4 ms·

HN folks, does every post about Twitter need to be made about the president? The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very,

HN folks, does every post about Twitter need to be made about the president? The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very, very tiring. The article didn't mention him. He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3! And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him. [1] Enough already! This is the first time I've wanted to flag an article for its comment section rather than the article itself. [1]: http://i.imgur.com/cHEV2ww.png http://i.imgur.com/cHEV2ww.png

nkozyra 10y ago
Trump and Twitter are in many ways inseparable and at least tangentially relevant to the article. It's unique that a sitting president would utilize a social platform so prominently, that so many people would have the opportunity to engage with him directly. It's argued that Trump's uptick in Twitter usage has raised its overall visibility as well. So, it's not unfair to bring him up. It's also not inherently political to do so.
austincheney 10y ago
Fine, then substitute Kayne instead.
xenihn 10y ago
>HN folks, does every post about Twitter need to be made about the president The only regular exposure I have to Twitter comes from seeing articles and/or social media posts about Donald Trump's tweets.
- nilkn 10y ago
  I think this is the case for many folks -- myself included. I never use or read Twitter directly either, nor do I see any reason for me to. I only see reports about what Trump has written on Twitter.
MrZongle2 10y ago
"The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very, very tiring." Some folks won't be satisfied until everybody is clearly aware that they're deeply, DEEPLY unhappy with the 2016 election results. This will continue for another three years, at which point things will change to how Candidate X is so much better, and we'll hear about Candidate X in everything. If Candidate X loses the 2020 election, expect a repeat of the current situation. I'm sure there's a cicada analogy here somewhere.
- grzm 10y ago
  I don't think your parent's sentiment necessarily has anything to do with the results of the election. Even before Nov. 8 2016 there's been plenty of debate about how much politics should play a role in HN, even beyond what the guidelines. This is not the first time a member has mentioned wanting less politics. It's perfectly legitimate to want to be able to discuss articles without having politics added to it. The current submission makes no mention of politics in general or Trump in particular. Given how much discussion of politics is going on in other threads, it's understandable to want the bar to to drag it in to be higher. How much of what is being said is new?
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    I based my post off of this part of the parent comment: " And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him." And not only was that poster right, at the time it was written, it is a frigging epidemic everywhere right now. On HN, on Reddit, on every platform; if the topic at hand is not tightly focused and apolitical, somebody eventually will make a derogative Trump comment. Some of it is purely for humor. Some of it is pure snark. Some of it is virtue signalling. But almost all of it is noise, not signal.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      What this thread has taught me is that fighting this trend, even on HN, is not worth the time. The haters are going to hate, and there's no point suggesting that maybe it's not a good place for it, lest you want your comments greyed. Trump uses Twitter, therefore any topic about Twitter is about Trump by proxy, or something.
untog 10y ago
> He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3! I think that's entirely the wrong metric. Obama used/uses Twitter to duplicate content that is being released as a press release, TV appearance, etc. etc. Trump does not. His thoughts are "first on Twitter", and the combination of that plus the fact that he is the President of the United States means that he is an absolutely integral part of the Twitter story, whether you like it or not.
sctb 10y ago
This kind of comment, though surely well-intended, unfortunately doesn't push us in the right direction. The best move is to just post civilly and substantively on the topic at hand. Edit: do flag unwarranted injections of politics, because you're right that we're not here for that either.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  What would you suggest I do? Given the comment score over the past few minutes, this is a contentious issue, and not one I'm willing to risk my flagging privileges (or other backend consequences like slowdowns or post throttles) for. "Commenting substantively" about Twitter does nothing about the political flamebait that always winds up in threads about the subject, yet the only tool I have to combat it could blow up in my face.
  - grzm 10y ago
    To be fair, at this point the overwhelming majority of the comments for this submission are politics-free.
freehunter 10y ago
As of right now there are three posts that mention Trump: One that's down voted to the bottom of the page, one where it's just one out of three points being made, and the third is yours.

nkozyra 10y ago

Trump and Twitter are in many ways inseparable and at least tangentially relevant to the article. It's unique that a sitting president would utilize a social platform so prominently, that so many people would have the opportunity to engage with him directly. It's argued that Trump's uptick in Twitter usage has raised its overall visibility as well. So, it's not unfair to bring him up. It's also not inherently political to do so.

austincheney 10y ago

Fine, then substitute Kayne instead.

xenihn 10y ago

>HN folks, does every post about Twitter need to be made about the president The only regular exposure I have to Twitter comes from seeing articles and/or social media posts about Donald Trump's tweets.

nilkn 10y ago
I think this is the case for many folks -- myself included. I never use or read Twitter directly either, nor do I see any reason for me to. I only see reports about what Trump has written on Twitter.

MrZongle2 10y ago

"The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very, very tiring." Some folks won't be satisfied until everybody is clearly aware that they're deeply, DEEPLY unhappy with the 2016 election results. This will continue for another three years, at which point things will change to how Candidate X is so much better, and we'll hear about Candidate X in everything. If Candidate X loses the 2020 election, expect a repeat of the current situation. I'm sure there's a cicada analogy here somewhere.

grzm 10y ago
I don't think your parent's sentiment necessarily has anything to do with the results of the election. Even before Nov. 8 2016 there's been plenty of debate about how much politics should play a role in HN, even beyond what the guidelines. This is not the first time a member has mentioned wanting less politics. It's perfectly legitimate to want to be able to discuss articles without having politics added to it. The current submission makes no mention of politics in general or Trump in particular. Given how much discussion of politics is going on in other threads, it's understandable to want the bar to to drag it in to be higher. How much of what is being said is new?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  I based my post off of this part of the parent comment: " And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him." And not only was that poster right, at the time it was written, it is a frigging epidemic everywhere right now. On HN, on Reddit, on every platform; if the topic at hand is not tightly focused and apolitical, somebody eventually will make a derogative Trump comment. Some of it is purely for humor. Some of it is pure snark. Some of it is virtue signalling. But almost all of it is noise, not signal.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    What this thread has taught me is that fighting this trend, even on HN, is not worth the time. The haters are going to hate, and there's no point suggesting that maybe it's not a good place for it, lest you want your comments greyed. Trump uses Twitter, therefore any topic about Twitter is about Trump by proxy, or something.

untog 10y ago

> He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3! I think that's entirely the wrong metric. Obama used/uses Twitter to duplicate content that is being released as a press release, TV appearance, etc. etc. Trump does not. His thoughts are "first on Twitter", and the combination of that plus the fact that he is the President of the United States means that he is an absolutely integral part of the Twitter story, whether you like it or not.

sctb 10y ago

This kind of comment, though surely well-intended, unfortunately doesn't push us in the right direction. The best move is to just post civilly and substantively on the topic at hand. Edit: do flag unwarranted injections of politics, because you're right that we're not here for that either.

Karunamon 10y ago
What would you suggest I do? Given the comment score over the past few minutes, this is a contentious issue, and not one I'm willing to risk my flagging privileges (or other backend consequences like slowdowns or post throttles) for. "Commenting substantively" about Twitter does nothing about the political flamebait that always winds up in threads about the subject, yet the only tool I have to combat it could blow up in my face.
- grzm 10y ago
  To be fair, at this point the overwhelming majority of the comments for this submission are politics-free.

freehunter 10y ago

As of right now there are three posts that mention Trump: One that's down voted to the bottom of the page, one where it's just one out of three points being made, and the third is yours.