3 ms·

Absolutely. You follow humans. Whole humans. They have every right to attract followers with technical tweets and then suddenly anger half their followers by be

Absolutely. You follow humans. Whole humans. They have every right to attract followers with technical tweets and then suddenly anger half their followers by being political come election year. I don’t think it’s possible to create a safe space from opinions you disagree with. What happens on twitter could happen with your friend or uncle. On Twitter it’s at least easy to unfollow someone and it’s not a personal tragedy like it is if you need to break from a relative because they turn out to believe in conspiracy theories.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It could happen, but it doesn’t happen nearly so often. I’ve had to mute one of my best friends on Twitter, because his posts are just filled with toxic bile that I’ve never seen reflected when I talk to him in person.
- webmaven 6y ago
  The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is relevant here: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Except it isn't actually anonymity (or pseudonymity) per-se, as the phenomenon has long existed in many other contexts as well: https://youtu.be/kFHT1lw3vSI https://youtu.be/kFHT1lw3vSI You can probably generalize to something like "technologically mediated assholism", but there is more than one thing happening here, such as: + Filter bubbles/homogeneous in-group opinions lead people to becoming more extreme in their views. + Observing some rando (it doesn't have to be an authority figure, although that helps) "say the quiet part out loud" is validating, to say the least. + Lack of f2f contact leads to thinking of individuals as impersonal abstractions, and in particular, as the "other". + The pathetic fallacy applies to groups just as it does to inanimate objects. + Text communication often causes people to misread tone. + The affective fallacy (the assumption that the effect of an action was the intent behind it) becomes particularly powerful because of the former two points. + The affective fallacy seems to operate in reverse too: Someone informing you of an outcome seems like they are making a claim about your intent. + No-one is a villain in their own story. On the internet, everything is a story, and if the story is about someone like you, obviously they can't be a villain either. + Exposure to information that conflicts with (even weakly held) beliefs tied to a person's identity often triggers defensive rejection of the new information and strengthens those beliefs. + Group dynamics are in play for public interactions, so there is always a performative aspect even for ostensibly 1-to-1 communications. This often doesn't get turned off for private electronic channels such as email. And so on. A lot of these mental quirks are like ratchets that only ever tighten. Although each in isolation is often self limiting, the limiter can be bypassed by some other quirk, after which the ratchet can tighten some more.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Very uncharitable response. The above poster is right on. That your favorite poet or whoever can fly off the handle with their toxic political faction-war delusions or whatever is a direct contradiction to the common idea where Twitter is useful for following your favorite X. It often sucks the fun out of things you like and it’s a good reason to not use it at all. Nobody is pitching “safe spaces” here. But it’s a good time to ask yourself how much a toxic one is going to enrich your life. Getting off Twitter and Reddit are two great life upgrade tips.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You follow humans. Whole humans. You follow Twitter accounts. Those can be thematic slices of humans, whole humans, aggregates of humans, or lots of different things.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Sure, but you need to be at least able to assume and accept that you risk being a follower of a whole human, with flaws and opinions.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It could happen, but it doesn’t happen nearly so often. I’ve had to mute one of my best friends on Twitter, because his posts are just filled with toxic bile that I’ve never seen reflected when I talk to him in person.

webmaven 6y ago
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is relevant here: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Except it isn't actually anonymity (or pseudonymity) per-se, as the phenomenon has long existed in many other contexts as well: https://youtu.be/kFHT1lw3vSI https://youtu.be/kFHT1lw3vSI You can probably generalize to something like "technologically mediated assholism", but there is more than one thing happening here, such as: + Filter bubbles/homogeneous in-group opinions lead people to becoming more extreme in their views. + Observing some rando (it doesn't have to be an authority figure, although that helps) "say the quiet part out loud" is validating, to say the least. + Lack of f2f contact leads to thinking of individuals as impersonal abstractions, and in particular, as the "other". + The pathetic fallacy applies to groups just as it does to inanimate objects. + Text communication often causes people to misread tone. + The affective fallacy (the assumption that the effect of an action was the intent behind it) becomes particularly powerful because of the former two points. + The affective fallacy seems to operate in reverse too: Someone informing you of an outcome seems like they are making a claim about your intent. + No-one is a villain in their own story. On the internet, everything is a story, and if the story is about someone like you, obviously they can't be a villain either. + Exposure to information that conflicts with (even weakly held) beliefs tied to a person's identity often triggers defensive rejection of the new information and strengthens those beliefs. + Group dynamics are in play for public interactions, so there is always a performative aspect even for ostensibly 1-to-1 communications. This often doesn't get turned off for private electronic channels such as email. And so on. A lot of these mental quirks are like ratchets that only ever tighten. Although each in isolation is often self limiting, the limiter can be bypassed by some other quirk, after which the ratchet can tighten some more.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Very uncharitable response. The above poster is right on. That your favorite poet or whoever can fly off the handle with their toxic political faction-war delusions or whatever is a direct contradiction to the common idea where Twitter is useful for following your favorite X. It often sucks the fun out of things you like and it’s a good reason to not use it at all. Nobody is pitching “safe spaces” here. But it’s a good time to ask yourself how much a toxic one is going to enrich your life. Getting off Twitter and Reddit are two great life upgrade tips.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> You follow humans. Whole humans. You follow Twitter accounts. Those can be thematic slices of humans, whole humans, aggregates of humans, or lots of different things.

alkonaut 6y ago
Sure, but you need to be at least able to assume and accept that you risk being a follower of a whole human, with flaws and opinions.