[HN Gopher] The new silent majority: People who don't tweet ___________________________________________________________________ The new silent majority: People who don't tweet Author : laurex Score : 472 points Date : 2022-03-08 18:30 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.axios.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com) | Atlas667 wrote: | 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. | RobertRoberts wrote: | 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?) | Miner49er wrote: | Probably for the same reasons you just posted this comment. | RobertRoberts wrote: | But I only post here because this community is worth | interacting with. | | Twitter's community is the entire world. (as far as I know) | 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: | According to the article, Twitter only makes up 25% of | America, let alone the world. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | 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. | Ekaros wrote: | Wouldn't that be marketing? Private, but marketing still. At | least if those artist also provide commercial services. | CodeMage wrote: | 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. | rootusrootus wrote: | > 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. | CodeMage wrote: | 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. | rektide wrote: | 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. | lvass wrote: | Are you seriously comparing the world to consent manufacturing | machine? | tenebrisalietum wrote: | > 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. | psyc wrote: | 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) | nikolay wrote: | 2022 feels like the pre-1989 era in Communist Bulgaria - people | only shared what they think in their closest circles. | vmception wrote: | > 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! | ar_lan wrote: | 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. | kzrdude wrote: | 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. :) | polynomial wrote: | 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. | alecbz wrote: | > 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?) | mekal wrote: | 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! | jelling wrote: | > 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. | Clubber wrote: | >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. | donatj wrote: | 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. | EastSmith wrote: | 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. | annoyingnoob wrote: | People that regularly use social media seem to think they know | everything or can know everything. Seems myopic from an outside | perspective. | znpy wrote: | 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 | xhevahir wrote: | 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. | upofadown wrote: | 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... | StopDarkPattern wrote: | 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 | ayngg wrote: | 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. | nomdep wrote: | And yet, companies and conference organizers seem to think the | Twitter mob represents everyone | rambambram wrote: | I heard some nice tweets today. It was sunny, I was in the park, | and the birds tweeted just beautiful! | [deleted] | hprotagonist wrote: | We perpetually rediscover this, and we're perpetually astonished. | [deleted] | newsclues wrote: | 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! | tenebrisalietum wrote: | 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. | sriram_sun wrote: | It can be a wellspring of knowledge too. It works for me. I | follow knowledge generators in fields I'm interested in. | subpixel wrote: | I don't Tweet. My mother, bless her, already comments on every | one of my Instagram posts. | zelphirkalt wrote: | 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". | cgrealy wrote: | 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. | typeofhuman wrote: | 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. | happytoexplain wrote: | >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. | whathappenedto wrote: | 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. | RobertRoberts wrote: | It is far more risk for some than others. | | If you have a minority viewpoint, you get attacked far more | easily. | Ekaros wrote: | 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... | aksss wrote: | 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? | Sebb767 wrote: | > 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. | ryandrake wrote: | 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] | analyst74 wrote: | 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. | colechristensen wrote: | 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. | scintill76 wrote: | 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. | KerrAvon wrote: | 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. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | Is it accurate to label that fear, or simply a modicome of | intelligence. | Clubber wrote: | >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. | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | > 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. | jquery wrote: | You're getting cancelled for your views? Which views are those, | exactly? | TechBro8615 wrote: | 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. | colordrops wrote: | Supporting free speech and support equal hiring practices | will get you cancelled these days, or at least bucketed with | right wing extremists. | ggm wrote: | or supporting radical feminism. or socialism. it's easy to | be in an out-group very quickly | typeofhuman wrote: | 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. | themaninthedark wrote: | "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. | rvz wrote: | > 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. | jamesfe wrote: | 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! | vasco wrote: | 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. | alphabetting wrote: | This is the way | massysett wrote: | 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. | tayo42 wrote: | It's really easy to not be "canceled", just be a good person. | What genuinely OK opinion are people being canceled for? | thinkingemote wrote: | 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. | tayo42 wrote: | Really? This is easy, don't hurt other people. | thinkingemote wrote: | Now define "hurt". | | It's not easy as "hurt" is not objective, is relative to | others and no longer connected to intention. | tayo42 wrote: | 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 | tdrgabi wrote: | You offended me. | MrPatan wrote: | I find your words offensive, please stop posting in HN | forever. | [deleted] | mtizim wrote: | 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? | cgriswald wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | PeterisP wrote: | It's definitely not sufficient, we've seen people being | cancelled who did not do anything bad. | panzagl wrote: | You're literally talking down to someone right now- | that's not hurting other people? | voakbasda wrote: | 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. | tayo42 wrote: | 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] | brimble wrote: | 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. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | Are there any of your own beliefs which you don't express | because they might be considered offensive in the future? | tayo42 wrote: | 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? | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | 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.) | recursive wrote: | 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. | nickstinemates wrote: | Who's the arbiter of an OK opinion? | namelessoracle wrote: | A good person does not use Twitter. If you use Twitter | therefore you are a bad person and deserve to be cancelled. | AussieWog93 wrote: | >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. | themaninthedark wrote: | Here is a good example: | | "You just used 'OK' in your comment, only white supremacists | use 'OK'." | AussieWog93 wrote: | I mean, it's an example... | themaninthedark wrote: | 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" | AussieWog93 wrote: | Do you have a link to this? I Googled the quote at the | end and just found this weirdo tweeting under the hashtag | #RealNiggas4Romney. | themaninthedark wrote: | 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". | Manuel_D wrote: | There was massive coverage over this incident: https://en | .wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_... | jstream67 wrote: | 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' | [deleted] | blockmarker wrote: | It's really easy to not be burned at the stake, just don't be | a witch. | aksss wrote: | ha, beat me to it! :D | tayo42 wrote: | 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 | [deleted] | [deleted] | recursive wrote: | 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... | shankr wrote: | 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 | cgriswald wrote: | 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. | shankr wrote: | > 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. | cgriswald wrote: | 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. | aksss wrote: | just believe in our gods and you won't get burned at the | stake, how hard is that, people? I mean really? /s | causi wrote: | 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. | bena wrote: | 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. | tayo42 wrote: | 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 | recursive wrote: | 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. | colordrops wrote: | 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. | AussieWog93 wrote: | If you got banned by Twitter, it was probably more than | merely "suggesting" that free speech was important. | colordrops wrote: | 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. | AussieWog93 wrote: | >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.) | candlemas wrote: | Good people are boring. | theshrike79 wrote: | 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/Jam | es_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. | tstrimple wrote: | > "Firing from Disney *and reinstatement*" | | Yep, he's super cancelled. Great example. | shadowgovt wrote: | 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. | tayo42 wrote: | 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 | shadowgovt wrote: | 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. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | 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. | MattGaiser wrote: | 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. | Ekaros wrote: | Sing up for all the companies that provide press releases? | Not sure if that is enough though... | saiya-jin wrote: | 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. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | > 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. | bob1029 wrote: | 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 | fantod wrote: | 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. | blowski wrote: | 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. | cpach wrote: | 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 | blowski wrote: | 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. | cpach wrote: | 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. | paulpauper wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | [deleted] | FpUser wrote: | I do not tweet. Neither do my friends and few programmers I know. | FailMore wrote: | So lovely to read a short article that's straight to the point | cabaalis wrote: | 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. | andrewclunn wrote: | "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. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | [deleted] | 0xedd wrote: | 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. | pxtail wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | ceilingcorner wrote: | 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. | ineptech wrote: | 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. | Ekaros wrote: | 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... | Pooge wrote: | The 1% rule[1]. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule | omoikane wrote: | Can we also get some stats on number of users/lurkers who don't | comment on Hacker News? | omgmajk wrote: | Not that many people I know use Twitter at all, the place seems | overly toxic and whenever I see a thread or tweet it's usually | terrible stuff with terrible comments attached to it. | ghaff wrote: | Twitter is to a significant degree what you make of it and who | you follow. | iambateman wrote: | 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. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | "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. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | 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. | arbol wrote: | 25% of Americans sometimes tweet? That seems very high. I only | know a couple of people who use Twitter... | [deleted] | Sir_Son_Son wrote: | 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. | mftb wrote: | 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... | kbelder wrote: | 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. | moltke wrote: | I had one ten years ago when I was a teenager. I wonder if I'm | part of that "sometimes tweets" category. | ApolloFortyNine wrote: | 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. | keb_ wrote: | I tried being a Twitter user for a bit last year, mostly because | a lot of engineers I admire use it to communicate about | interesting topics and also their work. But after a while, 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 -- | Twitter will _find_ a way to get me to see it. For a while, I | resolved "OK, if anyone retweets this stuff, I will simply | unfollow them" but eventually this felt self-defeating. | | 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 | datavirtue wrote: | 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. | partisan wrote: | 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. | Uhhrrr wrote: | >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. | CameronNemo wrote: | And you can disable retweets. | | I don't use twitter anymore but when I did I used these | features to make it less toxic. | protomyth wrote: | _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. | dheera wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | unfocussed_mike wrote: | 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. | hjanssen wrote: | 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. | wpietri wrote: | > pollute my feed with politically divisive topics [...] led a | much happier and stress-free life living in the fantasy world | | That is an intensely political take. | | Some people get to ignore "politics"; many are in one way or | another targets of it. Your notion is that you should be | entitled not even to hear about the problems of others. Which I | get, and which you're entitled to argue for. But "my life as a | member of group X should be better than that of other groups" | is a political position. Your comment here is the sort of | political advocacy you disdain in others. It's just that | because you're arguing for the status quo and your willful | ignorance of the problems of it, you can kinda pretend you're | being apolitical. | civilized wrote: | > "my life as a member of group X should be better than that | of other groups" is a political position. | | This isn't at all what the GP said, and that fact is one of | the biggest reasons we don't like engaging in these types of | conversations: a hostile stranger is liable to stop in and | hammer you with a comment that reeks of contempt and disdain, | and egregiously distorts what you said. | | "I don't want to experience all the worst experiences that | anyone on the planet is having" is an extremely different | statement from "my life _should_ be better than anyone who is | less fortunate than me ". If you fail to distinguish these | two, you're definitely just as guilty of the latter as anyone | else. | | So, sorry, we're not here for it. And if you want to persuade | us into being here for it, distortion-loaded shaming | definitely isn't the way to accomplish that. | throwaway1492 wrote: | > distortion-loaded shaming definitely isn't the way to | accomplish that. | | I'd go further and say the poster you're responding to is | non charitable and down right hateful, violating at least | two community guidelines: | | > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; | don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't | sneer, including at the rest of the community. | | > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation | of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to | criticize. Assume good faith. | wpietri wrote: | It isn't what he said, but it's apparently what he meant. | There are many groups who can't escape politics. For | example, look at the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation they're about | to pass in Florida. That's politics, and it is coming for | millions of Floridians whether they like it or not. They | can't live an apolitical life because their very existence | has been politicized. | | A straight person can argue for their right to not have to | hear about it. But it's inescapably a political argument. | | > "I don't want to experience all the worst experiences | that anyone on the planet is having" | | If you think "reading occasional 'political' tweets" is the | worst experience anyone can have, I'm not sure what to tell | you. I'm not saying anybody has to immiserate themselves | with eternal negative content. I'm not even saying anybody | has to leave a 100% pure bubble of ignorance about what's | happening to others. But to get up and argue for a safe | space for people whom the status quo benefits? That's a | political argument. | civilized wrote: | I just don't think anyone has to be on Twitter to learn | about (for instance) bad legislation that affects | marginalized people so they can oppose it. It tends to | bubble up into other media sources. And nowadays, those | media sources will cite the big influential tweets | anyway, so it's not even like you can escape from | Twitter. | | It seems like you're reading the original comment as | saying "I feel justified in never thinking about | marginalized people and systematically preventing myself | from seeing anything that might prompt that thinking"... | and I think that's a _really_ big leap to make. There are | ways to be informed without exposing yourself to the | firehose of everyone 's random opinions and feelings, | which can be a complete lose-lose proposition, damaging | your own mental health and relationships _without helping | anyone._ | wpietri wrote: | Sure. I'm not saying anybody has to be on Twitter. I'm | not even saying everybody has to pay attention to what is | happening to groups with less social power than them, | although I think that's the neighborly thing to do. | | But I am saying that publicly expressing the desire to | live in "a much happier and stress-free [...] fantasy | world" is taking a political stance, one enabled by being | in groups with high social power. Especially so when one | has a "hobby in open-source" that they want to keep | unsullied despite people who would "pollute" it. | LAC-Tech wrote: | _It isn 't what he said, but it's apparently what he | meant._ | | Again with the mind-reading. Maybe people don't want to | talk politics because so many people debate in bad faith | and not only put words in peoples mouths, but thoughts | into their heads. | civilized wrote: | There's a reason they call Twitter the hell-site. | Arguments like this _run_ the place. | | Like covering all your food in a bottle of Sriracha, | political Twitter can be fun at first, but eventually | you're going to get sick with diarrhea and need a break. | In my case, a permanent one. | | I am happy to do _real_ things for marginalized people, | like vote, hire fairly, support progressive policies, | etc. but exposing myself to that place does no one any | good. | wpietri wrote: | All listening is mind-reading. People squirt air at you | through their meat-flaps; you try to determine what the | mind behind the air-squirts might have been trying to | convey. | | If you think I've got it wrong, feel free to offer a | better explanation. This is my best-faith attempt to | understand. But I think I get it because I used to make | the same mistake I think see him making. | LAC-Tech wrote: | Why do you automatically assume _wanting_ to ignore politics | translates to support of the status quo? | | I've heard this argument before a lot, and it just seems like | a massive assumption. You can't read peoples minds. | | There are several plausible reasons to ignore and not discuss | politics: | | - You don't want to argue | | - You don't think it will change anything | | - You don't want to lose friends and acquaintances | | - You don't want to find out someone you respect is "one of | them" | | - If the aggregate political beliefs of your industry does | not match your own, you don't want to "out" yourself | | - You want to change the status quo, but not in the way other | people want it changed | | - Your political beliefs are not strongly held | | - You don't feel knowledgeable enough (I wish this was more | common and people would share their opinions less when they | know close to nothing). | | I personally don't want to discuss politics much even if | people agree with me - it either turns into a weird | intellectual circle jerk, or gripe session about how evil the | "other" is. Neither of which I really enjoy. | | In short there are a lot more reasons to try and avoid | politics than there are to seek them out. Being happy with | the status quo is one needle in a haystack of other reasons. | wpietri wrote: | Because things that get labeled "political" and "divisive" | almost always relate to changes to the status quo. | Regardless of intent, insisting on silencing or refusing to | hear challenges to the status quo is in effect supporting | the status quo. | | There's also a big difference between someone who happens | to "not discuss" politics and somebody who wants to never | be exposed to discussions of politics. Many of your items | are good reasons to not bring up politics in some | particular moment, a choice I often support. But I'm | responding to his unhappiness with what _other people_ | chose to talk about _on Twitter_ , a platform for people to | say what they want about topics they choose. | | And I'd add that anybody who goes out, works a job, pays | taxes, etc, is actively supporting the status quo. I am one | of those people and I think there's nothing wrong with | that; we're all caught up in a system that's bigger than | us. Some of us, through words and deeds, try to change that | system. That's politics. Insisting on supporting the status | quo without changes is also politics. | LAC-Tech wrote: | So how do you feel about people who want to change the | status quo in the exact opposite direction you want it | changed? | | Do you want to hear from them a lot? Do you wish there | were more of them in your twitter feed? | wpietri wrote: | I don't get your point. Are you offering to stop arguing | for your political viewpoints like this if don't like | your take? If not, then it sounds like you agree with me. | | But to answer your question,it depends on the kind of | "opposite". I'm generally quite interested in people who | see the same problems but have very different solutions. | I'm also very interested when people from different | backgrounds see the problems differently. I can often | work with people who have differing values but are | seeking positive-sum interactions. But as you might | expect from somebody who has done years of anti-abuse and | anti-hate work, there are some people whose values who I | oppose implacably. | mikkergp wrote: | I don't know if this is true and this gets to the | reductive nature of how people interpret political | arguments. We've become so divided, the 'status quo' | crowd and the 'not status quo' crowd don't even talk to | each other. If you're conservative, you're mostly seeing | people argue about what the status quo was, and if you're | progressive, you're probably seeing people argue about | what the status quo should be. | | Everyone says politics is about values, but it's more | than that. Politics is values plus an implementation. | Sometimes I see the worst takes or disdain from people | who's values I fundamentally agree with, but we disagree | on the implementation. | delusional wrote: | > You don't feel knowledgeable enough (I wish this was more | common and people would share their opinions less when they | know close to nothing). | | I think it's more common than you think to stay out of it. | The unfortunate thing about the asymmetrical communication | afforded by social media is that you don't see the hundreds | of people that didn't engage with what someone said. | | At least that's what I tell myself when i see a bunch of | comments that are out there. All the people that aren't | crazy probably just didn't want to engage. | pvarangot wrote: | In my experience running joke and pseudonymous Twitter | accounts most "respectable engineers" talking about politics | on Twitter are not posting about their real problems as much | as trying to appeal to signal they belong to a certain | culture because it's beneficial for their careers or their | public image. There's a lot of exceptions of course but | honestly most good engineers will probably be tweeting the | interesting political stuff that really affects them from | behind an account for say "Signal", "Tor", "the EFF" or | whatever and not with their personal name. | | I am really into politics and participate in political debate | on Slack or Discord servers and private Signal or Telegram | groups with an identity that can be traced back to me with | zero effort almost daily or weekly. Some are bigger than | others. I would never ever do it on Twitter unless I was | trying to start a side-gig as a journalist or a cult-leader | or whatever. Not caring about what people on Twitter say | about politics is far from not caring about politics at all. | deanCommie wrote: | > are not posting about their real problems | | I'm a cis/het white male. I'm a highly paid highly | respected engineer. My problems are not interesting because | I already know how to solve them. The problems that are | interesting to me are the ones of others - more junior | engineers - so I invest in mentoring. And those in | disadvantaged groups of various kinds. | | So I'm posting about the problems I see in society and what | I can do try to magnify smaller voices. It's not all that | it takes to be an ally but it's a part of it. | | I post about these problems to make it clear that | LGBT/Women/Black/Asian/etc issues are relevant to me as | well. | | It's deeply cynical that people think this is "virtue | signaling" because it's beneficial to my public image. I | care about my public image only so far as how I can use it | to help others. It's pretty sad to realize that there are | people who go through life only doing things based on how | what they do will benefit their image or perception by | others. | LAC-Tech wrote: | _I care about my public image only so far as how I can | use it to help others._ | | Letting everyone know this is probably really good for | your public image. You sound so selfless. | | _It 's pretty sad to realize that there are people who | go through life only doing things based on how what they | do will benefit their image or perception by others._ | | Some people have the the ability to do it subconsciously, | perhaps without even realising it. | wpietri wrote: | For sure. It's the same deal with me. I am in enough | politically favored groups that the status quo works in | my favor. I could just coast. But I think that sort of | unfairness is bunk, and the more I learn about the | history, the more opposed I get. | | The notion I'm doing that for my career is laughable. | Every time I speak out, I'm aware that there's a chance | I'm reducing my employability, that somebody might see | that tweet or this Hacker News post and say, "Gosh, let's | go with the candidate who is less likely to be | difficult." But I'm willing to make the trade because I | have an unearned employability surplus that I would | rather be shared equally. | mikkergp wrote: | > Your notion is that you should be entitled not even to hear | about the problems of others | | Everyone believes this. There are too many people in the | world to hear about all the problems. The problem with | twitter is not that you hear about peoples problems, it's | that you hear about too many to grok. The most political | people I know are still periodically taking breaks from | twitter because it's too much. | rcoveson wrote: | > Some people get to ignore "politics"... | | No, they don't, because they invite this exact reply whenever | they try to do so. | delusional wrote: | Bazinga. | | Seriously though. When he says "ignore politics" it doesn't | mean you get to live without them happening. It means you | get to decide not to care. Getting the reply doesn't mean | you don't get to ignore it. | wpietri wrote: | I doubt that's the case, but I'm glad to help move the | world ever so slightly in a direction where every person | gets to ignore politics an equal amount. | stjohnswarts wrote: | 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. | kaitai wrote: | 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. | madeofpalk wrote: | For what it's worth, you can disable retweets for people (and I | think your entire feed). | themanmaran wrote: | Not for everyone unfortunately. But there is a ruby script | that does it for you. | | https://gist.github.com/robinsloan/a045d26c513681f13680f319f. | .. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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. | wanda wrote: | 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. | dogman144 wrote: | > 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. | deltarholamda wrote: | >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. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | > 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. | pasquinelli wrote: | 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. | timClicks wrote: | 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. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | > 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. | itronitron wrote: | 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. | 0xedd wrote: | 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) | conductr wrote: | What's kind of scary to me is that newly minted adults never | knew a single Sue before social media. | vikaveri wrote: | 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. | Fr0styMatt88 wrote: | 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. | emjoes1 wrote: | 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. | madrox wrote: | 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 | wanderer_ wrote: | Ironically enough, that thread devolved into an irrelevant | political argument. | ear7h wrote: | The original thread is literally about the the riots from | Jan 6. | sjmm1989 wrote: | Such is the way of the internet. | salawat wrote: | ...Wow. | | That resonates hard with some stuff I'm seein' now. | rackjack wrote: | Fun fact, this theory actually comes from a 4chan post. | deanCommie wrote: | 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. | LordDragonfang wrote: | 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. | seneca wrote: | Why? Parler was gaining steam until a consortium of | megacorporations aligned to erase it from the internet. | sjmm1989 wrote: | 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. | TZubiri wrote: | You are underestimating the effect that the speed and | range of message transmission have on the kinds of | ideologies that people can carry. | lazide wrote: | 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. | DyslexicAtheist wrote: | _> 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... | HideousKojima wrote: | 4channers made a comic of this concept a few years ago, but | it was something like "gay dragonkin neonazis" instead of | toaster lovers. | thrwawy283 wrote: | 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. | username3 wrote: | 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. | Dylan16807 wrote: | I think circles were too tied to privacy. Public posts | ended up mushed together just like twitter. | thrwawy283 wrote: | 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. | Dylan16807 wrote: | 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. | jimkleiber wrote: | 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. | sefrost wrote: | 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. | taurusnoises wrote: | "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. | davesque wrote: | This only seems true for the people who share TMI on social | media. Still seems like a pretty specific subset of the | population. | MonaroVXR wrote: | 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. | darkerside wrote: | 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) | polynomial wrote: | 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. | DEADMEAT wrote: | 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. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | 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. | DEADMEAT wrote: | 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 | xboxnolifes wrote: | 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] | michaelcampbell wrote: | > (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) | | > exactly the issues that the vast majority of Americans | actually do agree on. | | cite? | vorpalhex wrote: | 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. | pasquinelli wrote: | not saying it is, but what happens if polling is an echo | chamber too? | swayvil wrote: | 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. | Ansil849 wrote: | > 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. | phillryu wrote: | 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. | tharkun__ wrote: | 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) | nonameiguess wrote: | 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. | isleyaardvark wrote: | It is being politicized, just not by the makers of Catan. | ratww wrote: | 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. | ratww wrote: | 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. | Ansil849 wrote: | I, in turn, unfortunately had to listen to fellow players | complain about the name change throughout a whole game | the other week. | enobrev wrote: | 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. | cgrealy wrote: | 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. | kerneloftruth wrote: | 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. | paganel wrote: | 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. | everdrive wrote: | > 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? | d1sxeyes wrote: | 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. | math_denial wrote: | 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. | d1sxeyes wrote: | Should a baker have the right to refuse to bake cakes in | case it's an interracial couple? | watwut wrote: | Afaik, that baker went out of way to harass them. | pasquinelli wrote: | neither group decides anything, they're just a few | thousand people talking online. | Pxtl wrote: | 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. | pasquinelli wrote: | neither side decided anything though, the governer did. | so all the talk aboit it online is just moving air | around. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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... | Dylan16807 wrote: | "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. | cgrealy wrote: | 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. | ifyoubuildit wrote: | 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. | pasquinelli wrote: | > 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. | COGlory wrote: | 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. | herbstein wrote: | 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. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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? | progman32 wrote: | Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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. | progman32 wrote: | 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. | fknorangesite wrote: | > 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... | ladyattis wrote: | >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?". | Dylan16807 wrote: | 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. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | 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. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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. | gedy wrote: | 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. | ratww wrote: | 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. | mecha_ghidorah wrote: | 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 | RC_ITR wrote: | '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. | pasquinelli wrote: | 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. | RC_ITR wrote: | I can't really parse what you're saying. Who is 'they'? | watwut wrote: | > 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. | [deleted] | ladyattis wrote: | 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. | xena wrote: | 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. | echelon wrote: | 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. | x86_64Ubuntu wrote: | 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. | CodeGlitch wrote: | > pregnant people | | I see what you did there, on international women's Day as | well. | cgrealy wrote: | Trans men can get pregnant. That's just reality. IWD has | nothing to do with it. | CodeGlitch wrote: | So what word would you use to describe people who have | the biology to bare children? Because we need to have the | language to differentiate the two. | | In the past we used the word "women", but that has been | commandeered... Hence my comment about "person" and IWD. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | But the topic can never come up in organic conversation | altogether. | cgrealy wrote: | 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. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | Since when has "I'm pregnant" been a socially-acceptable | cue to start ranting about your views on abortion in | either direction? | cgrealy wrote: | 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. | vorpalhex wrote: | 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. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | > There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it". | | I've seen a shirt that says "Bi now, gay later" | foldr wrote: | > 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. It seems likely that this | progress happened in significant part because a growing | number of people refused to acc | | 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 sound so great in retrospect if you end up on. 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. | travisporter wrote: | 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. | djKianoosh wrote: | 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 | CountSessine wrote: | 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. | jafoi wrote: | Wouldn't work in practice - no one is going to pass an | opportunity to broadcast their political views to as many | people as possible. | robryan wrote: | 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. | mdoms wrote: | 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. | nradov wrote: | 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. | CountSessine wrote: | Yeah - you're probably right | superfrank wrote: | 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. | sbierwagen wrote: | 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. | Pxtl wrote: | 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. | fotta wrote: | 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. | delecti wrote: | 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". | dvtrn wrote: | 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. | delecti wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | dwighttk wrote: | 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. | ripper1138 wrote: | Predictably, when I changed my feed back to newest tweets, I | spent wayyyy less time on Twitter. Which is great. | onion2k wrote: | _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. | fleddr wrote: | 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. | jahewson wrote: | > 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. | kyrra wrote: | 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. | TZubiri wrote: | It's almost as if they become infected with a bianry search | parasite and the vector is any 50/50 divide | alias_neo wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | AitchEmArsey wrote: | 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. | alias_neo wrote: | 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! | adhesive_wombat wrote: | 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?! | thenerdhead wrote: | 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? | datavirtue wrote: | Nothing gets you high like creating. | mwt wrote: | 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. | HNHatesUsers wrote: | riffic wrote: | 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... | nluken wrote: | 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. | RicoElectrico wrote: | 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. | bena wrote: | 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. | gm wrote: | 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. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | Miner49er wrote: | > 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. | theandrewbailey wrote: | 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. | pessimizer wrote: | > 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. | rootusrootus wrote: | 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. | Miner49er wrote: | 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. | _ttg wrote: | 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-... | hirundo wrote: | 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." | 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: | 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. | JSavageOne wrote: | 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? | jameskilton wrote: | "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. | cylinder714 wrote: | "Silence is a friend who will never betray you." | | --A Russian (or Italian) saying | | (works either way, as it turns out) | dmingod666 wrote: | It can have a twisted meaning that could imply a silenced | friend will never betray you.. :) | watwut wrote: | That also means, don't protest. It is safer. It means that | especially in the context of Russian history and present. | duxup wrote: | 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. | colinmhayes wrote: | > 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. | duxup wrote: | Oh yeah moral issues are within a context and so on. | dogman144 wrote: | 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. | kaetemi wrote: | 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. | davio wrote: | "What I should have said was nothing" | m-i-l wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | tombert wrote: | 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. | daptaq wrote: | Takes one to know one. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | It kind of seems like you are trying to pick a fight with | Mark Twain. | chasd00 wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWLnOJ25uA | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Swish! (That's amazing.) | Zababa wrote: | 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? | anotherman554 wrote: | I'm pretty sure that quote is an insult and not good faith | advise. | fantod wrote: | 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. | anotherman554 wrote: | 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. | useragent86 wrote: | > 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. | tombert wrote: | 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. | pharke wrote: | It reads more like a humorous and self-deprecating aphorism | to me. He was a comedian after all. | psyc wrote: | This seems like a riff on Proverbs: "Even fools are thought | wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their | tongues." | frosted-flakes wrote: | 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. | singingboyo wrote: | 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.) | Clubber wrote: | >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. | trhaynes wrote: | Do you have a source or examples? | [deleted] | psyc wrote: | 1. Some kind of relationship with Epstein | | 2. Divorce | | 3. Melinda hinting that 1. had something to do with 2. | phasersout wrote: | goes together with the realization that a lot of discussions | are really not that interesting to begin with. | fleddr wrote: | 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. | hathawsh wrote: | Counter-advice: never suffer in silence. Don't keep quiet when | there's help available. | est31 wrote: | 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. | hathawsh wrote: | 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. | wanderingmind wrote: | 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. | TechBro8615 wrote: | 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. | wanderingmind wrote: | 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. | Ekaros wrote: | As Finnish pro-verb goes: Silence is gold, speaking silver... | deanCommie wrote: | Cowardly and anti-intellectual take. How inequality and | discrimination perpetuates for generation in society. The | opposite of what I will raise my child to do. | | Don't speak without thinking - yes. Learn about the subject | before you speak - yes. But if you know something about what is | being discussed? If you think there is an opportunity to | improve the world - for yourself - or for others - dear god | please speak up. | dwaltrip wrote: | > If you think there is an opportunity to improve the world | | That's a big if :) | | Most of us usually forget to think about that before opening | our mouths. | joe_the_user wrote: | 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. | civilized wrote: | 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. | hexo wrote: | 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. | ASalazarMX wrote: | 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. | MiddleEndian wrote: | 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. | dogleash wrote: | >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. | manmal wrote: | IMO it's not unreasonable to ban users who are outliers in | terms of complaints from other users. | [deleted] | polynomial wrote: | 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.) | manmal wrote: | Is there something else to learn from this story besides not | insulting people? | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | 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. | manmal wrote: | I didn't expect such a constructive reply, thanks! | buryat wrote: | > 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 | mdoms wrote: | User who is receiving unsolicited messages from strangers | should be the one banned because he decides to respond with a | little joke? | Graffur wrote: | I think he spammed the same text every time. Definitely | worthy of a ban for any community online or offline. | MiddleEndian wrote: | 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 | gameman144 wrote: | 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. | rNULLED wrote: | 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. | gameman144 wrote: | 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. | Wojtkie wrote: | Should have pulled a KenM and just replied with extremely | geriatric answers and explanations to everything | MiddleEndian wrote: | 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. | newsbinator wrote: | 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. | erichocean wrote: | 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. | MiddleEndian wrote: | 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. | hereforphone wrote: | There is another silent majority: those who have their opinions | cancelled by social media outlets. This includes Twitter. | Finnucane wrote: | 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. | pessimizer wrote: | 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? | Finnucane wrote: | 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. | erehweb wrote: | StevePerkins wrote: | While I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020, I AM a | political independent who doesn't _always_ vote for the | Democratic candidate, either. And this notion that roughly 50% | of voters are quasi hate criminals is abhorrent. | | It's always, _" Oh, I suppose it's okay if you vote for the | wrong party, as long as your candidate is no actual threat to | my own ideology. But <most recent Presidential nominee> is just | going too far."_ Except that partisans have been saying this | same thing about "<latest Presidential nominee>" for at least | 50 years now. | | This mindset is absurd, and only proves the author's premise | about suggesting an isolated bubble. | moltke wrote: | Comments like this remind me of the political speech scene in | "Around the World in 80 Days." America has been extremely | partisan pretty much forever. | johnNumen wrote: | distrill wrote: | coolso wrote: | > But a lot of them voted for a really terrible President | | In fairness, the media did a really good job making the low gas | prices, low inflation, low taxes, record low illegal border | crossings, well-handled foreign policy, and record breaking | speedy vaccine development of the last administration somehow | seem like the most evil thing ever, so a misled public can't | really be blamed too much for who they voted into office now. | | I think more than anything they were just tired of hearing | about it so they voted for the current guy for a little media | break. | Manuel_D wrote: | 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... | aarondf wrote: | [Deleted] | throwmeariver1 wrote: | 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. | aarondf wrote: | Ah good call, I didn't know that. | andrewflnr wrote: | 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. | jscheel wrote: | 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.... | calumetregion wrote: | 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. | dlp211 wrote: | > This is why cities are less healthy for you as well. | | This is news to me. | calumetregion wrote: | http://schizophrenia.com/prevention/country.html | vecinu wrote: | > 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? | calumetregion wrote: | 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. | liveoneggs wrote: | driving is much more stressful to me than subway-riding | calumetregion wrote: | 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. | slingnow wrote: | 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. | throwaway5752 wrote: | 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. | izzygonzalez wrote: | 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. | tlarkworthy wrote: | BTW, your observable profile link is broken | izzygonzalez wrote: | Woops! Fixed. Thanks for taking the time to let me know :) | karaterobot wrote: | 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. | izzygonzalez wrote: | 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 | jhoechtl wrote: | 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. | 999900000999 wrote: | 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. | pohl wrote: | 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? | asiachick wrote: | 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. | bradenb wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | borroka wrote: | 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. | veganhouseDJ wrote: | 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. | jazzyjackson wrote: | > 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. | filoleg wrote: | > _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. | paxys wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | irrational wrote: | 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? | brailsafe wrote: | 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. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | 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. | MrYellowP wrote: | 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_. | vlunkr wrote: | 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? | Ekaros wrote: | 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... | x86_64Ubuntu wrote: | 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. | datavirtue wrote: | 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. | vlunkr wrote: | 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. | nonameiguess wrote: | 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. | jollybean wrote: | 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. | Dylan16807 wrote: | First past the post, plus two dominant parties, has such | severe negative effects that "rigged" is a reasonable way to | talk about it. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | 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. | MattGaiser wrote: | 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. | Dylan16807 wrote: | 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. | emerged wrote: | 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. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | 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. | mabub24 wrote: | It's an evolution on the Chattering Classes: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes | amluto wrote: | 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. | ceilingcorner wrote: | Nitter.net is a life saver for this. | dqpb wrote: | I assumed most tweets aren't by real people anymore. | TZubiri wrote: | Haha, that's me | egberts1 wrote: | that would be me. I go elsewhere where the grass is greener. | ryder9 wrote: | dogleash wrote: | 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. | RobRivera wrote: | whats twitter? | shireboy wrote: | 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. | javajosh wrote: | 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. | jahnu wrote: | 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. | erichocean wrote: | 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! | fleddr wrote: | 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. | chaircher wrote: | This is really helpful thanks, you've articulated it so | well it seems like it was obvious the whole time | jahnu wrote: | 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. | demthrow6429 wrote: | 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. | erichocean wrote: | > _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. | dragonwriter wrote: | > 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. | willcipriano wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | kerblang wrote: | 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. | dragonwriter wrote: | > 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. | overkill28 wrote: | 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 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-08 23:00 UTC)