5 ms·

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter

> Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. This a rant, but I hate this trend of taking what a couple/few people say and calling it "Twitter" or "everyone is saying" or "people are calling for" or "the Internet hates". Reference the actual person who said the comment and don't lump millions of users in with the comments of a few. Whenever I dig into an issue like this, I find maybe a handful of comments when the topic itself is seen by thousands/millions.

TheTruth1234 7y ago
"Trumpian" Blame the US electorate.
yourduskquibble 7y ago
HN'ers all agree ;) that modern day journalism is filled with hyperbole and unsubstantiated information.
- tyfon 7y ago
  This started a long time ago, I remember during the Bush/Gore election the media using "some people say" as a intro to a topic, as if those words validated the entire thing and had to be responded to. Might have started earlier as well but I didn't watch much US news before that.
  - fredsanford 7y ago
    1926 would like to introduce you to the National Enquirer. [0] Not the first, but the first that came to my mind... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer
- asdff 7y ago
  Not all journalism though
ve55 7y ago
It lets them constantly drag anything out of proportion. Very often articles are written titled "Xs are Ying", where less than 1% of Xs are even considered to begin with. This is BuzzFeed (not that they're even a worse offender than most others at this point), what does one expect?
- save_ferris 7y ago
  It frustrates me how often arguments like these are made without considering the economic conditions which led to publishers adopting this clickbait behavior. When the internet came in and destroyed print subscriptions and tech giants like FB/Google started controlling online advertising, getting clicks became the way to make money. We really only have ourselves to blame for choosing ad-driven media content at the expense of new dark patterns that help to prop the system up. I hate clickbait headlines too, but they work. A/B testing shows publishers that they work. What should a publisher do to create less sensational content without sacrificing revenue?
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I'm with you on this one. Don't forget people rejecting subscriptions and demanding the journalism for free. But it wasn't the internet and Google alone. It was greed, and the elevation of media properties as shareholder golden geese. They saw exponential returns in the late 90's. When revenue slowed, they lost favour with their new corporate owners and were alike choked that way.
  - z3t4 7y ago
    Ads and "click" bait predates the Internet. Topics have yet to reach the "quality" of front page headlines.
  - less_penguiny 7y ago
    Going non-clickbaity is not only about sacrificing revenue: it's also about sacrificing readership. Even if your only goal is readership, living in a world where the competition employs click-bait means your hands are somewhat forced.
bluetidepro 7y ago
THIS. This is "Twitter Moments" in a nutshell, and it drives me absolutely crazy. It may be the most toxic "news-source", in my opinion, because of this. It takes a handful of tweets (usually not even verified accounts), and tries to make mountains out of molehills. It tries to drive narratives based on trends of a few "loud" users, and it's so deceiving. It rarely paints a full picture, and it tries so hard to manipulate you into believing these 12 or so tweets are the majority. And because it refreshes so quickly, they have no reason to correct things that end up being wrong, or clarify clickbait-esq topics when more info comes around.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  I once did the research on an article with a title in the format "X group is outraged over Y's comment on twitter" and when I found the original post I found no outrage and at most just a mild dissatisfaction.
  - bluetidepro 7y ago
    Exactly. Haha They blow everything WAY out of proportion. It's so silly. Drives me mad. ha
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
minimaxir 7y ago
The following sentence links to many tweets in Biz Stone's Twitter thread, which itself currently has 527 replies and 242 retweets ("ratioed"). It's a valid proxy for sentiment (in the majority of cases).
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  Except it's not. It's like every other Internet platform: it's the vocal minority, the 10% of the 10%. The average monetizeable Twitter user doesn't know/give a shit about this twttr redesign.
- asdff 7y ago
  The people who actively tweet are the minority of a minority of Americans. https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-use...
bob_doggo 7y ago
Yes. Or when the opinion: "group x are idiots for having opinion y." is hundreds of times more common than someone actually claiming to be an x with opinion y.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Political discussion in a nutshell. It's always possible to find some idiot who happens to belong to group X and holds opinion Y, and then use that to tar the rest of the group.
  - derefr 7y ago
    I can picture a perfect Improv Everywhere scene: a bunch of people get together and practice/research statements that make them sound like they hold awful opinion Y. Then, they sneak into a political debate, or a protest that has a counter-protest... on both sides. And then they all simultaneously try to call the other group out [with the other people they came with as their specific examples] for having opinion Y.
rootusrootus 7y ago
I remember very specifically being taught about those phrases in middle school and/or high school. Weasel Words, they were called.
dalore 7y ago
Hackernews is saying that comments that generalise should be specific and attributed to the person who said the comment.
la_barba 7y ago
Its a natural consequence of wanting to inflate your position when you have little to no personal authority on the matter, and essentially stealing 'authority' by supporting what amounts to an angry mob on the internet. "One person thinks this" has never really been a valuable commodity, unless that one person has some kind of name recognition.
asdff 7y ago
It's used as a proxy for American opinion by journalists, and it's probably the worst possible proxy you could use. Only 22% of Americans use the site, and of those users 10% are responsible for 80% of tweets. Why do we care about the opinions of the loudest 2% of the population? Twitter could be blowing up according to active users, but you step outside and none of that affects you or the world at all. Everything keeps on ticking like nothings happened. https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-use...

TheTruth1234 7y ago

"Trumpian" Blame the US electorate.

yourduskquibble 7y ago

HN'ers all agree ;) that modern day journalism is filled with hyperbole and unsubstantiated information.

tyfon 7y ago
This started a long time ago, I remember during the Bush/Gore election the media using "some people say" as a intro to a topic, as if those words validated the entire thing and had to be responded to. Might have started earlier as well but I didn't watch much US news before that.
- fredsanford 7y ago
  1926 would like to introduce you to the National Enquirer. [0] Not the first, but the first that came to my mind... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer
asdff 7y ago
Not all journalism though

ve55 7y ago

It lets them constantly drag anything out of proportion. Very often articles are written titled "Xs are Ying", where less than 1% of Xs are even considered to begin with. This is BuzzFeed (not that they're even a worse offender than most others at this point), what does one expect?

save_ferris 7y ago
It frustrates me how often arguments like these are made without considering the economic conditions which led to publishers adopting this clickbait behavior. When the internet came in and destroyed print subscriptions and tech giants like FB/Google started controlling online advertising, getting clicks became the way to make money. We really only have ourselves to blame for choosing ad-driven media content at the expense of new dark patterns that help to prop the system up. I hate clickbait headlines too, but they work. A/B testing shows publishers that they work. What should a publisher do to create less sensational content without sacrificing revenue?
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I'm with you on this one. Don't forget people rejecting subscriptions and demanding the journalism for free. But it wasn't the internet and Google alone. It was greed, and the elevation of media properties as shareholder golden geese. They saw exponential returns in the late 90's. When revenue slowed, they lost favour with their new corporate owners and were alike choked that way.
- z3t4 7y ago
  Ads and "click" bait predates the Internet. Topics have yet to reach the "quality" of front page headlines.
- less_penguiny 7y ago
  Going non-clickbaity is not only about sacrificing revenue: it's also about sacrificing readership. Even if your only goal is readership, living in a world where the competition employs click-bait means your hands are somewhat forced.

bluetidepro 7y ago

THIS. This is "Twitter Moments" in a nutshell, and it drives me absolutely crazy. It may be the most toxic "news-source", in my opinion, because of this. It takes a handful of tweets (usually not even verified accounts), and tries to make mountains out of molehills. It tries to drive narratives based on trends of a few "loud" users, and it's so deceiving. It rarely paints a full picture, and it tries so hard to manipulate you into believing these 12 or so tweets are the majority. And because it refreshes so quickly, they have no reason to correct things that end up being wrong, or clarify clickbait-esq topics when more info comes around.

baroffoos 7y ago
I once did the research on an article with a title in the format "X group is outraged over Y's comment on twitter" and when I found the original post I found no outrage and at most just a mild dissatisfaction.
- bluetidepro 7y ago
  Exactly. Haha They blow everything WAY out of proportion. It's so silly. Drives me mad. ha

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

minimaxir 7y ago

The following sentence links to many tweets in Biz Stone's Twitter thread, which itself currently has 527 replies and 242 retweets ("ratioed"). It's a valid proxy for sentiment (in the majority of cases).

Dirlewanger 7y ago
Except it's not. It's like every other Internet platform: it's the vocal minority, the 10% of the 10%. The average monetizeable Twitter user doesn't know/give a shit about this twttr redesign.
asdff 7y ago
The people who actively tweet are the minority of a minority of Americans. https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-use...

bob_doggo 7y ago

Yes. Or when the opinion: "group x are idiots for having opinion y." is hundreds of times more common than someone actually claiming to be an x with opinion y.

rootusrootus 7y ago
Political discussion in a nutshell. It's always possible to find some idiot who happens to belong to group X and holds opinion Y, and then use that to tar the rest of the group.
- derefr 7y ago
  I can picture a perfect Improv Everywhere scene: a bunch of people get together and practice/research statements that make them sound like they hold awful opinion Y. Then, they sneak into a political debate, or a protest that has a counter-protest... on both sides. And then they all simultaneously try to call the other group out [with the other people they came with as their specific examples] for having opinion Y.

rootusrootus 7y ago

I remember very specifically being taught about those phrases in middle school and/or high school. Weasel Words, they were called.

dalore 7y ago

Hackernews is saying that comments that generalise should be specific and attributed to the person who said the comment.

la_barba 7y ago

Its a natural consequence of wanting to inflate your position when you have little to no personal authority on the matter, and essentially stealing 'authority' by supporting what amounts to an angry mob on the internet. "One person thinks this" has never really been a valuable commodity, unless that one person has some kind of name recognition.

asdff 7y ago

It's used as a proxy for American opinion by journalists, and it's probably the worst possible proxy you could use. Only 22% of Americans use the site, and of those users 10% are responsible for 80% of tweets. Why do we care about the opinions of the loudest 2% of the population? Twitter could be blowing up according to active users, but you step outside and none of that affects you or the world at all. Everything keeps on ticking like nothings happened. https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-use...