10 ms·

Everyone pays too much attention to Twitter. I think it is responsible for radicalising many people. People seem to get easily swept up and not apply the same

• IIAOPSW 6y ago
  Speak for yourself. I've spent 0 hours on twitter.
  • ponker 6y ago
    Yeah, seriously. “Everyone” can’t be correct when the Sentinelese don’t even have Internet.
    • labster 6y ago
      You don't actually know that. It's entirely possible that the Sentinelese were put there by aliens to guard an ancient superweapon, which is why they don't allow outsiders. They could have a galactic subether comm and be getting Internet from Spica. Until they let us in, there's no way to tell.
      • ponker 6y ago
        Hm... maybe you’re onto something. Maybe the Sentinelese are trolling everyone on Twitter to keep everyone too stupid to find the super weapon. Sorry, I didn’t mean everyone, clearly there are some people who have spent 0 hours on Twitter.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
• woutr_be 6y ago
  It's far easier online to find and follow people who have the same opinion as you, and block out people with views that you disagree with. And before you know it, you're sucked into an echo chamber with only news that confirms your views.
  • Robotbeat 6y ago
    I think it's worse than that. What Twitter especially does is make it easy to find people who are the worst possible version of those you disagree with. Every "nobody REALLY thinks that" is easy to disprove (although still generally accurate!)... You find ACTUAL neoNazis. ACTUAL tankies. ACTUAL fill in the blanks. That's what radicalizes people. That, and the easy ability to mob folks who don't toe the line on whatever issue. The most disgusting takes on both sides are amplified, not blocked. And even when blocked, still screen-capped. You see the most unreasonable perspectives amplified but the broad middle folk, or those who have legitimate points, either driven off the platform or who just aren't amplified. EDIT:I know this is usually frowned upon on HN, but I must ask: Why the downvotes?
    • PaulKeeble 6y ago
      Both sides think they are arguing with the reasonable people on the other side of the debate,but in actuality the extremists are posting a lot more content than most users and they are get amplified as they get more "engagement". Engagement is a terrible measure for a single tweet in the nieve way because it amplifies really awful things that produce anger. What reddit, twitter even youtube get wrong is that mixed up and down votes might mean very engaging but it does not mean good wholesome healthy content, infact it definitely means the opposite. If you just amplify engagement as they do today it might bring more clicks but it hurts society and builds extremists.
    • self_awareness 6y ago
      My take is that lots of extremists are on HN, and they dislike with what you wrote.
      • deleted 6y ago
• monadic2 6y ago
  The “filtering” that seems to exist in meatspace interactions has many names including “white supremacy” and “the patriarchy” and “manufactured consent”. There’s a rough road to consensus ahead for human culture as long as there’s this attitude that social media is “good” or “bad” rather than “inevitably chaotic”. if you look beyond the obvious bots you’ll realize these conversations are going to happen eventually with or without highly polarizing platforms designed to be addictive. our social media folks have only greased the tracks into conflict that was going to happen anyway. Just a few years ago you could find plenty of opinion articles talking about the necessity of “the marketplace of ideas” for political discourse. None of that now....
  • loopz 6y ago
    Most ideas, like above 99% are crap though. Most people only care for their own little bubble.
    • monadic2 6y ago
      This is a lazy justification with little substance that applies just as much to the users and content and voting structure of this forum. The alternative is not talking to anyone or not choosing who we talk to.
      • loopz 6y ago
        Is it though. How many people are preoccupied with concerns outside their own tribe, and are prepared to throw away 99% of ideas in order to refine and filter the remaining 1%, multiple times? Ie. do impactful work with meaning, without directly benefiting themselves?
        • monadic2 6y ago
          Do you have an example? I can’t make a head or tail of what you’re saying. It sounds like you have an extremely specific metaphysical process you have in mind.
• loopz 6y ago
  It provides a mass propaganda network for people who already was miscontent and unable to filter their own biases.
• theshrike79 6y ago
  Rule 14: Do not argue with trolls — it means they win. This has been a basic tenet of the Internet for decades - until Twitter and FB became huge. Now the regular people don't know or understand this and continue to interact with trolls (retweeting, subtweeting, basically bringing attention to their idiocy). This just feeds the anger cycle and shuts down all attempts at sane discourse. You don't tell a troll you're not arguing with them, don't block them (that's a win), you just ignore it completely. If everyone would follow this rule, the crazies would be left alone shouting into the emptiness.
  • wh-uws 6y ago
    I think about this a lot. Twitter and FB brought a lot of people to the internet who weren't exposed to cultural things like Rule 14 that I feel went a long way to maintaining civility. They also normalized bringing your identity online. Back in the days i.e. when slashdot would have been HN everyone was anonymous. I feel like it made it easier to focus on ideas instead of the people saying them. Ah simpler times...
    • snakeboy 6y ago
      It's a bit of a double-edged sword, no? In many contexts, having identity tied to your online profile should make people act more like humans and less like they're role-playing their anonymous internet troll persona.
      • sowellecho 6y ago
        >>In many contexts, having identity tied to your online profile should make people act more like humans and less like they're role-playing their anonymous internet troll persona. This is only true if everyone agrees on facts. It is perfectly reasonable for people to get shocked by the other side's views if they do not disagree on the facts. When people are in fundamental disagreement with other viewpoints, I would say their behavior is often one angry message away from the anonymous troll personas. It is a very short fuse. A good example is the idea of the "cancel culture". Do you think it is a reality? Someone like Stefan Molyneux would say yes. Someone like AoC would say no. The person who thinks cancel culture is a real thing will say things which just seem completely idiotic to the other side, and vice versa. And they are still using real names. Using real names in fact becomes a liability if there is actually a cancel culture. So, for example, I am safer making this point anonymously. If I accidentally end up offending you, at least I don't have to worry about losing my job.
• cm2187 6y ago
  But are you referring to interactions on twitter or reading other people's post? I don't have a twitter account and couldn't care less about comments on youtube videos or twitter. But I do follow certain people (just by having them as favorites in by browser). I read twitter as kind of blog. You can still refer to the absence of filters, you read people's opinion without the filter of a newspaper editor. But I never thought newspaper editors should be trusted for anything.
• rimliu 6y ago
  I often complain how people are ignoring context nowadays. Twitter makes the problem worse, because of the nature of it, there is not even space for the context. Just a knee-jerk-raction propagation machine.
• baxtr 6y ago
  I have realized that Twitter/FB are really unhealthy for me. You get dragged down the argument path so quickly. There is really no point in engaging. Just stay away, has been the best cure for me.