8 ms·

Medical twitter is fairly positive and a great way to learn about new papers and interact with educators and researchers. Check out the #foamed (Free Open Acce

Medical twitter is fairly positive and a great way to learn about new papers and interact with educators and researchers. Check out the #foamed (Free Open Access Medicine) hashtag. I usually try to avoid following political people and keep my feed science-focused.

deminature 8y ago
I've noticed more people in tech posting mostly political stuff nowadays, when I followed them because of their tech posts. I had to go back and prune my feed to get away from all the bile. Angry political screeds are hard to filter out nowadays.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  > Angry political screeds are hard to filter out nowadays. A sign of the times. A lot of people are just really pissed off right now. I also think a lot of people that used to ignore politics realized that it matters...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rland 8y ago
    Things are so weird now. We should feel good that everyone is engaged in dialogue about our grand civic project, right? But when you actually stare out onto the landscape of discussion, there isn't a valuable exchange of ideas to observe. While political opinions are more numerous, they're divorced from evidence and calcified. As useful as no opinion, and possibly worse. (Then again, that's my opinion, right?)
    - spookthesunset 8y ago
      > We should feel good that everyone is engaged in dialogue about our grand civic project, right? It is people trapped in their echo chambers. Some chambers are better than others (some, much better, but alas). I personally don't hold much hope for things to ever get de-calcified without some kind of large-scale real-world incident to force it. It is almost like two entirely different species of humans at this point who are almost incapable of empathising with each other. (and note, in many cases, refusing to empathise.... I refuse to empathize with alt-right supporters for example.)
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > they're divorced from evidence and calcified Democracies have never been about evidence, they are about making sure the "rulers" enjoy the support of the people and are strongly incentivised to listen to the concerns of said people. Democracies have a long and storied history of being arbitrary and unfair in defiance of evidence. In light of that, I'd suggest interpreting political opinions as "I think this person understands what my problems are". When I mentally add that to the end of a political rant usually the rant moves from incomprehensible railing against reality to something rational, but disagreeable.
    - losteric 8y ago
      Maybe that suggests we aren't engaging in dialogue? I think ubiquitous social media access is destroying the cultural "melting pot". The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. Letters, cars, phones, internet, every invention expanded the reach of individual "community" while cost acted as friction to prevent bad ideas from gaining too much momentum - individuals still had to engage with their local community too. Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero. We can talk to anyone or about anything at any time. Great for early adopters and their critical/creative tendencies, but mass adoption by consumers has enabled mass tribalist tendencies to fully decouple from proximity constraints. This might be the "boiling point" for historical conflicts, but "supercritical" seems more appropriate here. Media consolidation has been synonymous with consolidation of broadcasting viewer opinions and their political parties - many unhappy with both choices but faced with the false dichotomy of "their guy" and "the enemy". Meanwhile grass-roots are numerous but now diffuse and ineffective, cut off from broadcasting influence and digitally disconnected. Hopefully society starts correcting back to offline engagement. Anecdotes suggest we are, but undoing the damage will still take a while.
      - colllectorof 8y ago
        Good description. >The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. [..] Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero. Worse. It brought it in the negative, at least perceptually.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    It's really not "now", it's just that the tables have turned. For the previous two terms, the other party was in power, and the out-of-power people could only whinge about it. And that's the same thing that's happening now.
    - spookthesunset 8y ago
      It isn't even the same thing and you damn well know it.
    - zero_intp 8y ago
      Your observation is only true in the ephemeral surface. there is no moral equivalence. there is no legal equivalence. What is your purpose in this deflection?
- ed_elliott_asc 8y ago
  Muting lots of words helps with this. Here is a great starter to keep your feed sane: https://gist.github.com/potatoqualitee/d873c10d8cc578c11fc2ea508bcb2501 https://gist.github.com/potatoqualitee/d873c10d8cc578c11fc2e...
afandian 8y ago
I'd love to hear more about how you use it. Surfacing links? Discussing research?
hndamien 8y ago
Any recommendations here?

deminature 8y ago

I've noticed more people in tech posting mostly political stuff nowadays, when I followed them because of their tech posts. I had to go back and prune my feed to get away from all the bile. Angry political screeds are hard to filter out nowadays.

spookthesunset 8y ago
> Angry political screeds are hard to filter out nowadays. A sign of the times. A lot of people are just really pissed off right now. I also think a lot of people that used to ignore politics realized that it matters...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rland 8y ago
  Things are so weird now. We should feel good that everyone is engaged in dialogue about our grand civic project, right? But when you actually stare out onto the landscape of discussion, there isn't a valuable exchange of ideas to observe. While political opinions are more numerous, they're divorced from evidence and calcified. As useful as no opinion, and possibly worse. (Then again, that's my opinion, right?)
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    > We should feel good that everyone is engaged in dialogue about our grand civic project, right? It is people trapped in their echo chambers. Some chambers are better than others (some, much better, but alas). I personally don't hold much hope for things to ever get de-calcified without some kind of large-scale real-world incident to force it. It is almost like two entirely different species of humans at this point who are almost incapable of empathising with each other. (and note, in many cases, refusing to empathise.... I refuse to empathize with alt-right supporters for example.)
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > they're divorced from evidence and calcified Democracies have never been about evidence, they are about making sure the "rulers" enjoy the support of the people and are strongly incentivised to listen to the concerns of said people. Democracies have a long and storied history of being arbitrary and unfair in defiance of evidence. In light of that, I'd suggest interpreting political opinions as "I think this person understands what my problems are". When I mentally add that to the end of a political rant usually the rant moves from incomprehensible railing against reality to something rational, but disagreeable.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Maybe that suggests we aren't engaging in dialogue? I think ubiquitous social media access is destroying the cultural "melting pot". The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. Letters, cars, phones, internet, every invention expanded the reach of individual "community" while cost acted as friction to prevent bad ideas from gaining too much momentum - individuals still had to engage with their local community too. Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero. We can talk to anyone or about anything at any time. Great for early adopters and their critical/creative tendencies, but mass adoption by consumers has enabled mass tribalist tendencies to fully decouple from proximity constraints. This might be the "boiling point" for historical conflicts, but "supercritical" seems more appropriate here. Media consolidation has been synonymous with consolidation of broadcasting viewer opinions and their political parties - many unhappy with both choices but faced with the false dichotomy of "their guy" and "the enemy". Meanwhile grass-roots are numerous but now diffuse and ineffective, cut off from broadcasting influence and digitally disconnected. Hopefully society starts correcting back to offline engagement. Anecdotes suggest we are, but undoing the damage will still take a while.
    - colllectorof 8y ago
      Good description. >The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. [..] Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero. Worse. It brought it in the negative, at least perceptually.
- ams6110 8y ago
  It's really not "now", it's just that the tables have turned. For the previous two terms, the other party was in power, and the out-of-power people could only whinge about it. And that's the same thing that's happening now.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    It isn't even the same thing and you damn well know it.
  - zero_intp 8y ago
    Your observation is only true in the ephemeral surface. there is no moral equivalence. there is no legal equivalence. What is your purpose in this deflection?
ed_elliott_asc 8y ago
Muting lots of words helps with this. Here is a great starter to keep your feed sane: https://gist.github.com/potatoqualitee/d873c10d8cc578c11fc2ea508bcb2501 https://gist.github.com/potatoqualitee/d873c10d8cc578c11fc2e...

afandian 8y ago

I'd love to hear more about how you use it. Surfacing links? Discussing research?

hndamien 8y ago

Any recommendations here?