4 ms·

This includes The Guardian opinion pieces. I am surprised their isn't outrage as a service on twitter. I writer needs 10 twitter accounts to say something cont

by bruceb 7y ago

This includes The Guardian opinion pieces. I am surprised their isn't outrage as a service on twitter. I writer needs 10 twitter accounts to say something controversial so that can write about the "backlash" to some event or celeb. Maybe this already exists, just not obvious yet.

pessimizer 7y ago
Or 10 twitter accounts to rage about the article you just wrote but no one read.
- dmix 7y ago
  Controversial articles need controversy
astazangasta 7y ago
This is in the category of "outrage outrage", where we are outraged that other people are getting outraged about things.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Ironically, this is why I personally find the use of "snowflake" and "SJW" so enraging.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    I find those terms particularly perplexing because the idea of ridiculing people for their sensitivity to particular political concerns is an exercise in demonstrating your sensitivity to particular political concerns. Cura te ipsum!
    - nathanasmith 7y ago
      "Tu quoque, (Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)." You might find the rest of the wikipedia article interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  - world32 7y ago
    "outrage outrage outrage".
zeta0134 7y ago
I'm not entirely certain this is necessary. If any article gains any traction at all, you can simply pull tweets from random, completely normal humans, and spin that to make whatever point you're trying to make. It's... kinda discouraging both how easy this is to do, and how credible it appears on the surface with the right framing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chiefalchemist 7y ago
Not really necessary. There is __always__ some pushback on Twitter. Take a position and you'll find those on your side, and those against you. Confirmation bias is alive and well on the internet. What continues to shock me is how willing (so called) jouranalist are to use Twitter as a source of reliable and trustworthy info. Again, you can find a handful of tweets to support - or not - _any_ issue.
- pm90 7y ago
  Journalists don’t use Twitter as the source of truth unless there is no other way to get info. Eg the current POTUS doesn’t even have regular press briefings and uses Tweets to broadcast everything. Journalists do seem to like Twitter as a platform to debate though. This was where they found it very useful, and why so many of them were early adopters and continue to be active there. Why do they like Twitter?Today’s issues are so complex that writing long form articles on every event can limit the scope of your views to one or 2 main things while you may still be interested to debate other things. Twitter is a low cost, easily setup platform to do that.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    >> interested to debate Can you elaborate on good debate threads that happened on Twitter?
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Please note: so called preceded journalists. That is, there are a vast number of media-ites who think of themselves as journalists. It's not that easy.
pjc50 7y ago
This is provided by some of the "mainstream" "press"; Brendan O'Neill in Spiked, for example, can be relied on to produce the absolute worst, most controversial take on something that's just happened, manufacturing a whole load of outrage.
Razengan 7y ago
It is obvious most of the time. Do you assume major companies don't do it to each other all the time? Sometimes they get caught at it. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=Samsung+paying+students+for+reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=Samsung+paying+students+for+... Reddit for Sale: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/bb7t71/reddit_for_sale_how_we_bought_the_top_spot_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/bb7t71/reddit_for_s...
Reedx 7y ago
Twitter is Outrage as a Service. It's just not a service you have to pay for.
buboard 7y ago
> their isn't outrage as a service on twitter There isn't? What are all those social media managers doing ?

by bruceb 7y ago

pessimizer 7y ago

Or 10 twitter accounts to rage about the article you just wrote but no one read.

dmix 7y ago
Controversial articles need controversy

astazangasta 7y ago

This is in the category of "outrage outrage", where we are outraged that other people are getting outraged about things.

Ensorceled 7y ago
Ironically, this is why I personally find the use of "snowflake" and "SJW" so enraging.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  I find those terms particularly perplexing because the idea of ridiculing people for their sensitivity to particular political concerns is an exercise in demonstrating your sensitivity to particular political concerns. Cura te ipsum!
  - nathanasmith 7y ago
    "Tu quoque, (Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)." You might find the rest of the wikipedia article interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- world32 7y ago
  "outrage outrage outrage".

zeta0134 7y ago

I'm not entirely certain this is necessary. If any article gains any traction at all, you can simply pull tweets from random, completely normal humans, and spin that to make whatever point you're trying to make. It's... kinda discouraging both how easy this is to do, and how credible it appears on the surface with the right framing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chiefalchemist 7y ago

Not really necessary. There is __always__ some pushback on Twitter. Take a position and you'll find those on your side, and those against you. Confirmation bias is alive and well on the internet. What continues to shock me is how willing (so called) jouranalist are to use Twitter as a source of reliable and trustworthy info. Again, you can find a handful of tweets to support - or not - _any_ issue.

pm90 7y ago
Journalists don’t use Twitter as the source of truth unless there is no other way to get info. Eg the current POTUS doesn’t even have regular press briefings and uses Tweets to broadcast everything. Journalists do seem to like Twitter as a platform to debate though. This was where they found it very useful, and why so many of them were early adopters and continue to be active there. Why do they like Twitter?Today’s issues are so complex that writing long form articles on every event can limit the scope of your views to one or 2 main things while you may still be interested to debate other things. Twitter is a low cost, easily setup platform to do that.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  >> interested to debate Can you elaborate on good debate threads that happened on Twitter?
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Please note: so called preceded journalists. That is, there are a vast number of media-ites who think of themselves as journalists. It's not that easy.

pjc50 7y ago

This is provided by some of the "mainstream" "press"; Brendan O'Neill in Spiked, for example, can be relied on to produce the absolute worst, most controversial take on something that's just happened, manufacturing a whole load of outrage.

Razengan 7y ago

It is obvious most of the time. Do you assume major companies don't do it to each other all the time? Sometimes they get caught at it. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=Samsung+paying+students+for+reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=Samsung+paying+students+for+... Reddit for Sale: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/bb7t71/reddit_for_sale_how_we_bought_the_top_spot_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/bb7t71/reddit_for_s...

Reedx 7y ago

Twitter is Outrage as a Service. It's just not a service you have to pay for.

buboard 7y ago

> their isn't outrage as a service on twitter There isn't? What are all those social media managers doing ?