused on issues of identity as opposed to class. Not that one should ignore the former, but I find the latter to be a far more central, immediate, and critical issue that needs addressing, and that the way the democrats are implementing their approach to the former, like their position on affirmative action, is instead driving a wedge and fighting against their best intentions.
For most of my life, I identified and voted largely democrat. Over the last 5-10 years I've found myself far more independent aligned due in part to the issues mentioned of the parent poster. Some of the points of conflict include affirmative action. I am fully supportive of helping underprivileged groups, dedicated funding and corrective policy changes to remove things keeping them down, but do not think explicit affirmative action is the right way to go about that, and in fact feel it weakens ones position and seems clearly hypocritical from one ostensibly seeking equality.
I also take a broad issue with the sheer amount of effort the democrats have focused on issues of identity as opposed to class. Not that one should ignore the former, but I find the latter to be a far more central, immediate, and critical issue that needs addressing, and that the way the democrats are implementing their approach to the former, like their position on affirmative action, is instead driving a wedge and fighting against their best intentions.
> I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist.
I don't think there are any, but a lot of "independents" are fundamentally moderate and Democrats typically have a lower party-id than Republicans, so they need more independents to break their way to win a national election, hence "distancing" from far-Left/woke positions at election time.
Biden, for instance, made "equity" his priority literally Day 1 in office, and that's a "woke" position. It has only hurt him with voters on the Right, who don't like the Left's cultural platform anyway and can be ignored.
Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). Republicans mostly just occasionally vote Libertarian, but there's also the occasional Tea Party if the Left gets anything that even looks like a win on economics.
I don't think there are any, but a lot of "independents" are fundamentally moderate and Democrats typically have a lower party-id than Republicans, so they need more independents to break their way to win a national election, hence "distancing" from far-Left/woke positions at election time.
Biden, for instance, made "equity" his priority literally Day 1 in office, and that's a "woke" position. It has only hurt him with voters on the Right, who don't like the Left's cultural platform anyway and can be ignored.
Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). Republicans mostly just occasionally vote Libertarian, but there's also the occasional Tea Party if the Left gets anything that even looks like a win on economics.
> It has only hurt him with voters on the Right
Unless you are referring to the Democratic neoliberal center-right, which has been and remains Biden’s main base of support (and I don’t think you are), Biden didn’t have any support on the Right to start with.
> Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.).
That’s why the strongest minor party in the US is…the right-libertarian (with candidates frequently ex- and/or future-Republican candidates) Libertarian Party. The DSA isn’t a third party, and the Green Party is smaller (in both membership and, at 0, elected state-level or higher representation, than the Libertarian Party (also the Independence Party of New York, and the Independent Party of Oregon, and on at least one and possibly both than the Vermont Progressive Party; it is also recognized in fewer states than the Libertarian Party.
The Right is more active in politics in general in the US, more active in major party politics in the US, and more active outside of major party politics in the US.
Unless you are referring to the Democratic neoliberal center-right, which has been and remains Biden’s main base of support (and I don’t think you are), Biden didn’t have any support on the Right to start with.
> Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.).
That’s why the strongest minor party in the US is…the right-libertarian (with candidates frequently ex- and/or future-Republican candidates) Libertarian Party. The DSA isn’t a third party, and the Green Party is smaller (in both membership and, at 0, elected state-level or higher representation, than the Libertarian Party (also the Independence Party of New York, and the Independent Party of Oregon, and on at least one and possibly both than the Vermont Progressive Party; it is also recognized in fewer states than the Libertarian Party.
The Right is more active in politics in general in the US, more active in major party politics in the US, and more active outside of major party politics in the US.
[deleted]
This is really helpful thanks, you've articulated it so well it seems like it was obvious the whole time
I have a different problem with Twitter: the mechanics of using it keep getting worse. Once upon a time you could read Twitter without logging in. This meant that one could communicate via Twitter to anyone without much friction. Now Twitter is barely functional logged out, and even making an account just to read Twitter is a hassle: you need to give an email address and then get persistent nagged. Twitter wants verification and phone number, it sends spam (I mean helpful links to content), and it generally tries to drive engagement in a way that drives away users.
In short, people who want to have readers want a platform that makes reading easy. Twitter is no longer that platform.
In short, people who want to have readers want a platform that makes reading easy. Twitter is no longer that platform.
Nitter.net is a life saver for this.
In analyzing my personal motivations and looking at "common sense" knowledge and psych research on the topic, I've come to the conclusion that we gain a lot of motivational energy from others. We live in worlds of stories and narratives, and those narratives are strengthened when mirrored and shared by others. If someone notices or sees my work or praises me for my work, it is a strong signal to my brain that it's on the right track.
It was embarrassing for me to admit this, but I've found it to be a running thread throughout my educational and work career. I suspect it dominates my brain more because of early childhood experiences more, but I'm unsure because it seems taboo to admit to craving acceptance or acknowledgement.
Once I began admitting it to myself, it became a big part of what drives my growth. I now know the impact that accountability has on my success. I'd rather feel slightly embarrassed for wanting people to see my toy projects than limit my personal trajectory out of fear. I am mindful of depending on others for validation, and I try to strike a healthy balance between wanting to impress others and wanting to impress myself.
Apropos to the topic at hand, I'm using Twitter and Observable to "learn in public". I don't expect or intend to become an influencer. I just know that I can leverage the dopamine hits of upvotes and likes and retweets for my personal growth. I'm a social animal that needs to have his efforts directed through shared structures of meaning. So far, I've leveraged that in multiple areas to great effect.
It was embarrassing for me to admit this, but I've found it to be a running thread throughout my educational and work career. I suspect it dominates my brain more because of early childhood experiences more, but I'm unsure because it seems taboo to admit to craving acceptance or acknowledgement.
Once I began admitting it to myself, it became a big part of what drives my growth. I now know the impact that accountability has on my success. I'd rather feel slightly embarrassed for wanting people to see my toy projects than limit my personal trajectory out of fear. I am mindful of depending on others for validation, and I try to strike a healthy balance between wanting to impress others and wanting to impress myself.
Apropos to the topic at hand, I'm using Twitter and Observable to "learn in public". I don't expect or intend to become an influencer. I just know that I can leverage the dopamine hits of upvotes and likes and retweets for my personal growth. I'm a social animal that needs to have his efforts directed through shared structures of meaning. So far, I've leveraged that in multiple areas to great effect.
I'm kind of the same way, but I don't have a Twitter account, and haven't really ever had one. I have a private chat server with other people who make things and share them with each other. It's tacitly understood that we support each other's work and provide constructive feedback. Not to mention emojis. It's nice, gives me the brain chemicals I need, and I don't need to get exposed to Twitter. So, if you are hesitant about Twitter for any other reason, I'm here to say that you can learn in public without it.
That's a great lower-stakes way to approach it. I turned to Twitter because of the threading and big computer science community.
I think the vital part is the aspect of accountability. Even just committing to updating a friend on progress and asking them to keep you to your word helps. I've found it hard to get people to do that work because it sometimes requires shifting from "friend" to "boss" mode. I don't really think it's fair to put my loved ones in that position lol
I think the vital part is the aspect of accountability. Even just committing to updating a friend on progress and asking them to keep you to your word helps. I've found it hard to get people to do that work because it sometimes requires shifting from "friend" to "boss" mode. I don't really think it's fair to put my loved ones in that position lol
BTW, your observable profile link is broken
Woops! Fixed. Thanks for taking the time to let me know :)
Among the best mental health decisions of my life is to get rid of Twitter from my everyday life. I still have an account (the only reason to delete it would be as a sign of protect, but I don't care, and Twitter doesn't care that I don't care). I do not visit the site on my own. There's just so much negativity, cruelty, and stupid thoughts. How can anyone post anything insightful, nuanced, and worth reading with such a character limit?
I realized that interesting tweets (or rather, Twitter threads) have a way of finding me through other means. That's the only time I visit Twitter.
I'm ok on missing out on ideas that do not find me through other means. The vomit to caviar ratio on Twitter is way too high.
I realized that interesting tweets (or rather, Twitter threads) have a way of finding me through other means. That's the only time I visit Twitter.
I'm ok on missing out on ideas that do not find me through other means. The vomit to caviar ratio on Twitter is way too high.
25% of Americans sometimes tweet? That seems very high. I only know a couple of people who use Twitter...
It is. The statistic the article is actually referencing is that ~25%, "use twitter"[0]. That most likely indicates they at least open Twitter. Another post from the same site, the article references, has the headline that about 10% of those create 80% of the content[1]. Bottom-line a fraction of 25% sometimes tweet.
[0]https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
[0]https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
Yeah, I have to use twitter sometimes to check for immediate status bulletins from certain companies. I just hold my nose, check their stream, and immediately exit.
And, of course, sometimes I accidently click on a link on HN that points to Twitter without realizing it, and I have to NOPE back out as fast as possible.
And, of course, sometimes I accidently click on a link on HN that points to Twitter without realizing it, and I have to NOPE back out as fast as possible.
The actual poll seems to ask "ever used". I believe that 25% of Americans have every used Twitter. I believe the number is probably much higher since "ever used" could mean anything from tweeted to seen a tweet.
If that Pew Research survey is there only source (it's the one they link when they make the claim) it looks like 25% of Americans use twitter. But that doesn't mean that 25% actually makes tweets. It's probably possible to cross that with public twitter numbers on active tweeters, but I've heard 1% make 99% of the tweets before, and in my own experience that seems accurate.
Most people I know who use twitter use it to stay up to date with creators they care about.
Most people I know who use twitter use it to stay up to date with creators they care about.
[deleted]
I had one ten years ago when I was a teenager. I wonder if I'm part of that "sometimes tweets" category.
I've been using Twitter for something like 12 years now. I can count on one hand the number of actual positive interactions I've had in the last couple years. I'm my experience you can't even ask people mildly pointed questions anymore without getting blocked.
You can't even try to start a conversation anymore. It's just person makes grand sweeping statment. You cheer them on, ignore them, or get blocked. It's not a healthy environment. It's just grandstanding.
It used to feel really democratizing, anyone could comment on anything. Now between people only allowing people they follow to reply and the percentage of harmless to innate comments that get hidden behind "Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content" it really doesn't feel like it once was.
In their attempts to make it more "friendly", they both made it less friendly and killed the value proposition. It's just a place to build a cult of personality these days.
You can't even try to start a conversation anymore. It's just person makes grand sweeping statment. You cheer them on, ignore them, or get blocked. It's not a healthy environment. It's just grandstanding.
It used to feel really democratizing, anyone could comment on anything. Now between people only allowing people they follow to reply and the percentage of harmless to innate comments that get hidden behind "Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content" it really doesn't feel like it once was.
In their attempts to make it more "friendly", they both made it less friendly and killed the value proposition. It's just a place to build a cult of personality these days.
I don't think twitter was made for interactions, but interactions drive engagement metrics, so twitter optimizes for interaction.
I am using twitter since 2008, and I have like 5 interactions per year. I unfollow noisy people. 3 tweets a day? You are too noisy. I also do not hit the like or retweet buttons a lot.
Around events I follow some extra accounts (Ukraine) that are noisy. Then unfollow at some point.
I am using twitter since 2008, and I have like 5 interactions per year. I unfollow noisy people. 3 tweets a day? You are too noisy. I also do not hit the like or retweet buttons a lot.
Around events I follow some extra accounts (Ukraine) that are noisy. Then unfollow at some point.
Doesn't seem it would be an issue worth discussing except in the marketing department of twitter if the media would get over their addiction to sitting at their computers and interpreting the world through tweets they see posted. There's no good reason why Twitter should be considered the default human communication medium but this "silent majority" is only seen as an aberration because of this assumption that Twitter is where one should go when seeking a representative sample of society. There's also a silent majority of people who don't use tiktok but no one outside of tiktok thinks that's a problem.
The problem with Twitter is simple.
If someone agrees with a post, they “like” it. If someone disagrees, they tweet in response. This was the ONLY option until a few weeks ago with the rollout of the downvote button, so we will see if downvoting changes this dynamic.
Suppose a tweet gets 90 likes, and 10 negative responses. That’s 90% positive response. But if someone clicks on the tweet, they’ll see the one original tweet followed by 10 disagreeable posts, which can make it seem like fringe ideas are actually much more mainstream.
If someone agrees with a post, they “like” it. If someone disagrees, they tweet in response. This was the ONLY option until a few weeks ago with the rollout of the downvote button, so we will see if downvoting changes this dynamic.
Suppose a tweet gets 90 likes, and 10 negative responses. That’s 90% positive response. But if someone clicks on the tweet, they’ll see the one original tweet followed by 10 disagreeable posts, which can make it seem like fringe ideas are actually much more mainstream.
I agree. This is an astute observation, and I think it applies to any online discussion system.
I know this isn't the main takeaway from the article, but I'm highly suspect of the "independence" of voters claiming to be independent. This is merely anecdote, but many people I know who claim to be independent are really just "aspirationally-independent". The like to think of themselves as open-minded and independent, but when they vote, they vote one way, and one way only. Looking into it a bit, this is not uncommon: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-americans-who-ident... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/0....
I kept Twitter to "advertise" when I write technical blogs which I do very little of these days due to time.
I follow a bunch of tech type stuff I'm interested in, but honestly, it's become more of a place to vent and whine about this or that.
When I step back and look at it from afar, it's kinda what Facebook was when I left it a decade or so ago; people whining, and any subject worth commenting on is too controversial to do on the likes of Twitter where nuance is easily lost in so few characters.
I see no real need for me to be on Twitter anymore. I'm not on any other social networks aside from linkedin, which also seems to have lost its professional focus.
I follow a bunch of tech type stuff I'm interested in, but honestly, it's become more of a place to vent and whine about this or that.
When I step back and look at it from afar, it's kinda what Facebook was when I left it a decade or so ago; people whining, and any subject worth commenting on is too controversial to do on the likes of Twitter where nuance is easily lost in so few characters.
I see no real need for me to be on Twitter anymore. I'm not on any other social networks aside from linkedin, which also seems to have lost its professional focus.
It is a sign of the trying times we live in that I saw the extra "z"s in your post and instead of assuming a typo, I immediately think of Russian hackers infiltrating this platform.
Hehe the truth is much less nefarious; I was typing this on mobile, my 2 year old was climbing on me as I type and my wife was calling us both to hurry up and get to the dinner table, or else!
Edit: and to explain why z's, it's exactly above the comma "," on my Android phone (Gboard), and it's easy to miss when you can't see!
Edit: and to explain why z's, it's exactly above the comma "," on my Android phone (Gboard), and it's easy to miss when you can't see!
While we're on the subject of things with horrible UX (Twitter), why is there no forward slash on GBoard as a long-press alternative but there is a backslash?!
[deleted]
I always think of the ratio of 90% consume, 9% contribute, and 1% create. This is a phenomenon on wikipedia, GitHub, twitter, and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
The big question is...what side do you want to be on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
The big question is...what side do you want to be on?
On larger platforms, the ratio is probably far closer to 90%, 9.85%, 0.15%.
I've seen this ratio at Google+[1] and again on a recently-shuttered Diaspora instance (520 MUAs of 350k total profiles).
There's a very strong power law between the number of presentations of content and the number of accounts reaching that level.
Facebook sees ~5 billion-with-a-b "pieces" of content (I'm presuming these are posts, comments, images, or videos, though given other engagement-inflation, might and quite possibly do also include likes or reshares), per day. The top daily shares ... are typically in the millions-to-tens-of-millions range.[2] This is also typical of any winner-takes-all metric and follows from the inherent limits of population attention and time. Social media seems to occupy ~45 minutes/day for many people, and if you start dividing out 2,700 seconds among messages, there are only so many messages a typical person can read or view in a day: 10 is 270s (4.5 minutes) each, 100 is 27 seconds, 1,000 is 2.7 seconds. I suspect for most people, the number is in the 10--50 range.
It's not so much whether or not you want to be a producer or consumer. It's whether or not the channel is providing relevant, useful, accurate, and actionable information. For the most part, social media probably doesn't.
________________________________
Notes:
1. See: https://blogs.perficient.com/2015/04/14/real-numbers-for-the... That's based on a 500k+ true random sample of profiles, and is based on my own earlier work based on 50k+ randomly-sampled profiles.
2. There are a few "most popular on Facebook" sites which track the top shares for a given day. I'm not aware of specific systematic tracking over time, though that of course all but certainly exists.
I've seen this ratio at Google+[1] and again on a recently-shuttered Diaspora instance (520 MUAs of 350k total profiles).
There's a very strong power law between the number of presentations of content and the number of accounts reaching that level.
Facebook sees ~5 billion-with-a-b "pieces" of content (I'm presuming these are posts, comments, images, or videos, though given other engagement-inflation, might and quite possibly do also include likes or reshares), per day. The top daily shares ... are typically in the millions-to-tens-of-millions range.[2] This is also typical of any winner-takes-all metric and follows from the inherent limits of population attention and time. Social media seems to occupy ~45 minutes/day for many people, and if you start dividing out 2,700 seconds among messages, there are only so many messages a typical person can read or view in a day: 10 is 270s (4.5 minutes) each, 100 is 27 seconds, 1,000 is 2.7 seconds. I suspect for most people, the number is in the 10--50 range.
It's not so much whether or not you want to be a producer or consumer. It's whether or not the channel is providing relevant, useful, accurate, and actionable information. For the most part, social media probably doesn't.
________________________________
Notes:
1. See: https://blogs.perficient.com/2015/04/14/real-numbers-for-the... That's based on a 500k+ true random sample of profiles, and is based on my own earlier work based on 50k+ randomly-sampled profiles.
2. There are a few "most popular on Facebook" sites which track the top shares for a given day. I'm not aware of specific systematic tracking over time, though that of course all but certainly exists.
Nothing gets you high like creating.
Silent majority....of what, Axios? Twitter users? Article never says.
> 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
The above is also a link in the article, which if you follow it, it states
> roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they ever use any kind of social media site
How many people over 12 in the US actually even have a Twitter account? I doubt it's even 15%. According to the source the article linked to, about 70% use NO social media. I know twitter is popular with the HN crowd, but only 2 people I know actually use it and they only use it for business accounts. In my family, there are 7 younger people between 15-30. 0 use Twitter. They use instagram and snapchat mostly.
> 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
The above is also a link in the article, which if you follow it, it states
> roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they ever use any kind of social media site
How many people over 12 in the US actually even have a Twitter account? I doubt it's even 15%. According to the source the article linked to, about 70% use NO social media. I know twitter is popular with the HN crowd, but only 2 people I know actually use it and they only use it for business accounts. In my family, there are 7 younger people between 15-30. 0 use Twitter. They use instagram and snapchat mostly.
> > roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they ever use any kind of social media site
...
> According to the source the article linked to, about 70% use NO social media.
I think you misread. It says "ever use," not "never use." So 70% do use social media.
...
> According to the source the article linked to, about 70% use NO social media.
I think you misread. It says "ever use," not "never use." So 70% do use social media.
Like others have mentioned, even if you just want to use twitter to follow other engineers or designers etc.. Twitter will invariably find a way to show you their annoying political takes, and other from people they liked or are even vaguely connected. I was on Twitter for a little while about 10 years ago now for the same reason, but then ditched it in 2015/16 when I started seeing this happen more. Everyone wanted social points for shitting on whoever was deemed to be on the wrong side of history or whatever it was then. I used the t ruby cli for twitter and backed up my lists of follows and followers, then unfollowed everyone without deactivating my account. Interestingly, even while following nobody, I still got the same shit in my feed. I eventually did an official twitter backup (which is admittedly quite a good offline webapp), and deleted the account, because fuck that place. My approach was the digital version of tossing all your potentially useful possessions in a bag and putting it in a storage locker; if you don't think to go and get it for a year, toss it in the garbage.
Don't use Twitter. It's rigged to piss you off. Use federated microblogging and join a like minded instance. I don't know about web 3.0 but the former is very appealing and works ok.
How to discover these instances? I would imagine that downside of this approach would be the danger of existing only within certain bubbles and never being exposed to different point of view.
if you're interested in checking out mastodon, here's a recommender system
https://instances.social/
https://instances.social/
I wish someone would go around interviewing reporters like this writer and ask "How long did it take for you to realize that Twitter is not real life? Why do you think you were mislead for so long? How do you plan to avoid similar errors in judgement in the future?"
Except the social status journos have make this like of inquiry uncouth. It is someone both one of the most pressing issues of our media landscape, yet seen as a simple-minded and undignified perspective that sophisticated media won't touch.
Except the social status journos have make this like of inquiry uncouth. It is someone both one of the most pressing issues of our media landscape, yet seen as a simple-minded and undignified perspective that sophisticated media won't touch.
"and they don't try to pick fights at school board meetings."
And that's where I stopped reading. Because, you know, voicing disagreement at a public forum with people tasked with educating your kids is the same as going on a Twitter rant.
Is it not? Someone going on a "Twitter rant" is voicing disagreement in a public forum about important issues of the day, sometimes even including the topic of educating your kids. I don't think either activity is bad or wrong, but they seem substantially equivalent to me.
I thought this was fairly well understood that these communities follow some sort of Pareto ratio where a minority of people churn out most of the content, or are responsible for sending content to the top of feeds. I recall reading about it with regards to Twitter and Reddit, and it probably applies in some form or another with every social network that allows for passive participants.
And yet, companies and conference organizers seem to think the Twitter mob represents everyone
It's frustrating how tough it is to stick to topics you're interested in seeing on Twitter. Even after trying to actively disengage with a lot of the news-based stuff on the site to stop myself from doomscrolling, I still get shown a ton of news and politics on my feed because some of my friends on Twitter like and retweet that kind of stuff.
I think it's also kind of strange how much variance there is in the content on the site. Something about the fact that stupid jokes take up the same space and appear in the same way as very serious news feels harmful to me.
I think it's also kind of strange how much variance there is in the content on the site. Something about the fact that stupid jokes take up the same space and appear in the same way as very serious news feels harmful to me.
This was never new. Only about 1 in 5 Americans even use Twitter [1].
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/10-facts-ab...
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/10-facts-ab...
Yea, I don't tweet. I have a twitter but don't see any point to tweet anything.
That also means I have 0 followers. Made like 3 comments max.
I don't really think about twitter as a social network. For me it's more like complete shitfest which is sometimes informative and/or funny.
I don't really think about twitter as a social network. For me it's more like complete shitfest which is sometimes informative and/or funny.
I've tried to curate my activity, followings and topics to have a nicer experience. Like Google News, the curation works well, but slowly degrades in a few weeks until I'm seeing thing I'm not interested in, but their algorithms say people tend to engage with (mostly sports, celebrities, politics).
Twitter is specially annoying because it constantly probes you, be it with irrelevant posts to see if you like them, and asking you to confirm what topics you like or dislike. At least it includes a disclaimer when it's doing that.
Twitter is specially annoying because it constantly probes you, be it with irrelevant posts to see if you like them, and asking you to confirm what topics you like or dislike. At least it includes a disclaimer when it's doing that.
This isn't a new silent majority, is it? Has there ever been a majority of people who tweet?
Twitter is a social media platform with it's own character and culture, and it is a tool for being informed on niche topics in realtime, similar to subreddits. It's not for everyone.
Twitter is a social media platform with it's own character and culture, and it is a tool for being informed on niche topics in realtime, similar to subreddits. It's not for everyone.
I never understood why Twitter has a character limit. It reduces discussion to tiny empty soundbites. People get around it via "Twitter threads", which are a giant pain in the ass to create (vs. writing a simple post) and navigate through.
Does Twitter just hold on to the character limit for nostalgia purposes? I mean if they really wanted to keep that limit, at the least why not create a separate Twitter without a character limit as an experiment, and see what the demand is?
Does Twitter just hold on to the character limit for nostalgia purposes? I mean if they really wanted to keep that limit, at the least why not create a separate Twitter without a character limit as an experiment, and see what the demand is?
This is more of a general comment on the subject, but I don't agree with the emphasis on the Internet's role in American political polarization. The Internet definitely has exacerbated the problem, but I think the writing was on the wall in the mid-nineties (i.e., before most Americans had access), when Newt Gingrich got to practice this style of politics as Speaker of the House.
I am one of those. For a simple reason: It had no effect.
As a sidenote back in the days I worked for a university and we did research in public policy making. How social media would make a difference as it empowers the underprivileged. In my opinion almost none of that came true. Those which make an effect are the ones in power. The rest is cats video and advertisement disguised as influencers.
As a sidenote back in the days I worked for a university and we did research in public policy making. How social media would make a difference as it empowers the underprivileged. In my opinion almost none of that came true. Those which make an effect are the ones in power. The rest is cats video and advertisement disguised as influencers.
Choosing Twitter in particular as vehicle to say "most people aren't public online" has an odd logic to it.
Twitter has a reputation as one of the most toxic of social networks. Stories of Tweets that exposed someone to tremendous harassment or embarrassment are rife. I make quite a variety of posts and comments online, occassionally publishing article in blog and so-forth. But I avoid Twitter in particular "like the plague", which it seems resemble.
Yet it also seems to be true that Twitter is taken as the standard of "being public" by much of the press. And it seems like this standard comes from both journalists operating by the instant-answer, instant-gratification standard of Twitter and an overall, "you have to be willing to take the heat to be credible" attitude of those in high government, private industry, bureaucracies and so-forth. And this expresses a toxicity to not just Twitter but our entire society.
Twitter has a reputation as one of the most toxic of social networks. Stories of Tweets that exposed someone to tremendous harassment or embarrassment are rife. I make quite a variety of posts and comments online, occassionally publishing article in blog and so-forth. But I avoid Twitter in particular "like the plague", which it seems resemble.
Yet it also seems to be true that Twitter is taken as the standard of "being public" by much of the press. And it seems like this standard comes from both journalists operating by the instant-answer, instant-gratification standard of Twitter and an overall, "you have to be willing to take the heat to be credible" attitude of those in high government, private industry, bureaucracies and so-forth. And this expresses a toxicity to not just Twitter but our entire society.
I would guess that the representation of public figures on Twitter is pretty high, maybe 70% or more (absolutely no data behind this, just my guess based on personal experience and a subjective definition of "public figure").
That said, the vast majority of those people just use Twitter to announce their various public events, professional accomplishments, media releases, etc.
IMO this is the way to go, unless you enjoy and get something out of the rough-and-tumble of direct Twitter engagement. I used to for a little while, but got over it. It definitely made me a more contentious person, for better and worse.
That said, the vast majority of those people just use Twitter to announce their various public events, professional accomplishments, media releases, etc.
IMO this is the way to go, unless you enjoy and get something out of the rough-and-tumble of direct Twitter engagement. I used to for a little while, but got over it. It definitely made me a more contentious person, for better and worse.
We perpetually rediscover this, and we're perpetually astonished.
Hello, i'm part of the twitter majority that doesn't tweet, despite being on the platform since ~2008.
Before anybody asks:
- twitter is trash
- you just can't have proper conversations (let alone, discussion) with such limits (140 and now 280 characters)
- there are basically two types of people on twitter
- one is: people doing self-promotion / self-marketing (this includes engineers tweeting about tech stuff and journalists forced to entertain readers)
- the other is: toxic people that have an empty life and need to fill it by having arguments with other people and are going to attack anyone on anything (and make no mistake: these people can be anywhere from the far right to the far left).
- most people's opinion don't matter anyway
- I realized years ago that my life just isn't enriched by social media
Before anybody asks:
- twitter is trash
- you just can't have proper conversations (let alone, discussion) with such limits (140 and now 280 characters)
- there are basically two types of people on twitter
- one is: people doing self-promotion / self-marketing (this includes engineers tweeting about tech stuff and journalists forced to entertain readers)
- the other is: toxic people that have an empty life and need to fill it by having arguments with other people and are going to attack anyone on anything (and make no mistake: these people can be anywhere from the far right to the far left).
- most people's opinion don't matter anyway
- I realized years ago that my life just isn't enriched by social media
I think Twitter has disproportionate influence because all the journalists are on Twitter, and end up amplifying it.
How many times have a seen TV hosts just basically read Twitter.
Twitter is an easy way for journalists/TV personalities to generate stories.
How many times have a seen TV hosts just basically read Twitter.
Twitter is an easy way for journalists/TV personalities to generate stories.
I don't Tweet. My mother, bless her, already comments on every one of my Instagram posts.
Highly online life leads to instability. It's like living your life in a packed subway car. Stress response. This is why cities are less healthy for you as well.
> This is why cities are less healthy for you as well.
Is there a citation for this? First time I've heard this said.
If that were true wouldn't all the ultra wealthy avoid living in cities at all?
Is there a citation for this? First time I've heard this said.
If that were true wouldn't all the ultra wealthy avoid living in cities at all?
I definitely chose my phrasing by design: "less healthy"
I have no doubt there are vigorous academic arguments happening whether there are ways to mitigate the stress of population density and be healthier than would be expected. I'm open to that concept and ideas.
Yet the research on urban living and mental health is overwhelming - your chances of schizophrenia, mood disorders and anxiety skyrocket in cities. I was born in a large metro and lived on both coasts in huge urban areas, and I wish this weren't true because I like the energy of a city.
But you get a couple of whiskeys in me at dinner and I'll flat out say there's almost zero way to make a city healthy. People on top of each other, tremendous noise, light pollution and bad air quality leads to poor health for many people, as well as conflict.
I have no doubt there are vigorous academic arguments happening whether there are ways to mitigate the stress of population density and be healthier than would be expected. I'm open to that concept and ideas.
Yet the research on urban living and mental health is overwhelming - your chances of schizophrenia, mood disorders and anxiety skyrocket in cities. I was born in a large metro and lived on both coasts in huge urban areas, and I wish this weren't true because I like the energy of a city.
But you get a couple of whiskeys in me at dinner and I'll flat out say there's almost zero way to make a city healthy. People on top of each other, tremendous noise, light pollution and bad air quality leads to poor health for many people, as well as conflict.
driving is much more stressful to me than subway-riding
Driving in a city, absolutely.
(Although I rarely had a stress-free morning on the DC Metro)
Driving in rural areas or across the western US - piece of cake and even relaxing.
(Although I rarely had a stress-free morning on the DC Metro)
Driving in rural areas or across the western US - piece of cake and even relaxing.
In your opinion do _all_ of the ultra wealthy also avoid _all_ behaviors that might be considered unhealthy? Seems like a weird conclusion to make.
Good point, there are ultra wealthy that still smoke even though there is a tremendous amount of data proving it will reduce your lifespan.
> This is why cities are less healthy for you as well.
This is news to me.
This is news to me.
So this is interesting, but I think the claim is overstated, or at least, this doesn't satisfy the claim that cities are less healthy. This show a positive correlation of an increase in specific mental health cases, but that is looking at health only along a single axis.
I'm not saying your claim is wrong, just that this isn't sufficient. There is other evidence that shows that city living is healthier with longer lifespans and reduced obesity.
I'm not saying your claim is wrong, just that this isn't sufficient. There is other evidence that shows that city living is healthier with longer lifespans and reduced obesity.
It's a fascinating subject and one I love to "argue" about when I'm traveling for work and at a bar in the city, people get really fired up! We all dig in to support our life choices.
People in the city tend to be younger and higher income - both skew the numbers. Access to health services - advantage city vs rural. But the stress level is off the charts higher in a city. This is terrible for you.
There is some evidence that suburban or exurban might be the sweet spot, where you get the benefit of access to care and less daily stress.
Walking and movement is important too, so if you can combine income with small town living (community) in an active way you may be way ahead of the game.
People in the city tend to be younger and higher income - both skew the numbers. Access to health services - advantage city vs rural. But the stress level is off the charts higher in a city. This is terrible for you.
There is some evidence that suburban or exurban might be the sweet spot, where you get the benefit of access to care and less daily stress.
Walking and movement is important too, so if you can combine income with small town living (community) in an active way you may be way ahead of the game.
I went to school in the Midwest and a good example of this is if you had a hybrid/remote job in Louisville or Cincy, it would likely be much better for your health to live in Madison, Indiana. It's not far away but feels like a different world, much more low key and with a community focus. You could always drive into the city and book a few days if you had that desire.
New? Most people in the US and the world haven't tweeted. I haven't and nobody I know has. Most people don't even have a twitter account.
Yes! I am so sick of seeing people draw conclusions from Twitter. Twitter is an incredible real-time data source for factual information (ex: is something literally on fire?) but not a good source for real-time opinion polls. It only gives you the opinion of people who feel the need to share with the entire world, which is a certain personality type.
There are two groups who I think need to learn this lesson:
There are two groups who I think need to learn this lesson:
1. Jouralists. I constantly see statements like "People are <X emotion> about <Y>" based on a handful of sassy tweets. That's not journalism.
2. Product Managers. If you get 10 tweets asking for a feature you'll hear the PM say "our users really want <X>" which is not true. 10 extremely online users want <X>. I am convinced that this is how so many apps get dark mode but don't get actual new features.
The need for this article shows the macro herd mentality of Twitter in general. My knee jerk reaction was that obviously, a lot of people don’t tweet. But I think when you’re part of a group, whether virtual or physical, you may start to think that the majority of people think like you, hangs around the same space as you, and has the same life experiences as you.
Outrage always wins when it comes to attention.
The traditional news will never report on things that are going fine, they hyper focus on the (usually) bad exception. This incentive is to strong and perverse that they gladly misrepresent facts, dramatize them or even just make up stories.
When I discuss the day with my girlfriend, she won't tell me how the day largely went fine, the conversation is about that one colleague doing something wrong.
It's in all of us, we direct attention to deviations. Twitter exploits this to the very maximum on a scale not possible in the physical world.
The issue is not that people say outrageous things, they'll always do that. The real issue is that those views spread far and wide at breakneck speed, and thereby become popular or even culturally dominant.
Which is made possible by simple things like a retweet button and inflated follower counts. When you see somebody having 100K followers, you may think this is due to 100K people somehow searching for a person, browsing through lists of experts or having a connection with them in real life. Something you might call organic followers. That's not how it works at all. Based on engagement, after a particular threshold, it's a recommended account shown in front of many people, after that it snowballs and escalates.
And this is how you can have somebody "verified" and with 200K followers, that in real life is unemployed, has no particular useful expertise or insight, zero accomplishments, and absolutely thrive on the platform.
And it gets worse. These mid-tier influencers find each other. And if they align politically, they become an unstoppable force able to plaster the entire network with the dumbest of takes.
As this works so well, they become addicted to it. There can't be a quiet day, fresh outrage has to be constantly invented.
The traditional news will never report on things that are going fine, they hyper focus on the (usually) bad exception. This incentive is to strong and perverse that they gladly misrepresent facts, dramatize them or even just make up stories.
When I discuss the day with my girlfriend, she won't tell me how the day largely went fine, the conversation is about that one colleague doing something wrong.
It's in all of us, we direct attention to deviations. Twitter exploits this to the very maximum on a scale not possible in the physical world.
The issue is not that people say outrageous things, they'll always do that. The real issue is that those views spread far and wide at breakneck speed, and thereby become popular or even culturally dominant.
Which is made possible by simple things like a retweet button and inflated follower counts. When you see somebody having 100K followers, you may think this is due to 100K people somehow searching for a person, browsing through lists of experts or having a connection with them in real life. Something you might call organic followers. That's not how it works at all. Based on engagement, after a particular threshold, it's a recommended account shown in front of many people, after that it snowballs and escalates.
And this is how you can have somebody "verified" and with 200K followers, that in real life is unemployed, has no particular useful expertise or insight, zero accomplishments, and absolutely thrive on the platform.
And it gets worse. These mid-tier influencers find each other. And if they align politically, they become an unstoppable force able to plaster the entire network with the dumbest of takes.
As this works so well, they become addicted to it. There can't be a quiet day, fresh outrage has to be constantly invented.
As Dave Chappelle says, "Twitter isn't a real place".
So, this article states that 42% of Americans identify as politically independent. This beats the next largest political identity (Democrats, 29%) by 13%. Yet, the political system has been rigged - obviously so, for anyone who cares to look - so that an independent party fails to get the 5% necessary to get onto the ballot and future funding for the next election cycle for presidential running.
How is it that there is nothing that can be done to alleviate this type of obvious voter suppression and electoral corruption on a national scale?
I understand this is tertiary to the title, but makes up a large part of the article, so I thought I'd bring it up.
How is it that there is nothing that can be done to alleviate this type of obvious voter suppression and electoral corruption on a national scale?
I understand this is tertiary to the title, but makes up a large part of the article, so I thought I'd bring it up.
Did you follow the link to the actual poll? https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen...
42% may identify as "independent," but only 9% are independent without leaning Republican or Democrat. Not registering officially with the party, but still always voting for them, is quite a bit different from actually not having a preference or wanting a third party.
42% may identify as "independent," but only 9% are independent without leaning Republican or Democrat. Not registering officially with the party, but still always voting for them, is quite a bit different from actually not having a preference or wanting a third party.
Ranked choice voting has been implemented for presidential elections in 2 states. Which isn't much, but it's a start, and it seems like there's popular demand for it. That would help to fight the annoying "A vote for [third-party] is a vote for [party-i-dont-like]" argument.
Nothing can be done, because the system is owned by the corrupt, which means that the system is corrupt.
The only solution against this problem is violence. Despite what a lot of completely delusional and clueless morons believe, voting solves nothing as long as all parties are basically run by rich people and or paid career politicians.
And I'm not even going to dive into the details. They're not necessary. You have not just the politicians against you, you also have the media against you, which means that you have most people against you.
Unless you manage to get people to realize what's going on, things will only change when those in charge want things to change.
Then it'll happen on their terms, they will provide solutions to problems they created and we all are going to pay for it.
The only solution against this problem is violence. Despite what a lot of completely delusional and clueless morons believe, voting solves nothing as long as all parties are basically run by rich people and or paid career politicians.
And I'm not even going to dive into the details. They're not necessary. You have not just the politicians against you, you also have the media against you, which means that you have most people against you.
Unless you manage to get people to realize what's going on, things will only change when those in charge want things to change.
Then it'll happen on their terms, they will provide solutions to problems they created and we all are going to pay for it.
I don't know what your political leanings are, but do you realize this is the position of the people who stormed the capitol building?
Ever wondered how that was even possible? Like how bad must the security be for bunch of unarmed random civilians to enter and have access to rather important location? Almost seems like manufactured. Or lot of people should be fired for incompetence...
It happened because much of the establishment, especially in policing, were sympathetic to the goals of the 1/6 attackers. Everyone know about "Stop The Steal" in December when it was being mentioned frequently in places like Facebook. When we compare how BLM and Native pipeline protests are dealt with by the police, it's clear that they were essentially acting as accomplices.
I don't have a leaning. I also don't care if it was their position.
If you trust your government, no matter where you live, then you're a fool.
Period.
The fact that there's assholes out there who abuse this fact for an attempt to make things even worse isn't my problem. The fact that there's people like you, who draw a connection, is just as bad.
I'm not from the US. This horrendously broken logic, where you associate people with each other based on their thoughts, thus basically destroying ideas, isn't mine.
If you trust your government, no matter where you live, then you're a fool.
Period.
The fact that there's assholes out there who abuse this fact for an attempt to make things even worse isn't my problem. The fact that there's people like you, who draw a connection, is just as bad.
I'm not from the US. This horrendously broken logic, where you associate people with each other based on their thoughts, thus basically destroying ideas, isn't mine.
Most of the independents are not voting most of the time. The ones that do swing between parties because we have clearly demonstrated that there is no organized independent party. Like workers without a union.
There are very few true independents. They may label themselves such, but they don’t vote that way.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-americans-who-ident...
They just want to avoid the label of being one or the other.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-americans-who-ident...
They just want to avoid the label of being one or the other.
What is a "true independent"?
Are they allowed to have any opinions about political parties?
At a federal level, based on how strongly everyone toes the line, voting is basically just picking a party. So even if 100% of the way you choose is based on the individual candidate's actions, and your vote varies widely in more local elections, at a federal level the end result is probably the same party over and over for many years.
Are they allowed to have any opinions about political parties?
At a federal level, based on how strongly everyone toes the line, voting is basically just picking a party. So even if 100% of the way you choose is based on the individual candidate's actions, and your vote varies widely in more local elections, at a federal level the end result is probably the same party over and over for many years.
It's much more complicated than that those ostensible 'affiliations' indicate. Many Trump voters do not identify as 'Republicans'. Don't assume elections are 'rigged' because of some uneasy data. There are obviously specific issues with voting but even then it's more nuanced.
I just think of Perot, after which the voting rules, or rather the percentages for for entry were changed. Also the association running the debates went from the League of Women Voters to the Commission on Presidential Debates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_deb....
That's when it changed from 2% to 5%, and on and on. It was the Perot incidents that make me lean towards a "rigged" system, more than anything, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_deb....
That's when it changed from 2% to 5%, and on and on. It was the Perot incidents that make me lean towards a "rigged" system, more than anything, really.
First past the post, plus two dominant parties, has such severe negative effects that "rigged" is a reasonable way to talk about it.
First past the post is not 'rigged' is just one way of having elections.
[deleted]
I tried using Twitter but it's kinda disorienting... Reddit is easier to follow. And doesn't have character limit so you can actually respond properly than just saying one liners. If talk is just a screaming match I'd rather just play apex legends, much more enjoyable... Also if there are 5673 people with same low effort flawed logic then kind of pointless to reply to one person.. it's better to do public announcement. Make a YouTube video, write a blog post, or maybe even rant on Reddit ...
This is almost exclusively the fault of media trying to engage viewers through culture war.
These people [one random, average person passionate about something they know little about] are saying these things[taken out of context by reporter or site] about you[random attribute you will identify with].
Media demographics are killing harmony. These people feed our brains. They are our eyes beyond what our real eyes can see. Which is not very far. That's how people come to hate people they've never met. Or how wars are started.
These people [one random, average person passionate about something they know little about] are saying these things[taken out of context by reporter or site] about you[random attribute you will identify with].
Media demographics are killing harmony. These people feed our brains. They are our eyes beyond what our real eyes can see. Which is not very far. That's how people come to hate people they've never met. Or how wars are started.
Twitter is a cesspool and it seems like the people who are disproportionately influential are all on Twitter.
I think it’s a bubble that should not have any political power, because it’s a cesspool!
I think it’s a bubble that should not have any political power, because it’s a cesspool!
American political discourse involving the uneducated is a cesspool. Social commentary often leads to political discourse which makes that type of speech sadly often one step away from a cesspool. Twitter is simply facilitating it.
Stop following people who post political things or opinions about social issues and the toxicity is much, much less.
Stop following people who post political things or opinions about social issues and the toxicity is much, much less.
It can be a wellspring of knowledge too. It works for me. I follow knowledge generators in fields I'm interested in.
Ive tried using twitter at least four times and found it exhausting.
Never kept it up longer than a week.
I also don’t have fb so maybe that’s common for my target demographic.
As far as I can tell all "social media" is a raging dumpster fire, which self-selects for most engagement with people who actually enjoy spending their time in a dumpster fire.
But this all seems like a fantastic feature, just ignore it all! There are so many better things to do with your time. The people you most want nothing to do with are being most consumed by it, leaving the beaches, parks, campgrounds, trails, etc. more available for your enjoyment.
Let the twits have at it, good riddance.
But this all seems like a fantastic feature, just ignore it all! There are so many better things to do with your time. The people you most want nothing to do with are being most consumed by it, leaving the beaches, parks, campgrounds, trails, etc. more available for your enjoyment.
Let the twits have at it, good riddance.
that would be me. I go elsewhere where the grass is greener.
I've been on twitter for only a few weeks since there is an election coming up in my country and the parties have a rather big presence there and I have no other social media, and I like that I can remain pseudonymous (as opposed to Facebook which has a real name policy). I've also been following the Ukraine invasion on there as well...I don't know if it's just the content I'm following but boy, it's tiring.
I'm in mostly read-only mode on most social media. I only post in response to people I personally know for the most part and occasionally a few small-ish, independent creators whose work I support.
I sincerely believe we, humans as a species, do not handle scale well at all. There's just a limit to what we can fathom or process. And social media has scaled beyond our ability to comprehend how to socially interact with it.
I sincerely believe we, humans as a species, do not handle scale well at all. There's just a limit to what we can fathom or process. And social media has scaled beyond our ability to comprehend how to socially interact with it.
Can someone explain why they would ever put something on Twitter that is not marketing related? (I get it for business, but why for personal use?)
This question needs to be asked more often. It took me quite a while to realize why I'm more engaged on Twitter than I used to be.
In my case, it's to have a conversation. Before I moved to the United States, I could have all sorts of conversations with people at work, no matter how controversial or stupid or weird. But in the US, the culture is different. There are things that you can't discuss with your coworkers, for various reasons.
When the pandemic hit and I stopped going to the office, that made the problem even worse. Sure, I didn't have any real friends here, but at least there was more randomness and diversity in my social life. I love my family, but it's an extremely limited pool of people to talk to.
So I found myself participating more and more on Twitter, on Imgur, and on certain game forums. Which, in turn, had the same impact on me as Facebook used to before I closed my account.
My own, very personal conclusion, is that the society in the United States suffers from a "disease" of alienating people from each other and isolating them, making them turn to social networks to fill the void left by the absence of what used to be normal, every day way to socialize.
Then again, I'm just a sample of one, so my conclusion is almost certain to be wrong.
In my case, it's to have a conversation. Before I moved to the United States, I could have all sorts of conversations with people at work, no matter how controversial or stupid or weird. But in the US, the culture is different. There are things that you can't discuss with your coworkers, for various reasons.
When the pandemic hit and I stopped going to the office, that made the problem even worse. Sure, I didn't have any real friends here, but at least there was more randomness and diversity in my social life. I love my family, but it's an extremely limited pool of people to talk to.
So I found myself participating more and more on Twitter, on Imgur, and on certain game forums. Which, in turn, had the same impact on me as Facebook used to before I closed my account.
My own, very personal conclusion, is that the society in the United States suffers from a "disease" of alienating people from each other and isolating them, making them turn to social networks to fill the void left by the absence of what used to be normal, every day way to socialize.
Then again, I'm just a sample of one, so my conclusion is almost certain to be wrong.
> the society in the United States suffers from a "disease" of alienating people from each other and isolating them
Is that unique to the US? It feels like something broadly true if I believe what I see in the news and online forums, but in my personal life it does not feel true at all.
Is that unique to the US? It feels like something broadly true if I believe what I see in the news and online forums, but in my personal life it does not feel true at all.
I can't say whether it's unique to the US, because I've only lived in two other countries before moving here. Also, I've spent all these years since I moved to the US living in the same county of the same state, a state so notorious for how hard it is to make friends, that there's a name for the phenomenon: Seattle Freeze.
On the other hand, I've talked to a lot of other immigrants who lived in different states before this, and the general consensus (in that admittedly small sample) is that the US is definitely different from South America or Europe in that sense.
For context, I lived in Chile before I moved to the US, and Chile is the country in South America that tries the hardest to be like the US. Even in Chile, it's easier to have a richer social life than here, despite longer working hours and longer commutes, which both result in having much less free time. My own theory is because you get to socialize more at work and, if you have a kid that goes to kindergarten or school, with other parents. Here? "Not so much" would be an understatement.
On the other hand, I've talked to a lot of other immigrants who lived in different states before this, and the general consensus (in that admittedly small sample) is that the US is definitely different from South America or Europe in that sense.
For context, I lived in Chile before I moved to the US, and Chile is the country in South America that tries the hardest to be like the US. Even in Chile, it's easier to have a richer social life than here, despite longer working hours and longer commutes, which both result in having much less free time. My own theory is because you get to socialize more at work and, if you have a kid that goes to kindergarten or school, with other parents. Here? "Not so much" would be an understatement.
Probably for the same reasons you just posted this comment.
But I only post here because this community is worth interacting with.
Twitter's community is the entire world. (as far as I know)
Twitter's community is the entire world. (as far as I know)
According to the article, Twitter only makes up 25% of America, let alone the world.
Many artists use it as a platform to show their art. I'm betting it's more popular than DeviantArt for this purpose, for example.
Wouldn't that be marketing? Private, but marketing still. At least if those artist also provide commercial services.
So a lot of artists post works they've done, and are open for commissions, and post the commissioned art or a retweet to the commissioner's account. This is marketing I guess but not what I typically think of as "fake PR" or "here's a notification of our service with a teaser of content" type of marketing
If there aren't many people who are interested in voting for either candidate, the easiest way to win is not to convince the other side, but to push people who weren't interested in voting, to vote. This is usually done through outrage tactics. As we see both republican and democrat go down in popularity overall, we can see that these tactics are being used more and more.
“New”?
Aren't these the people who have always been, and the “new”, is the small majority on Twitter thinking they represent the vast majority of society?
Thinking about it further, my government appears to listen to a lot of what Twitter has to say.
I wonder if it's easy to control a country using a high number of well-placed Twitter commentators designed to usher in whatever those in power actually wanted.
Aren't these the people who have always been, and the “new”, is the small majority on Twitter thinking they represent the vast majority of society?
Thinking about it further, my government appears to listen to a lot of what Twitter has to say.
I wonder if it's easy to control a country using a high number of well-placed Twitter commentators designed to usher in whatever those in power actually wanted.
[deleted]
Twitter, as a service, is incredibly user-hostile[0]. It's not all that surprising to see a quote like this:
> 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
[0] Check it: https://www.google.com/search?q=user+hostile+twitter+site:ne...
> 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
[0] Check it: https://www.google.com/search?q=user+hostile+twitter+site:ne...
twtter has about 70 million US users, out of a population of 330 million (does twitter have an age cutoff for users?). One would presume that twitter is like other services, where a small percentage of the user base is producing a larger percentage of the content.
So 'most people don't tweet' isn't really that much of a stretch.
So 'most people don't tweet' isn't really that much of a stretch.
The shocking story is that 25% of Americans tweet. As a non-tweeter, I would have assumed that number was more like 1-5%. 25% sounds pretty representative to me.
I'm annoyed by how this story seems to be jamming together unrelated things to paint a picture. Are people under the impression that twitter users are big political donors, or that twitter users don't mostly self-identify as independents? Are [capital-I]ndependents "somewhere in the middle," or is that just editorial trying to turn 42% of people into centrist charity-givers?
I'm annoyed by how this story seems to be jamming together unrelated things to paint a picture. Are people under the impression that twitter users are big political donors, or that twitter users don't mostly self-identify as independents? Are [capital-I]ndependents "somewhere in the middle," or is that just editorial trying to turn 42% of people into centrist charity-givers?
Most independents are not really 'in the middle', however much they may be disillusioned with existing party structures. They tend to lean one way or the other. I'm fairly liberal, but strongly anti-partisan (I've never belonged to a party). I think shrinking party affiliation is a good thing.
I agree. I also think that twitter reflects that. The vast majority of political twitter claims to be independent. Axios is doing a thing that centrists do often, which is to equivocate between independents, "swing voters" and centrists in order to make themselves a silent plurality.
[deleted]
I have lost a lot of respect for certain very accomplished people because they tweet their hot takes on current issues constantly. I follow you because you’re an awesome musician/writer/entrepreneur/whatever, not because I need your extremely uninformed opinion on geopolitics or social issues.
This post has 500 comments, but 5k people have actually read it. That's the real silent majority, whose opinions you'll never know. All social medias are like this, but people always forget about this fact, because it's the 500 comments that draw your attention.
I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents.
The two-party system keeps dominating all the news cycles, so it’s got to be pretty difficult for all of the marketing analytics companies to keep up with the noise.
The two-party system keeps dominating all the news cycles, so it’s got to be pretty difficult for all of the marketing analytics companies to keep up with the noise.
> I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents.
The do. The article is incredibly misleading. The drop in party affiliation does not mean that people are not partisan, are less partisan, or that someone who is not affiliated with party is open to voting for a candidate from either party.
One of the major strategic breakthroughs of the Bush campaign on '04 and the Obama campaign in '08 was the ability to identity partisans who were not registered with one party or the other. Most people who are independents consistently will still vote for the same party regularly from one election to the next. Since at least 2000, most swings in voting patterns from one election to the next have more to do with turnout among various groups than with individuals voting differently than they had in the past.
In 2010 for example, the Democrats suffered one of the worst midterm defeats in modern history. It was portrayed in the media as voters turning against Obama and the Democratic party. In fact, it was about turnout. Had turnout in 2010 looked like it had just two years earlier, the Democrats would not have suffered that kind of midterm "shellacking", as Obama called it. The real, and far less click-baity, story was that Obama was an incredibly charismatic and effective campaigner. When he wasn't on the ballet, a lot of democratic-leaning voters stayed home.
The do. The article is incredibly misleading. The drop in party affiliation does not mean that people are not partisan, are less partisan, or that someone who is not affiliated with party is open to voting for a candidate from either party.
One of the major strategic breakthroughs of the Bush campaign on '04 and the Obama campaign in '08 was the ability to identity partisans who were not registered with one party or the other. Most people who are independents consistently will still vote for the same party regularly from one election to the next. Since at least 2000, most swings in voting patterns from one election to the next have more to do with turnout among various groups than with individuals voting differently than they had in the past.
In 2010 for example, the Democrats suffered one of the worst midterm defeats in modern history. It was portrayed in the media as voters turning against Obama and the Democratic party. In fact, it was about turnout. Had turnout in 2010 looked like it had just two years earlier, the Democrats would not have suffered that kind of midterm "shellacking", as Obama called it. The real, and far less click-baity, story was that Obama was an incredibly charismatic and effective campaigner. When he wasn't on the ballet, a lot of democratic-leaning voters stayed home.
> The do. The article is incredibly misleading.
I’m reading a lot of talk from you about the Democrats and Republicans, but what are the Independents thinking?
I’m reading a lot of talk from you about the Democrats and Republicans, but what are the Independents thinking?
What I'm saying is that the parties understand the makeup of independents insofar as they know there are so few true independents, that it doesn't really matter what they think. In today's era, you get much more bang for your buck by convincing your own partisans to make it to the polls.
My broader point is that contrary to what the article implies, "Unaffiliated Voter != A voter who is open to voting for either party"
My broader point is that contrary to what the article implies, "Unaffiliated Voter != A voter who is open to voting for either party"
> that it doesn't really matter what they think
That sounds pretty clearly in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent United States Constitution and the subsequent United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That sounds pretty clearly in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent United States Constitution and the subsequent United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Well, regardless of how things should work, that's how they do work. I know some folks who've worked for politicians over the years and it's pretty transactional. For instance, it's fairly common for feedback from constituents to get prioritized based on voting history (among other things like political influence). If you reach out to an elected official, one of their staff will often check the voter rolls. If you're not registered to vote, or if you are and you haven't voted in a long time, don't expect your complaint to get much attention.
Seeing like a state ... turns out to be difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article?
> Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."
> Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."
Any synoptic work can be criticised on the basis that its author strays from areas of specific expertise and selects from available evidence or narratives.
That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet.
The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to be true.
Appropriate consideration of disconfirming evidence is a valid concern, though I'd have to see what Laitin is proposing in that regard to see if that critque has merits.
What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet.
The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to be true.
Appropriate consideration of disconfirming evidence is a valid concern, though I'd have to see what Laitin is proposing in that regard to see if that critque has merits.
What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
> per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
Ahh, interesting. I believe that most modern scientists would reject that proposition, a priori. Millennia of scientific advancements have shown that complex systems can indeed be modeled. Recent advancements in mathematics have shown that self-correcting simulations are certainly possible (deep learning, for example). Science itself could be simply described as a “self-correcting model with built-in error checking”.
Ahh, interesting. I believe that most modern scientists would reject that proposition, a priori. Millennia of scientific advancements have shown that complex systems can indeed be modeled. Recent advancements in mathematics have shown that self-correcting simulations are certainly possible (deep learning, for example). Science itself could be simply described as a “self-correcting model with built-in error checking”.
His argument is more nuanced, and ... includes examples.
I've only managed about 3 chapters of the book so far. It has proved quite illuminating.
There are examples of systems that do model well and those that don't. Depending on your physics, the 3, 2, 1, or null-body problems. The double pendulum. Etc.
And those are only at the very simplest level.
The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. And in the case of complex systems (e.g., the German "rational forestry" method described early in Scott's book), initial success may preceed subsequent catastrophe.
I've only managed about 3 chapters of the book so far. It has proved quite illuminating.
There are examples of systems that do model well and those that don't. Depending on your physics, the 3, 2, 1, or null-body problems. The double pendulum. Etc.
And those are only at the very simplest level.
The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. And in the case of complex systems (e.g., the German "rational forestry" method described early in Scott's book), initial success may preceed subsequent catastrophe.
> The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be.
Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it”
Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it”
Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
1. No.
2. Yes, yes.
2. Yes, yes.
1. http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap4.html, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processi...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
1. Halting problem, as a reductionist example.
2. I don't follow your point.
I do appreciate the examples/links.
2. I don't follow your point.
I do appreciate the examples/links.
> What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
I now understand why you consider it amusing; thanks for your insights on this topic.
I now understand why you consider it amusing; thanks for your insights on this topic.
Twitter looks like a sunk-cost fallacy run amok. The pitch was that it would become ubiquitous, and it clearly isn't and doesn't seem like it ever will be, but the people who are most heavily invested in it act as if it was, presumably out of self-interest.
Now that I think about it. I wonder if those heavily invested think it as part of their job while it generates them hits of dopamine like drugs... So they can easily justify their addiction...
Editor: "Erica, Mike, I need that story right now."
Erica&Mike: "Sorry boss, it isn't written yet, all we have are notes with topics, bullet points and numbered lists."
Editor: "Time's up. Publish the notes."Can we also get some stats on number of users/lurkers who don't comment on Hacker News?
It would be good if mainstream media outlets would read this article and understand the points made in it. All to often news ends up being something that someone said on Twitter. It's like going down to the local pub to troll for quotes...
Huh, new?
The majority of people were always just content consumers not producers. The short form content platforms are probably reducing this gap but producing even just low quality content takes more effort than consuming.
The majority of people were always just content consumers not producers. The short form content platforms are probably reducing this gap but producing even just low quality content takes more effort than consuming.
> As polarized as America seems, Independents — who are somewhere in the middle — would be the biggest party.
Yes! I love this stat, I hope it holds in other polling.
All your friends (that you haven't blocked) are lying to you!
Yes! I love this stat, I hope it holds in other polling.
All your friends (that you haven't blocked) are lying to you!
The biggest takeout for me is that most people so not support any of the two parties in the country. A clear sign that more parties and a more diverse spectrum of opinions are needed!
Many people whose articles and projects get regularly posted here only have Twitter listed as the means of contact on their personal webpages. Wish they offered another contact as well.
What about people who don't use Twitter, at all? Or does "tweet" encompass both viewing Twitter and posting on Twitter?
Anyway, so the bottom line, is the squeaky wheel gets the grease?
Anyway, so the bottom line, is the squeaky wheel gets the grease?
So lovely to read a short article that's straight to the point
Twitter should ask users to solve a captcha before each tweet. Not only would that solve the problem of bots, but it would give everyone a chance to think longer before tweeting.
Is there a link to a podcast or article that I'm missing? The authors throw out this big claim
> It turns out, you're right. We dug into the data and found that, in fact, most Americans are friendly, donate time or money, and would help you shovel your snow. They are busy, normal and mostly silent.
then follow it up with a couple disjointed statistics and then ends with
> The bottom line: Every current trend suggests politics will get more toxic before it normalizes. But the silent majority gives us hope beyond the nuttiness.
What?
The entire premise around how often people _send_ tweets also doesn't seem like a good foundation. Misinformation (to pick only one relevant thing about social) comes from _consuming_ media. The median user story is probably people skimming endless content (memes, news, etc.) not tweeting everything out.
> It turns out, you're right. We dug into the data and found that, in fact, most Americans are friendly, donate time or money, and would help you shovel your snow. They are busy, normal and mostly silent.
then follow it up with a couple disjointed statistics and then ends with
> The bottom line: Every current trend suggests politics will get more toxic before it normalizes. But the silent majority gives us hope beyond the nuttiness.
What?
The entire premise around how often people _send_ tweets also doesn't seem like a good foundation. Misinformation (to pick only one relevant thing about social) comes from _consuming_ media. The median user story is probably people skimming endless content (memes, news, etc.) not tweeting everything out.
I disagree with the wording of the article or its title's wording.
Not being on Twitter is being called "silent"? Is that the yardstick for not being silent?
I'd rather communicate outside of giant echo chambers and text length limitations and engagement optimized (a)social spying media, with real people and speak out there. With family, friends, the neighbors or the neighborhood, for example. Outrage about whatever on Twitter will not help anyone much, except Twitter.
I would also guess, that more than 25% of people in the US vote in elections. Surely that is not "being silent".
Not being on Twitter is being called "silent"? Is that the yardstick for not being silent?
I'd rather communicate outside of giant echo chambers and text length limitations and engagement optimized (a)social spying media, with real people and speak out there. With family, friends, the neighbors or the neighborhood, for example. Outrage about whatever on Twitter will not help anyone much, except Twitter.
I would also guess, that more than 25% of people in the US vote in elections. Surely that is not "being silent".
The "silent majority" is a specific reference. It was popularised by Nixon during the Vietnam war. It doesn't literally mean they are silent, just that they are not the focus of the media.
The 1% rule[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
This just means there is a stabilizing force trying to maintain peace and status quo while figures on either sides of issues sway the long game.
People that regularly use social media seem to think they know everything or can know everything. Seems myopic from an outside perspective.
[deleted]
One day we'll come to accept that media are toxic in the doses we're consuming.
I do not tweet. Neither do my friends and few programmers I know.
I assumed most tweets aren’t by real people anymore.
[deleted]
nice to see twitter is the new facebook. This is what happens when your platform is geared towards lowest hanging fruit of content
There is another silent majority: those who have their opinions cancelled by social media outlets. This includes Twitter.
2022 feels like the pre-1989 era in Communist Bulgaria - people only shared what they think in their closest circles.
Haha, that's me
I was talking about this to friends the other day. I hypothesised this might happen in a paper (apologies, not in English, and not hosted online, I think, anymore) 15 years ago - with the basis of hypothesis being that algorithms that are optimised towards the wrong objective can easily form echo chambers that amplify a certain attitude - but to a dip in/dip out user it looks like a consensus forming - because humans are not good at perceiving difference in problems past a certain scale.
What I couldn't imagine back then is that Twitter is going to be the main platform (I was using a nascent FB and early 00's bulletin boards as the examples of the system). And Twitter is absolutely bonkers in terms of how it polarizes opinion. If I didn't know any better, I would think that it was specifically designed to achieve this purpose. If I needed to design a system that polarizes opinion more than Twitter, I would be hard pressed to do it better.
1. The 160/240 character limit forces you to reduce topics to their most impactful tenets - which strips out all of the nuance and grounds you into an extreme position. For the one expressing the opinion - it will always look more benign than for the one reading it, because the writer can't fully strip it's perception through bias of known context. 2. The users have "gotten around that" by starting threads - and Twitter has started optimising the feed to show threaded views - but threads are not generated "at once" (there are tools for that, but most users don't use them). They are generated post by post - and in a fairly complex topic (such as, oh I don't know, the war in Ukraine) - this will mean >10 tweets as part of the thread. Each of those tweets is replyable and because you can like parts rather than the whole thread - it will show in people's feeds piecewise -> which will create discussions on parts of the point, not the full context. 3. In turn - these piecewise reactions are forming a base for someone else's reaction, where you've gone even further into the rabbit hole. By this point - an argument has already started - and because the 240 char limit doesn't allow for nuance - the argument looks like a black and white argument - as there are no points that are in the "grey zone" that a reader from the side could connect between the opposing sides and perceive any hope of consensus. 4. Users from the outside see it as B&W - so they enter with B&W assumptions in - and assume an aggressive tone - completely derailing any hope to avoid creation of opposing echo chambers.
I can see how they got there - and I can see the choices they made - 160 characters was a good choice for user engagement and revenue - as the flywheel will allow for more ad insertions - and if you optimise for quick reactions - your algorithm is going to take you into a zone where people don't read entire threads - because the algo isn't rewarded for people idling about and not reacting/answering. In terms of what it's doing to public opinion - it should be a textbook example of how growth-oriented product design - when not evaluated hollistically, can create unwanted social effects.
EDIT: Forgot to link to original point of the article /facepalm. The reason why it's never going to achieve higher penetration - in my view - is that a lot of people get adverse emotional reactions from how the algorithm works - so you end up having people who have to be there (media) - and people who are quite comfortable with emotionally loaded engagement on social networks - which amplifies all of the functions stated above. And those people are, fortunately, in a minority. However, the fact that people don't tweet, doesn't mean that people don't read the tweets - as twitter is public without an account and major news outlets usually link to twitter threads. This drastically amplifies the reach of the distorted echo-chamber battles - which makes the overall effect on public opinion even worse.
I mean it's perfect in how horrible it is.
What I couldn't imagine back then is that Twitter is going to be the main platform (I was using a nascent FB and early 00's bulletin boards as the examples of the system). And Twitter is absolutely bonkers in terms of how it polarizes opinion. If I didn't know any better, I would think that it was specifically designed to achieve this purpose. If I needed to design a system that polarizes opinion more than Twitter, I would be hard pressed to do it better.
1. The 160/240 character limit forces you to reduce topics to their most impactful tenets - which strips out all of the nuance and grounds you into an extreme position. For the one expressing the opinion - it will always look more benign than for the one reading it, because the writer can't fully strip it's perception through bias of known context. 2. The users have "gotten around that" by starting threads - and Twitter has started optimising the feed to show threaded views - but threads are not generated "at once" (there are tools for that, but most users don't use them). They are generated post by post - and in a fairly complex topic (such as, oh I don't know, the war in Ukraine) - this will mean >10 tweets as part of the thread. Each of those tweets is replyable and because you can like parts rather than the whole thread - it will show in people's feeds piecewise -> which will create discussions on parts of the point, not the full context. 3. In turn - these piecewise reactions are forming a base for someone else's reaction, where you've gone even further into the rabbit hole. By this point - an argument has already started - and because the 240 char limit doesn't allow for nuance - the argument looks like a black and white argument - as there are no points that are in the "grey zone" that a reader from the side could connect between the opposing sides and perceive any hope of consensus. 4. Users from the outside see it as B&W - so they enter with B&W assumptions in - and assume an aggressive tone - completely derailing any hope to avoid creation of opposing echo chambers.
I can see how they got there - and I can see the choices they made - 160 characters was a good choice for user engagement and revenue - as the flywheel will allow for more ad insertions - and if you optimise for quick reactions - your algorithm is going to take you into a zone where people don't read entire threads - because the algo isn't rewarded for people idling about and not reacting/answering. In terms of what it's doing to public opinion - it should be a textbook example of how growth-oriented product design - when not evaluated hollistically, can create unwanted social effects.
EDIT: Forgot to link to original point of the article /facepalm. The reason why it's never going to achieve higher penetration - in my view - is that a lot of people get adverse emotional reactions from how the algorithm works - so you end up having people who have to be there (media) - and people who are quite comfortable with emotionally loaded engagement on social networks - which amplifies all of the functions stated above. And those people are, fortunately, in a minority. However, the fact that people don't tweet, doesn't mean that people don't read the tweets - as twitter is public without an account and major news outlets usually link to twitter threads. This drastically amplifies the reach of the distorted echo-chamber battles - which makes the overall effect on public opinion even worse.
I mean it's perfect in how horrible it is.
Something I've been learning is what i have come to think of as an antidote to narcissism (and the effects of narcissists); I'm in a much better place in my life then ever before, I'm happy, i view people closer to who they are then ever before... and I enjoy the journey. Simply, to achieve this; I've stopped looking for "friends" who reflect me, as they are useless and a waste of time and resource.
I already have me, I am myself, I don't need others to validate those things as they do it worse or for the wrong reasons, except for fundamental beliefs, an example of this is comparing fundamentals with music, because if we believe that "murder is wrong", and "don't steal" we can get along much better, avoid serious violations... with music on the flip side i don't care if you like something different, or play something different. If you are creating it I will listen, if you are listening to it on the radio I will plug my ears and we with both be happy.
These are two good examples as they demonstrate something I believe is the answer for a much happier way of life. Simply being, I am willing to hear something i don't like, because I choose how valuable it is. If you are an idiot I may tell you, if I think it will help you; if i don't think it will help, I won't say anything, and i will try my best to forget the conversation. Your words only matter because I allow it to matter to me; regardless of the actual implications of your words on reality. If you say something like; "the sky is red and you are a retard for disagreeing with me, I will hear no argument" (this is exaggerated for the point), how would I respond? I used to get offended, because "I'm not retarded, ur the idiot"; now I try to respond (and i'm far from perfect, getting better) with something along the lines of, "good conversation, I disagree, lol bye" and laugh about it later. It's not valuable to continue, and the worst thing that happened is I no longer respect them, if I ever did before. One less loser in my life, overall better outlook, less stress, nice.
Nothing you say or do will matter to anyone else but by those who respect you. Another thing, I don't respect you, you don't respect me. In the online world you have formed an opinion on me based on only my presence, if this is the first time you have read anything I have written, your whole view of me is being built only from the few paragraphs here. You don't respect me, you insult me when you do that; making me not who i am, but a simplified cartoon which is only my shadow. Of course I'm speaking generally, i have met a few exceptions and I know there are more out there who just don't assume who i am by a few hundred words, but it's gonna take a long time to find you.
I've went on too long about this, so I'll wrap it up. The only concession I make to actually caring is with people i have known for a long time, who have proven they really care, and those that really want to grow as people. I choose, at a detriment to myself usually, to value their words, no matter how hard it is to understand, or how much it hurts. Simply speaking, only give people the power they deserve, and some random on twitter doesn't matter (to you). :)
I already have me, I am myself, I don't need others to validate those things as they do it worse or for the wrong reasons, except for fundamental beliefs, an example of this is comparing fundamentals with music, because if we believe that "murder is wrong", and "don't steal" we can get along much better, avoid serious violations... with music on the flip side i don't care if you like something different, or play something different. If you are creating it I will listen, if you are listening to it on the radio I will plug my ears and we with both be happy.
These are two good examples as they demonstrate something I believe is the answer for a much happier way of life. Simply being, I am willing to hear something i don't like, because I choose how valuable it is. If you are an idiot I may tell you, if I think it will help you; if i don't think it will help, I won't say anything, and i will try my best to forget the conversation. Your words only matter because I allow it to matter to me; regardless of the actual implications of your words on reality. If you say something like; "the sky is red and you are a retard for disagreeing with me, I will hear no argument" (this is exaggerated for the point), how would I respond? I used to get offended, because "I'm not retarded, ur the idiot"; now I try to respond (and i'm far from perfect, getting better) with something along the lines of, "good conversation, I disagree, lol bye" and laugh about it later. It's not valuable to continue, and the worst thing that happened is I no longer respect them, if I ever did before. One less loser in my life, overall better outlook, less stress, nice.
Nothing you say or do will matter to anyone else but by those who respect you. Another thing, I don't respect you, you don't respect me. In the online world you have formed an opinion on me based on only my presence, if this is the first time you have read anything I have written, your whole view of me is being built only from the few paragraphs here. You don't respect me, you insult me when you do that; making me not who i am, but a simplified cartoon which is only my shadow. Of course I'm speaking generally, i have met a few exceptions and I know there are more out there who just don't assume who i am by a few hundred words, but it's gonna take a long time to find you.
I've went on too long about this, so I'll wrap it up. The only concession I make to actually caring is with people i have known for a long time, who have proven they really care, and those that really want to grow as people. I choose, at a detriment to myself usually, to value their words, no matter how hard it is to understand, or how much it hurts. Simply speaking, only give people the power they deserve, and some random on twitter doesn't matter (to you). :)
Its almost like there is a disinformation campaign from a Russian play book. Its almost like there is a corporation that gets paid for user counts and bot clicks. Its almost like the sovereign discourse of our nation is under assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
> Independents — who are somewhere in the middle
This seems factually wrong? Maybe most independents are in between the two parties, but not all. Look at Bernie Sanders for example, I would say he's to the left of the Democratic party.
I thought maybe the Gallup poll they are referencing had a weird definition of an independent requiring it to be between the two parties, but I'm not seeing that either.
This seems factually wrong? Maybe most independents are in between the two parties, but not all. Look at Bernie Sanders for example, I would say he's to the left of the Democratic party.
I thought maybe the Gallup poll they are referencing had a weird definition of an independent requiring it to be between the two parties, but I'm not seeing that either.
Your hunch is right. The "moderate middle" trope is a product of lazy pundits and independent voters are actually all over the ideological map - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-...
Aren't independents people who haven't declared any party affiliations? They are usually in the middle, but could have extreme Democrat or Republican views.
Many of the people I know who are independent (like myself) have strong views, and largely lean one way or the other, but hate the party anyway. I feel this way about the party I most closely align with. We share a lot, but I really don't care at all for how they go about things, or what they consider is the highest priority. So I'm an independent, but I don't want to be associated with them.
> They are usually in the middle
Is there any evidence for this, or even definition of this? I'd define it as swing voters who tend to mix up their ballot between the two parties, and I'd be surprised if the percentage of people who did that broke double digits.
Is there any evidence for this, or even definition of this? I'd define it as swing voters who tend to mix up their ballot between the two parties, and I'd be surprised if the percentage of people who did that broke double digits.
That's my point, but the article says they are in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. They could be anywhere on the political spectrum, however.
whats twitter?
[Deleted]
I don't want to take away from your post but you are copy and pasting it all over the place in every thread that mentions twitter or social media... That's against the rules of the site.
Ah good call, I didn't know that.
Did you really need someone to tell you it would be annoying? Now I know a twitter account I'm definitely going to look askance at.
so much salt in the comments. why risk putting yourself in the world? why risk opening your mouth? i dunno, why do you leave your house? a lot of you probably dont really have to.
do you not want to engage in the world? are you not curious about other people, interested in heearing them think? does having direct access to incredibly high grade people not excite you for some reason? do you not want to grow and get better, do you value being safe & secure so much as to pass up exchanging & interacting with so many? where else do you go to engage in cereberal, vast conversations? do you have world class thinkers, developers, journalists & researchers that you pow-wow with regularly? are you entirely uninterested in seeing some of their lives, participating together with them?
getting to join the global consciousness has been an incredible privilege. having a place for my thoughts in public, being open to reflection, getting to share & hear others open streams of communication, getting to engage in all manners of debate & discovery... this is 100% the cyberspace i signed up for. when twitter comes up as a topic tbis grousing & moaning about it, how everything that happens there is all shit &, from only bad edgy people... do you not look in the mirror when you cast such bitter hateful negative accusations at all? do you not see yourself enacting the bad acts you decry? this is such enormous slanted bias, rules out, out of hand, the possibility of positive use & engagement.
is anyone at all interested in the absurdly high value, in the incredible all connectedness, in the ability to throw wide your doors of perception here? this moaning & whining about this incredible global public shared hypermedium, this Fear Uncertainty & Doubt about putting yourself into the world, none of it makes sense to me. opt in, go online, share, grow!
as for thr topic at hand, well. i do think a lot of people, frankly, dont have much to contribute. honing a sense of insight & perspective & exploration, or engaging deeply in some worldly endeavor; these are not totally common attributes, and you need something to bother to be tweeting about, something that has value. im not surprised so many opt for quiet. i want to think of how to make valuable so many's participation, how to refine & grow intellects in this online social program, but i havent come.up with a lot of strong ideas for it.
and sure here's definitely plenty of pointless blathering about, from people who would do better to go offline & become someone first, absolutely. personally i stayed in generally smaller circles where i was not as subject to the endless peanut gallery, and was able to use the tool effectively to understand who was adjacent to my circles & interesting & who was wasting everyonecs time. part of the whole experience of twitter is establishing better internal filters, getting quick & fast at finding value, honing in on the interesting, the gems, the things with hooks or shininess, amid a lot of kind of ambient/experiential bits of background information about your contaxts, a connectivity maybe not valuable very often but which does kind of stitch us a bit closer to those we come to regard as in our circles.
do you not want to engage in the world? are you not curious about other people, interested in heearing them think? does having direct access to incredibly high grade people not excite you for some reason? do you not want to grow and get better, do you value being safe & secure so much as to pass up exchanging & interacting with so many? where else do you go to engage in cereberal, vast conversations? do you have world class thinkers, developers, journalists & researchers that you pow-wow with regularly? are you entirely uninterested in seeing some of their lives, participating together with them?
getting to join the global consciousness has been an incredible privilege. having a place for my thoughts in public, being open to reflection, getting to share & hear others open streams of communication, getting to engage in all manners of debate & discovery... this is 100% the cyberspace i signed up for. when twitter comes up as a topic tbis grousing & moaning about it, how everything that happens there is all shit &, from only bad edgy people... do you not look in the mirror when you cast such bitter hateful negative accusations at all? do you not see yourself enacting the bad acts you decry? this is such enormous slanted bias, rules out, out of hand, the possibility of positive use & engagement.
is anyone at all interested in the absurdly high value, in the incredible all connectedness, in the ability to throw wide your doors of perception here? this moaning & whining about this incredible global public shared hypermedium, this Fear Uncertainty & Doubt about putting yourself into the world, none of it makes sense to me. opt in, go online, share, grow!
as for thr topic at hand, well. i do think a lot of people, frankly, dont have much to contribute. honing a sense of insight & perspective & exploration, or engaging deeply in some worldly endeavor; these are not totally common attributes, and you need something to bother to be tweeting about, something that has value. im not surprised so many opt for quiet. i want to think of how to make valuable so many's participation, how to refine & grow intellects in this online social program, but i havent come.up with a lot of strong ideas for it.
and sure here's definitely plenty of pointless blathering about, from people who would do better to go offline & become someone first, absolutely. personally i stayed in generally smaller circles where i was not as subject to the endless peanut gallery, and was able to use the tool effectively to understand who was adjacent to my circles & interesting & who was wasting everyonecs time. part of the whole experience of twitter is establishing better internal filters, getting quick & fast at finding value, honing in on the interesting, the gems, the things with hooks or shininess, amid a lot of kind of ambient/experiential bits of background information about your contaxts, a connectivity maybe not valuable very often but which does kind of stitch us a bit closer to those we come to regard as in our circles.
> do you not want to engage in the world? are you not curious about other people, interested in heearing them think?
Everything seems the same. Everyone is complaining about the same 10 things over and over.
Everything seems the same. Everyone is complaining about the same 10 things over and over.
Let's see if I can get to 11:
1. fire in a crowded theater
2. freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences
3. correlation != causation
4. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
5. your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
6. private companies can do what they want
7. success and health imply either rich parents or pure luck
8. Paul Graham is the worst, writes terrible essays, 1-hit-wonder got lucky with viaweb
9. blackball ex-FBers
10. whataboutism, whataboutism, whataboutism, whataboutism, and ... hold up ... yep, whataboutism
11. outlaw proof-of-work
12 (bonus track). FSD == AGI and will take 100 years / never happen
13 (baker's dozen). we live in a society (as a justification for any prohibition du jure)
1. fire in a crowded theater
2. freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences
3. correlation != causation
4. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
5. your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
6. private companies can do what they want
7. success and health imply either rich parents or pure luck
8. Paul Graham is the worst, writes terrible essays, 1-hit-wonder got lucky with viaweb
9. blackball ex-FBers
10. whataboutism, whataboutism, whataboutism, whataboutism, and ... hold up ... yep, whataboutism
11. outlaw proof-of-work
12 (bonus track). FSD == AGI and will take 100 years / never happen
13 (baker's dozen). we live in a society (as a justification for any prohibition du jure)
Are you seriously comparing the world to consent manufacturing machine?
The most active social media users are usually people lacking in real life.
Think about it, if you have a great job, a great partner and a great life, are you on Twitter arguing 20 to 30 hours a week.
The type of person to argue with strangers all day has none of the above.
It's also a matter of recognizing how insignificant we all are. No one cares what I think.
Hopefully no one ever will. I do want to create games and music for people to enjoy, but if I then start mouthing off about how taxes are evil I hope I'm ignored.
Think about it, if you have a great job, a great partner and a great life, are you on Twitter arguing 20 to 30 hours a week.
The type of person to argue with strangers all day has none of the above.
It's also a matter of recognizing how insignificant we all are. No one cares what I think.
Hopefully no one ever will. I do want to create games and music for people to enjoy, but if I then start mouthing off about how taxes are evil I hope I'm ignored.
This feels oddly specific. I'm not sure why you can't engage on Twitter and still not be "lacking in real life." Who even gets to define "real life?" And while I'm sure some people spend 20-30 hours per week on Twitter I'm guessing it's such a small percentage of the world that it might as well be statistically insignificant.
> I'm guessing it's such a small percentage of the world that it might as well be statistically insignificant.
Exactly! The vast majority of content on social media is produced by a vanishingly small slice of the world's population. The views expressed should not be understood as representative.
Exactly! The vast majority of content on social media is produced by a vanishingly small slice of the world's population. The views expressed should not be understood as representative.
At the very least is a workable hypothesis. To be active on Twitter one needs the right personality, which means being very upset when other people reply/engage or being indifferent and playing one of the games adults are playing. In the first case, the person is not able to avoid engaging. In the second case, they engage because they have the usual "motives".
Twitter is a very dangerous social media. I consider myself a wordly and experienced person, but I admit I tend to over-value what is shared on Twitter (momentarily, because I look back occasionally at bookmarks and I have very little or no memories of those tweets or I cannot understand why I bookmarked them). I over-value (and not properly value) because I have no clue who is the person who's tweeting (case 1, why should I listen to them? Who are they? Would the same observation "hold" is a face to face conversation?) or I know them/they are public figures (case 2), and they are playing a game of popularity or relevance in which I am, as part of the audience, the sucker.
Just to make an example, the other day someone wrote that "the US should ramp up oil production now". I read it and I told myself "Ok". A reply-guy replied "what are you talking about, this is not like software, when you can "easily" scale up the number of servers". And I thought, man, I was really not thinking, my first reaction when reading a twitter should be "this is bs, who is this person, where is the competence coming from, what it the game they are playing now", but it was not my first reaction, which was instead of passive acceptance. Dangerous game.
Twitter is a very dangerous social media. I consider myself a wordly and experienced person, but I admit I tend to over-value what is shared on Twitter (momentarily, because I look back occasionally at bookmarks and I have very little or no memories of those tweets or I cannot understand why I bookmarked them). I over-value (and not properly value) because I have no clue who is the person who's tweeting (case 1, why should I listen to them? Who are they? Would the same observation "hold" is a face to face conversation?) or I know them/they are public figures (case 2), and they are playing a game of popularity or relevance in which I am, as part of the audience, the sucker.
Just to make an example, the other day someone wrote that "the US should ramp up oil production now". I read it and I told myself "Ok". A reply-guy replied "what are you talking about, this is not like software, when you can "easily" scale up the number of servers". And I thought, man, I was really not thinking, my first reaction when reading a twitter should be "this is bs, who is this person, where is the competence coming from, what it the game they are playing now", but it was not my first reaction, which was instead of passive acceptance. Dangerous game.
Not to mention, you can't even express this thought on twitter. Way too many characters.
I think the character limit creates a blunt form of communication that leads to this toxic environment. It is practically designed to create misunderstandings and dismissive short responses to those misunderstandings.
I think the character limit creates a blunt form of communication that leads to this toxic environment. It is practically designed to create misunderstandings and dismissive short responses to those misunderstandings.
> This feels oddly specific. I'm not sure why you can't engage on Twitter and still not be "lacking in real life."
It all depends on your definition of "engaging on Twitter". People reading their compiled follow lists and occasionally posting a thing or two are one thing, and that's definitely doable without "lacking in real life". But I struggle to imagine how one can spend 20-30 hours a week engaging in wild debates on twitter and not "lack in real life".
I've noticed similar tendencies in myself recently, but with Discord instead of Twitter. After doing some prolonged soul-searching, I found that to be one of the main reasons.
It all depends on your definition of "engaging on Twitter". People reading their compiled follow lists and occasionally posting a thing or two are one thing, and that's definitely doable without "lacking in real life". But I struggle to imagine how one can spend 20-30 hours a week engaging in wild debates on twitter and not "lack in real life".
I've noticed similar tendencies in myself recently, but with Discord instead of Twitter. After doing some prolonged soul-searching, I found that to be one of the main reasons.
[deleted]
There are two groups – people you describe (who have no life and spend 8 hours a day on Twitter) and people who have made a career out of being a social media personality. Most online spaces today are simply a series of weird interactions between these two groups with the "normal" user stuck in the middle.
The lurkers have been the majority in every kind of online forum, from usenet to slashdot to HN comment threads to reddit to twitter.
Are you and I lacking in real life for engaging with each other here?
Are you and I lacking in real life for engaging with each other here?
this is not my experience at all. All the people who were popular in high school and who have a very active social life are also the most prolific twitter users.
The aren't generally arguing though.
The aren't generally arguing though.
[deleted]
I don't engage on Twitter out of fear.
I sometimes see posts that I like and want to retweet but I don't because it means I'm endorsing everything the author has ever said or ever will say. It's not worth the risk.
People in my demographic face significant exposure to "cancelling" or ambushing for wrongthink. So it's best for me to avoid it entirely.
I sometimes see posts that I like and want to retweet but I don't because it means I'm endorsing everything the author has ever said or ever will say. It's not worth the risk.
People in my demographic face significant exposure to "cancelling" or ambushing for wrongthink. So it's best for me to avoid it entirely.
This exactly. I once tried the twitter game, I thought it was important to have a big following or say clever things, whatever.
I was lightly burned by a tweet (of my own authoring) once, and I thought "I make $XYZ per year, twitter pays me nothing, this joke tweet caused me a lot of stress, the odds that being on twitter will get me cancelled will cost me $XYZ are non-zero and I don't control them"
Then I deleted all my tweets and my twitter account (8 years ago) and life has been really nice without it!
I was lightly burned by a tweet (of my own authoring) once, and I thought "I make $XYZ per year, twitter pays me nothing, this joke tweet caused me a lot of stress, the odds that being on twitter will get me cancelled will cost me $XYZ are non-zero and I don't control them"
Then I deleted all my tweets and my twitter account (8 years ago) and life has been really nice without it!
Exact same story except recently I created an empty account with private lists that I follow (so not even the people I "follow" is public), and I can still keep up with some topics from a source of information that generally is on the bleeding edge. Usually I find things in twitter / discord first, then they hit Reddit, then mainstream media. If you only follow reddit you have a slight delay currently, and for some of my interests, fresh information is helpful.
This is the way
Twitter is a massively multiplayer video game that is culturally overvalued and entrenched because journalism and other influential fields got sucked in. It is absolutely insane that it is taken so seriously. It's also super weird that everyone is so addicted to this game they play it out in public.
To illustrate this: imagine your ideal day. It could be on vacation, or hanging out at home, anywhere really. The key: imagine you are happy, or at least content. Now, do your imaginings ever have you reading angry tweets by people you hardly know for longer than you'd like?
I'd guess not.
To illustrate this: imagine your ideal day. It could be on vacation, or hanging out at home, anywhere really. The key: imagine you are happy, or at least content. Now, do your imaginings ever have you reading angry tweets by people you hardly know for longer than you'd like?
I'd guess not.
Never joined the game, never will, see absolutely 0 reason. I don't care what he and she and he said, I guess you can say I am way more impressed by deeds than endless blabbing. Anytime I open it due to being embedded in news articles and wanting to see detailed photo being shown, I see basically news/youtube/whatever shallow and pathetic comment section. Echo chambers. Weird dynamics which don't happen in real life.
Why would you do this to yourself? I mean if you are a balanced adult who knows what they want in life and are not affected by massive mood swings and insecurities for whatever reason.
It is of course not black and white, it seems that ie right now Ukrainian defenders have a very good platform to inform whole world, no need to have BBC/CNN guys embedded in the heart of bombed city. That's cool and all. I just really don't like the rest of the whole society evolved around it.
Why would you do this to yourself? I mean if you are a balanced adult who knows what they want in life and are not affected by massive mood swings and insecurities for whatever reason.
It is of course not black and white, it seems that ie right now Ukrainian defenders have a very good platform to inform whole world, no need to have BBC/CNN guys embedded in the heart of bombed city. That's cool and all. I just really don't like the rest of the whole society evolved around it.
> if you are a[n]...adult who knows what they want in life
Twitter feeds directly into the modern impulse to define oneself. It becomes sticky by coupling that with social validation. Say the right thing and you get a few Internet Points. Do it enough and people may follow you, which gives you a different type of Internet Points. Get enough of those, and you might get a blue checkmark, denoting you as a Very Important Person.
It is much easier to lean on externally mediated processes of identity formation (like Twitter) than it is to go at it alone. I almost don't blame people, except for the fact that I don't believe this outsourcing of identity even works on an individual level. It's as if everyone present is playing along with a game that they don't fully believe in, but the game goes on despite that.
It's quite modern and tragicomic in a way.
Twitter feeds directly into the modern impulse to define oneself. It becomes sticky by coupling that with social validation. Say the right thing and you get a few Internet Points. Do it enough and people may follow you, which gives you a different type of Internet Points. Get enough of those, and you might get a blue checkmark, denoting you as a Very Important Person.
It is much easier to lean on externally mediated processes of identity formation (like Twitter) than it is to go at it alone. I almost don't blame people, except for the fact that I don't believe this outsourcing of identity even works on an individual level. It's as if everyone present is playing along with a game that they don't fully believe in, but the game goes on despite that.
It's quite modern and tragicomic in a way.
I saw a post once for a journalism job with local media here. 4-6 articles a day.
Not sure how you could do that job without Twitter.
Not sure how you could do that job without Twitter.
Sing up for all the companies that provide press releases? Not sure if that is enough though...
I post publicly on forums with my real name and don’t endorse everything I have said.
Just evict such absolutist moral nonsense people from your life and don’t allow them to control you. When you see them do it to others, block them.
It’s exactly the same thing as when it was a certain sort of church people controlling much of society with fear of “canceling” which was just done by different people with different means in the past, fundamentally nothing changed when people left religion because they thought religion was the source of this kind of toxicity.
Just evict such absolutist moral nonsense people from your life and don’t allow them to control you. When you see them do it to others, block them.
It’s exactly the same thing as when it was a certain sort of church people controlling much of society with fear of “canceling” which was just done by different people with different means in the past, fundamentally nothing changed when people left religion because they thought religion was the source of this kind of toxicity.
When you get “canceled”, it doesn’t matter who you’ve personally “evicted” or not. If people with power over you either agree with the absolutists or are afraid of offending them, you’re going to have a bad time.
I think you're failing to account for the specifically viral nature of Twitter. Even a forum like reddit is a relatively isolated space for opprobrium by comparison.
>People in my demographic face significant exposure to "cancelling" or ambushing for wrongthink.
I don't use Twitter or pretty much say anything publicly for the same reason, but note that this is definitely a risk for people of all demographics.
I don't use Twitter or pretty much say anything publicly for the same reason, but note that this is definitely a risk for people of all demographics.
Totally agree, being attacked for your viewpoint used to be just a problem for minority viewpoints/identities. But now even those who were previously safe are seeing increasing risk in backlashes.
We have gone from silencing the minority to silencing the majority, this is terrible, but silver lining is that now maybe more people are invested in solving the problem.
We have gone from silencing the minority to silencing the majority, this is terrible, but silver lining is that now maybe more people are invested in solving the problem.
It is far more risk for some than others.
If you have a minority viewpoint, you get attacked far more easily.
If you have a minority viewpoint, you get attacked far more easily.
I would even say viewpoint of not the vocal minority. That is even near majority viewpoint, but if it is one not popular on twitter it is risky...
Isn't the whole dynamic of twitter that it can make a highly vocal minority viewpoint seem like an oppressive majority viewpoint, where reality is that it's like a heckler's veto on amphetamines with a megaphone?
> but if it is one not popular on twitter it is risky...
Right now or at any point in the future. People have been canceled for things they said many years and opinion changes ago.
Right now or at any point in the future. People have been canceled for things they said many years and opinion changes ago.
That’s the minefield of posting online. People measure your comments from 20 years ago with today’s sensitivity yardstick. I know I made wisecrack jokes decades ago that would get me fired today. Who knows whether some innocuous thing you say today will be horrendously taboo 20 years from now?
[deleted]
Maybe instead of demographic, it's about people whose public image is part of their job. Like startup executives, academics, athletes, politicians (even "low-level" politicians like city councilman), product managers, or venture capitalists. That's a lot of people who are juicier targets than someone earlier in their career, like a student, an associate, or entry-level software developer.
I don't think this is a healthy way to live. There was another conversation thread started about an hour ago that dives into this really well:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30602611
I would reiterate my comment on that thread, verbatim:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30603008
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30602611
I would reiterate my comment on that thread, verbatim:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30603008
On the contrary, this seems to me a very healthy way to live. Until the last 15 years, very few people had their views expressed beyond a narrow circle. Standing on a public stage and shouting your every thought would have seemed crazy.
Without hesitation I dare say there is prior art in this question. I’m thinking of the Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park.
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-32703071
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-32703071
I don't think Speakers' Corner is remotely comparable to how social media works today.
Very few people spoke there, and very little of what they said was distributed beyond Hyde Park or recorded for posterity. I'm lucky enough to have seen a couple of people speak there, and they were both rather... eccentric. And even they didn't stand there all day, every day giving their opinions on everything that happened.
Very few people spoke there, and very little of what they said was distributed beyond Hyde Park or recorded for posterity. I'm lucky enough to have seen a couple of people speak there, and they were both rather... eccentric. And even they didn't stand there all day, every day giving their opinions on everything that happened.
I think that’s great.
I don’t believe in living in fear of how people might react.
Of course I choose my battles; and I don’t walk up to strangers and tell them their baby is ugly. But that’s not being suppressed, IMHO.
And I don’t keep narrow-minded people among my close friends.
I don’t believe in living in fear of how people might react.
Of course I choose my battles; and I don’t walk up to strangers and tell them their baby is ugly. But that’s not being suppressed, IMHO.
And I don’t keep narrow-minded people among my close friends.
You can get the best of both worlds. Stop worrying too much about what you think and say, like you mentioned; and also stop engaging on Twitter.
I’m so afraid of Twitter that I even created a distinct account with a default username—“user12345” or something of that nature. My old account had my photo and maybe my name.
I can’t even risk having people see who I follow, and on Twitter who you follow is public.
I can’t even risk having people see who I follow, and on Twitter who you follow is public.
[deleted]
>I don't engage on Twitter out of fear.
It seems in their effort to ban people for wrong think, they banned the wrong group. They should have been banning the cancellers. "I don't engage on Twitter out of fear," is not a good sign for retention or growth numbers. Twitter seems to be killing itself by allowing this cancer to grow.
Have you ever been on a pretty great message board / forum and a bunch of spittle people join and makes the board suck to converse on? Eventually that board is nothing but spittle people, then the board dies. Twitters seems like it is going this way.
FWIW, I cancelled all my social media accounts after the Snowden revelations in 2013. I'm just an outside observer, but I'm certainly glad I'm not inside.
It seems in their effort to ban people for wrong think, they banned the wrong group. They should have been banning the cancellers. "I don't engage on Twitter out of fear," is not a good sign for retention or growth numbers. Twitter seems to be killing itself by allowing this cancer to grow.
Have you ever been on a pretty great message board / forum and a bunch of spittle people join and makes the board suck to converse on? Eventually that board is nothing but spittle people, then the board dies. Twitters seems like it is going this way.
FWIW, I cancelled all my social media accounts after the Snowden revelations in 2013. I'm just an outside observer, but I'm certainly glad I'm not inside.
> I don't engage on Twitter out of fear.
> it means I'm endorsing everything the author has ever said or ever will say.
> People in my demographic face significant exposure to "cancelling" or ambushing for wrongthink.
I totally get that this is the zeitgeist now (and I'm starting to behave this way now on HN since I don't really do other social media), but this is a horrible place we've worked ourselves into.
People taking pop shots and then getting algorithmically amplified has reduced the surface area for having safe dialogue and has led to increasing tensions and polarization.
In an ideal world, people talk about and discuss things they disagree about frequently and are at least respectful in dealing with those they don't see eye to eye with. We all have a different frame of reference, and that's not something to fight against.
I think the pandemic increased stresses for a lot of people (myself included), but these trends really took hold with algorithmic amplification. It isn't just a passing fad, sadly. And it isn't just rooted in just the technology. There are real needs and causes for social angst that need to be met.
Imagine if we also amplified inspiring and hopeful things. Nourished ourselves with stories of hope and overcoming difficulties. Science and technology, opportunity, a look to the future. (Especially for kids!) I know life isn't all sunshine and roses, but this would give us balance and perspective and wouldn't chip away at a person's inner drive and passion by replacing it with skepticism and dissatisfaction.
I think we can swing back. People are noticing this and feeling displeasure.
> it means I'm endorsing everything the author has ever said or ever will say.
> People in my demographic face significant exposure to "cancelling" or ambushing for wrongthink.
I totally get that this is the zeitgeist now (and I'm starting to behave this way now on HN since I don't really do other social media), but this is a horrible place we've worked ourselves into.
People taking pop shots and then getting algorithmically amplified has reduced the surface area for having safe dialogue and has led to increasing tensions and polarization.
In an ideal world, people talk about and discuss things they disagree about frequently and are at least respectful in dealing with those they don't see eye to eye with. We all have a different frame of reference, and that's not something to fight against.
I think the pandemic increased stresses for a lot of people (myself included), but these trends really took hold with algorithmic amplification. It isn't just a passing fad, sadly. And it isn't just rooted in just the technology. There are real needs and causes for social angst that need to be met.
Imagine if we also amplified inspiring and hopeful things. Nourished ourselves with stories of hope and overcoming difficulties. Science and technology, opportunity, a look to the future. (Especially for kids!) I know life isn't all sunshine and roses, but this would give us balance and perspective and wouldn't chip away at a person's inner drive and passion by replacing it with skepticism and dissatisfaction.
I think we can swing back. People are noticing this and feeling displeasure.
Unless u have a lot of followers, there is a 99.9% chance no one will even see your tweet. Almost all twitter engagement is just bot engagement. there are entire industries devoted to getting social media posts seen by humans. it isn't easy.
The golden rule of using Twitter is: everything said is said to everyone, in public.
Turns out, there's a lot of stuff people just probably shouldn't broadcast.
Turns out, there's a lot of stuff people just probably shouldn't broadcast.
> So it's best for me to avoid it entirely.
Good decision.
To win the social media game it is to not play it at all.
Good decision.
To win the social media game it is to not play it at all.
Is it accurate to label that fear, or simply a modicome of intelligence.
[deleted](1)
You’re getting cancelled for your views? Which views are those, exactly?
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” - Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis
It doesn't matter what their views are. If someone decides they don't like them and that person have enough followers, they will find something.
It doesn't matter what their views are. If someone decides they don't like them and that person have enough followers, they will find something.
The point I was making was the risk exists. Consider the scenario: Author says something interesting; I retweet; Author later says something awful which I don't even know about; My retweet is still present and can make me guilty by association.
This is very common on Twitter. It's not a place I can haphazardly navigate. I can't stay up to date on the latest outrage or who has fallen from glory.
This is very common on Twitter. It's not a place I can haphazardly navigate. I can't stay up to date on the latest outrage or who has fallen from glory.
Your comment implies that surely any cancellation of someone for their views must be justifiable.
That's an insane premise, but even if we presume it to be true, it still doesn't cover the case of _future_ cancellation when someone finds your tweets 10 years later and decides they aged like milk.
There are many comments I would have made 5-10 years ago, that I wouldn't make today. Sure, that's mostly due to maturity, but I've also adjusted my self-filter to account for a changing environment and audience.
At this point, I write all political comments under pseudonyms. It's not because I'm scared of getting cancelled — on the contrary, I wish I could argue my positions from my real name. But there is a lot of risk, for little benefit – I'm not a "journalist" or blogger or anyone with a career that depends on my political viewpoints. So why bother?
In general, online political comments gain me nothing, and there is no way to predict how those comments might look in a week, month, or even years from now. I do still write plenty of them, under pseudonyms (like this one), but it's more of a hobby to practice my writing. But I'm also not ashamed of anything I've written under any of the accounts – I would gladly defend all my opinions in person (to those close to me, who already know my feelings, and – btw, because they're sane – have never "cancelled" me).
Who knows, maybe one day I'll even tweet my pseudonym usernames so I can show everyone how right I was five years ago.
That's an insane premise, but even if we presume it to be true, it still doesn't cover the case of _future_ cancellation when someone finds your tweets 10 years later and decides they aged like milk.
There are many comments I would have made 5-10 years ago, that I wouldn't make today. Sure, that's mostly due to maturity, but I've also adjusted my self-filter to account for a changing environment and audience.
At this point, I write all political comments under pseudonyms. It's not because I'm scared of getting cancelled — on the contrary, I wish I could argue my positions from my real name. But there is a lot of risk, for little benefit – I'm not a "journalist" or blogger or anyone with a career that depends on my political viewpoints. So why bother?
In general, online political comments gain me nothing, and there is no way to predict how those comments might look in a week, month, or even years from now. I do still write plenty of them, under pseudonyms (like this one), but it's more of a hobby to practice my writing. But I'm also not ashamed of anything I've written under any of the accounts – I would gladly defend all my opinions in person (to those close to me, who already know my feelings, and – btw, because they're sane – have never "cancelled" me).
Who knows, maybe one day I'll even tweet my pseudonym usernames so I can show everyone how right I was five years ago.
Supporting free speech and support equal hiring practices will get you cancelled these days, or at least bucketed with right wing extremists.
or supporting radical feminism. or socialism. it's easy to be in an out-group very quickly
It's really easy to not be "canceled", just be a good person. What genuinely OK opinion are people being canceled for?
Define "good" and "ok" first.
A good person who doesn't use Twitter (someone who might fix cars, or works on a fishing vessel for example) who is having this little discussion about what is "good" and "ok" might very easily use the wrong words and offend someone.
A good person who doesn't use Twitter (someone who might fix cars, or works on a fishing vessel for example) who is having this little discussion about what is "good" and "ok" might very easily use the wrong words and offend someone.
Really? This is easy, don't hurt other people.
That’s not possible. People take offense at everything. Or they will tomorrow.
That’s the real problem: the standards of “good” and “decent” shift from time to time. What is fine today may get you canceled tomorrow.
Thus, it is not safe to put your opinions out there in any form that could come back to bite you. If you want to take that risk, fine. But do not pretend that it is safe.
That’s the real problem: the standards of “good” and “decent” shift from time to time. What is fine today may get you canceled tomorrow.
Thus, it is not safe to put your opinions out there in any form that could come back to bite you. If you want to take that risk, fine. But do not pretend that it is safe.
It really isn't changing that much though. Maybe if you think someone might be offended by what you say in 10 years, maybe don't say it now. It's probably offensive now
[deleted]
Has it slowed down? The change over the last 10 years, and over the 10 before that, was fast. Just watching mass media from the early parts of those two spans should make that clear.
Are there any of your own beliefs which you don't express because they might be considered offensive in the future?
I don't think i hold offensive beliefs (controversial maybe, as we see here, but no ones getting their feelings hurt), if I did and learned about I'd change them. It seems easy to not be offensive though, what kind of beliefs are people having trouble with?
There are some issues where it seems impossible to hold a non-offensive belief. You can't support abortion or oppose abortion or claim abortion is unimportant without genuinely hurting a lot of people's feelings. (I wouldn't deny that you can avoid being offensive by simply avoiding all controversial issues, and in some contexts that's a perfectly reasonable approach.)
You're literally talking down to someone right now- that's not hurting other people?
Now define "hurt".
It's not easy as "hurt" is not objective, is relative to others and no longer connected to intention.
It's not easy as "hurt" is not objective, is relative to others and no longer connected to intention.
This isn't some clover got you, if someone tell you your offended them then that's it, you offended them. You don't get to redefine it
Your comment offends my intelligence, therefore you've hurt a person, therefore you're not a "good person" anymore.
But you might not care about that. You might say that I'm arguing in bad faith, or that your words couldn't possibly have offended me. But you don't get to redefine it.
Obviously, you might just not care that you've just offended me. That's what bad people do. You aren't a bad person, right? Could you please apologize?
But you might not care about that. You might say that I'm arguing in bad faith, or that your words couldn't possibly have offended me. But you don't get to redefine it.
Obviously, you might just not care that you've just offended me. That's what bad people do. You aren't a bad person, right? Could you please apologize?
That's an unreasonable standard. If I chose to see your use of the phrase 'clover got you' as some slur against Irish people and was offended, would you have offended me?
This is an unfair question, not because it's not a reasonable one given your argument, but because if you say 'yes' I can't take you seriously.
Of course, that's not really the issue. The issue is what the response is when people are offended. I can certainly modify my language and behavior to reduce the chances of offending someone. I can even apologize when I've accidentally put my foot in my mouth.
Twitter lacks the tolerance and nuance for either of those scenarios, though. If something 'not ok' is said, what was intended or meant doesn't matter (and any nuanced is typically ignored). An apology isn't seen as an apology for a mistake, but as an admission of guilt of being a terrible person who doesn't deserve oxygen.
This is an unfair question, not because it's not a reasonable one given your argument, but because if you say 'yes' I can't take you seriously.
Of course, that's not really the issue. The issue is what the response is when people are offended. I can certainly modify my language and behavior to reduce the chances of offending someone. I can even apologize when I've accidentally put my foot in my mouth.
Twitter lacks the tolerance and nuance for either of those scenarios, though. If something 'not ok' is said, what was intended or meant doesn't matter (and any nuanced is typically ignored). An apology isn't seen as an apology for a mistake, but as an admission of guilt of being a terrible person who doesn't deserve oxygen.
I find your words offensive, please stop posting in HN forever.
You offended me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You can't physically hurt people on twitter, as it's all information. So whether or not you hurt someone is (at least partly) dependent on how people react. That can be hard to predict.
It's definitely not sufficient, we've seen people being cancelled who did not do anything bad.
It's really easy to not be burned at the stake, just don't be a witch.
Being canceled isn't even a real thing. It's just a phrase people use because they have to have consequences when they show their true selves. Some group of people don't agree with you? Show me an example of being canceled then
You've already made up your mind, so if you're not interested in actually understanding why cancelling both exists and is a problem, you can probably sit this conversation out. You want an example, fine.
In many scenarios canceling is completely arbitrary, based on misquotes, lack of context, or total fabrication simply because someone, somewhere was offended and can get other people to act on their behalf.
In the best case scenario, the person being canceled is actually a shitty human being. I know such a person. He said some really stupid stuff online, was called out on it, doubled down on it, was doxxed and canceled. He's not the type of person who considers the consequences of his actions in any scenario. He's also actually stupid and not a friend of mine. I think he's as close to hot garbage as a human being can get without actually abusing or murdering other people.
However, this person still did not deserve death threats for the words he wrote. This person did not deserve people calling his employer threatening to burn down their building. The employer certainly didn't deserve that. His coworkers didn't deserve it. This person did not deserve his house to be vandalized; nor did the actual owner of the house. His roommates didn't deserve to live in fear and to have to deal with angry people maybe thinking they were him.
These behaviors are not justifiable. They are, in fact, less justifiable than someone saying awful things online. Writing them off as "consequences" is simply twisted.
In many scenarios canceling is completely arbitrary, based on misquotes, lack of context, or total fabrication simply because someone, somewhere was offended and can get other people to act on their behalf.
In the best case scenario, the person being canceled is actually a shitty human being. I know such a person. He said some really stupid stuff online, was called out on it, doubled down on it, was doxxed and canceled. He's not the type of person who considers the consequences of his actions in any scenario. He's also actually stupid and not a friend of mine. I think he's as close to hot garbage as a human being can get without actually abusing or murdering other people.
However, this person still did not deserve death threats for the words he wrote. This person did not deserve people calling his employer threatening to burn down their building. The employer certainly didn't deserve that. His coworkers didn't deserve it. This person did not deserve his house to be vandalized; nor did the actual owner of the house. His roommates didn't deserve to live in fear and to have to deal with angry people maybe thinking they were him.
These behaviors are not justifiable. They are, in fact, less justifiable than someone saying awful things online. Writing them off as "consequences" is simply twisted.
If you really think it's not a thing, here's an early cancellation. Pretty much everyone involved lost their jobs, and it was all over social media for a cycle.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...
My earliest memory of getting "cancelled" predates twitter where Dixie Chicks were "cancelled" by their own fans because they criticized the Iraq war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy
The show Soap was (literally) canceled for positive representations of homosexuals by people complaining to employers, issuing death threats, and etc.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/soap/
> Though the show’s ratings were still good in season four, ABC cancelled the series because of continued pressure from the so-called “moral majority.” By the end of the series, Vlasic pickles was the only advertiser interested in advertising on the series. In They’ll Never Put That on the Air, executive producer Paul Junger Witt said, “We weren’t killed by a fearful network. The network had been incredibly supportive. We had been doing this long enough to understand that they were in a business, and they sat down and showed us — dollar for dollar — why they couldn’t afford to do it anymore.”
The people who are part of cancel culture now are literally using the same scare tactics that were used to suppress and oppress homosexuals and other minority groups.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/soap/
> Though the show’s ratings were still good in season four, ABC cancelled the series because of continued pressure from the so-called “moral majority.” By the end of the series, Vlasic pickles was the only advertiser interested in advertising on the series. In They’ll Never Put That on the Air, executive producer Paul Junger Witt said, “We weren’t killed by a fearful network. The network had been incredibly supportive. We had been doing this long enough to understand that they were in a business, and they sat down and showed us — dollar for dollar — why they couldn’t afford to do it anymore.”
The people who are part of cancel culture now are literally using the same scare tactics that were used to suppress and oppress homosexuals and other minority groups.
> The people who are part of cancel culture now are literally using the same scare tactics that were used to suppress and oppress homosexuals and other minority groups.
More like people who complain about being victim of the cancel culture are the ones who were oblivious to it until they became the victim. Currently the cancel culture is being associated as some kind of PC culture outcome but it originated way before. The push back or critisim against it seems to be only happening now.
More like people who complain about being victim of the cancel culture are the ones who were oblivious to it until they became the victim. Currently the cancel culture is being associated as some kind of PC culture outcome but it originated way before. The push back or critisim against it seems to be only happening now.
I don’t think so. Abhorrent behavior has always been abhorrent. The people using these tactics even often acknowledge it’s ugly behavior but feel vindicated (and even righteous). Some people are hypocrites. This is all just quite a bit easier and more visible than in the past. If anything has changed beyond scale and politics, it’s that people arguing against it are more easily heard.
[deleted]
[deleted]
ha, beat me to it! :D
People change. Your "edgy" tweets and shitty jokes from when you were young and stupid can still haunt you in your adult life.
Case in point: James Gunn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gunn#Firing_from_Disney_... )
This is why I rarely interact on Twitter and I have a script that deletes all my tweets that are over X days old. If I say something truely insightful, I'll just make a blog post out of it.
Case in point: James Gunn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gunn#Firing_from_Disney_... )
This is why I rarely interact on Twitter and I have a script that deletes all my tweets that are over X days old. If I say something truely insightful, I'll just make a blog post out of it.
> "Firing from Disney *and reinstatement*"
Yep, he's super cancelled. Great example.
Yep, he's super cancelled. Great example.
Got attacked by dozens of people and eventually a twitter account ban for suggesting that free-speech is important and Chappelle's latest special shouldn't be removed from Netflix.
If you got banned by Twitter, it was probably more than merely "suggesting" that free speech was important.
No, this is exactly what happened. My tweet suggested nearly verbatim what I said above, and in response I got verbally abused and insulted by literally dozens of people from the trans community. They scrubbed through my tweet history, replying to old tweets and reporting anything they could. They reported a very old tweet where I promoted pacifism (I'm a pacifist), but it was sarcastic, stating that if we are gonna punch Nazis, we might as well punch mujahideen, ISIS, pro-lifers, Zionists, etc. They took advantage of the fact that sarcasm can be read both ways, and I was banned for promoting violence. Nevertheless I was cancelled due to my comments on free speech.
Choose to believe it or not, that's your business, but this is exactly what happened.
Choose to believe it or not, that's your business, but this is exactly what happened.
>Choose to believe it or not, that's your business, but this is exactly what happened.
(I do believe you. By comment was in response to your original one, which lacked a lot of the context you just provided.)
(I do believe you. By comment was in response to your original one, which lacked a lot of the context you just provided.)
The problem is that you can have a not-ok opinion and still be a good person who has a positive effect on the world, but we have no tolerance for that. We demand public perfection.
Here is a good example:
"You just used 'OK' in your comment, only white supremacists use 'OK'."
"You just used 'OK' in your comment, only white supremacists use 'OK'."
I mean, it's an example...
I would ask you to think back to 2019 when a large majority on Twitter and from the mainstream media took a picture of some high school boys in Washington DC and brandied them about as the face of racism in America.
"He has a racist smirk"
"He has a racist smirk"
Do you have a link to this? I Googled the quote at the end and just found this weirdo tweeting under the hashtag #RealNiggas4Romney.
Here is a medium article that preserved a bunch of the tweets and a wiki article.
I remember(maybe mis-) some reddit comments at the time about the kid's smirk. There was also a buch of comments about "punchable face"
https://medium.com/@RevolutionaryId/twitter-democratizing-mo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
>In the wake of the publication of the longer video, CNN Business reporter Donie O'Sullivan described the twitter video uploaded by "2020fight" as the one that "helped frame the news cycle" of the previous days, and characterized the video as a "deliberate attempt" to mislead and "manipulate the public conversation on Twitter"—a violation of Twitter rules.[76] According to Molly McKew, an information warfare researcher, the tweet had been boosted by a network of anonymous Twitter accounts to amplify the story.
To add to my point of 'OK': On January 22, shortly after tweeting it, comedian Kathy Griffin deleted a Twitter message in which she accused Covington basketball players making an OK gesture of "throwing up the new nazi sign".
I remember(maybe mis-) some reddit comments at the time about the kid's smirk. There was also a buch of comments about "punchable face"
https://medium.com/@RevolutionaryId/twitter-democratizing-mo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
>In the wake of the publication of the longer video, CNN Business reporter Donie O'Sullivan described the twitter video uploaded by "2020fight" as the one that "helped frame the news cycle" of the previous days, and characterized the video as a "deliberate attempt" to mislead and "manipulate the public conversation on Twitter"—a violation of Twitter rules.[76] According to Molly McKew, an information warfare researcher, the tweet had been boosted by a network of anonymous Twitter accounts to amplify the story.
To add to my point of 'OK': On January 22, shortly after tweeting it, comedian Kathy Griffin deleted a Twitter message in which she accused Covington basketball players making an OK gesture of "throwing up the new nazi sign".
Boy oh boy wowee.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/washington-post-settles-250m-s...
heres one link. search term is covington kid.
basically just another case of left aligned news stations casually labelling everyone they don't like as 'racist'
heres one link. search term is covington kid.
basically just another case of left aligned news stations casually labelling everyone they don't like as 'racist'
I think it goes beyond that, sure the traditional media did not help things but this started on Twitter.
Someone edited down a video of what happened and shared it. It was boosted either by bots or by unsuspecting people but it set off what can only be described as a witch hunt. This is of course not the first time this has happened, we have had things like Donglegate(https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...) and Shirtgate(https://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/). But the events seem to be getting bigger in magnitude, i.e. drawing in international media(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46935701) and more numerous(sorry no stats, only my attention).
You can not run a society on mobs. I am not sure if it is Twitters design, the speed of information, the need to feel like part of the in group and/or a combination of all and more that is leading to the formation of mobs but it is not healthy.
I also think there is some cultural values at play as well, where the number of Twitter followers, being an influencer, or just being self centered is seen as a positive thing.
Part of me thinks that it might be related to the gamification of everything, if I post more more(of the right thing) I get more likes, followers, retweets by celebrity. Rather than if I post clear concise or well thought out things. Quality over quantity as it were.
Someone edited down a video of what happened and shared it. It was boosted either by bots or by unsuspecting people but it set off what can only be described as a witch hunt. This is of course not the first time this has happened, we have had things like Donglegate(https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...) and Shirtgate(https://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/). But the events seem to be getting bigger in magnitude, i.e. drawing in international media(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46935701) and more numerous(sorry no stats, only my attention).
You can not run a society on mobs. I am not sure if it is Twitters design, the speed of information, the need to feel like part of the in group and/or a combination of all and more that is leading to the formation of mobs but it is not healthy.
I also think there is some cultural values at play as well, where the number of Twitter followers, being an influencer, or just being self centered is seen as a positive thing.
Part of me thinks that it might be related to the gamification of everything, if I post more more(of the right thing) I get more likes, followers, retweets by celebrity. Rather than if I post clear concise or well thought out things. Quality over quantity as it were.
There was massive coverage over this incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
While I don't think most of the people engaging with you are doing so completely in good faith, I don't think you understand the "fickleness" of the tweeting masses either.
Just like you're getting downvotes and a lot of blowback for your opinion on this matter here, it's way worse on twitter.
I've heard someone say that twitter is a game where the goal is not to be the main character of the day. And that kind of holds. Twitter is a bit geared for outrage. Small snippets with no context. Say you don't like The Batman and you could find yourself under a barrage of hate and vitriol. It's not a left thing or a right thing, they both have their mobs on twitter, in addition to all the other random mobs floating about. Hell, say something shitty about the wrong product will have that mob after you.
Just like you're getting downvotes and a lot of blowback for your opinion on this matter here, it's way worse on twitter.
I've heard someone say that twitter is a game where the goal is not to be the main character of the day. And that kind of holds. Twitter is a bit geared for outrage. Small snippets with no context. Say you don't like The Batman and you could find yourself under a barrage of hate and vitriol. It's not a left thing or a right thing, they both have their mobs on twitter, in addition to all the other random mobs floating about. Hell, say something shitty about the wrong product will have that mob after you.
are people using cancel to refer to the pile on mobs or what they consider unfair escalation in consequences? i mentioned in another post, im on the receiving end on a pile on I think, but i wouldn't say i'm being canceled.
if you say internet communities have an issue with pile on mobs and harassment, id agree but i think that's different then canceling, which i don't think happens to the average person or they even need to worry about
if you say internet communities have an issue with pile on mobs and harassment, id agree but i think that's different then canceling, which i don't think happens to the average person or they even need to worry about
"Cancel" is a nebulous term, it means almost whatever the person using it wants to mean.
Is banning cancelling? What about HN's rate limiting? Being harrassed off of a platform?
All these things have been called "cancelling" by someone. And fair play by others. I think, in this context, we do have to consider the mobs as a part of "cancelling" because this is a thread about an article about people who don't engage in social media. Partly due to the fear of the amount of negative engagement.
Is banning cancelling? What about HN's rate limiting? Being harrassed off of a platform?
All these things have been called "cancelling" by someone. And fair play by others. I think, in this context, we do have to consider the mobs as a part of "cancelling" because this is a thread about an article about people who don't engage in social media. Partly due to the fear of the amount of negative engagement.
Who's the arbiter of an OK opinion?
I used to think this way. Saw too many legitimately-good people get brigaded to believe it anymore.
There's enough pile-on mobs on Twitter now with enough disagreement on what's acceptable that you can trip over any of them.
There's enough pile-on mobs on Twitter now with enough disagreement on what's acceptable that you can trip over any of them.
I wouldn't consider canceling and pile on mobs to be the same thing. I'm getting piled on here, I wouldn't say I'm getting canceled lol
[deleted]
>It's really easy to not be "canceled", just be a good person.
I think you've really highlighted here why there's so much backlash against the latest wave of political correctness.
To many people, myself included, a "good person" is someone who can be counted on to help a friend in need, goes out of their way to make the day of the people they interact with that little bit more special (this is something I need to work on), and works hard to provide for their family in whatever way they can.
In my experience at least, a lot of the people who say the right words and hold the right opinions will flake on a friend in their hour of need, or avoid speaking with certain kinds of people lest they say the wrong thing. On the contrary, I can name several people who have dark senses of humour or right-wing beliefs, but will always go above and beyond to help out their community and the people they care about (yes, LGBT people and ethnic minorities too!).
I'm not saying that PC people are worse than non-PC people (if anything, it's probably uncorrelated), but the fact that you've binned people into "good" and "bad" based on how PC their opinions are is just, at least in my opinion, completely out of step with the view of general society.
I think you've really highlighted here why there's so much backlash against the latest wave of political correctness.
To many people, myself included, a "good person" is someone who can be counted on to help a friend in need, goes out of their way to make the day of the people they interact with that little bit more special (this is something I need to work on), and works hard to provide for their family in whatever way they can.
In my experience at least, a lot of the people who say the right words and hold the right opinions will flake on a friend in their hour of need, or avoid speaking with certain kinds of people lest they say the wrong thing. On the contrary, I can name several people who have dark senses of humour or right-wing beliefs, but will always go above and beyond to help out their community and the people they care about (yes, LGBT people and ethnic minorities too!).
I'm not saying that PC people are worse than non-PC people (if anything, it's probably uncorrelated), but the fact that you've binned people into "good" and "bad" based on how PC their opinions are is just, at least in my opinion, completely out of step with the view of general society.
A good person does not use Twitter. If you use Twitter therefore you are a bad person and deserve to be cancelled.
What's "good"? I think it's at least OK to suggest that covid vaccines are generally good, and most people who are eligible should get them. But it's a social media shit-storm. I'm not interested.
just believe in our gods and you won't get burned at the stake, how hard is that, people? I mean really? /s
Good people are boring.
I heard some nice tweets today. It was sunny, I was in the park, and the birds tweeted just beautiful!
[deleted]
So glad my toxic/addictive social network experiences were years ago on old style forums. It’s been wild watching the rest of the world go through the same thing but completely public not on some niche forum nobody reads.
If these networks are here to stay we very clearly need to at least train people from a young age how to mentally handle social networks.
If these networks are here to stay we very clearly need to at least train people from a young age how to mentally handle social networks.
"and they don't try to pick fights at school board meetings."
wtf - way to pick a political side in an article. So "normal, nice" people are people who never question the government, especially not if Democrats are in power?
These people were picking fights about the government transitioning their kids. Or rather, I guess from their perspective, the government picked the fight.
wtf - way to pick a political side in an article. So "normal, nice" people are people who never question the government, especially not if Democrats are in power?
These people were picking fights about the government transitioning their kids. Or rather, I guess from their perspective, the government picked the fight.
erehweb(3)
I know a lot of folks in my field side by the stance that everything is political, even code. Call me irresponsible, but I've honestly led a much happier and stress-free life living in the fantasy world where that is not the case, and I can enjoy my hobby in open-source without Github issues becoming a shouting match that spans 200 comments from people who aren't even invested in the codebase.
EDIT: typos