5 ms·

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).

StevePerkins 5y ago
Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because: 1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter. 2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook. 3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort. All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.
- __float 5y ago
  That's a weird conclusion to come to. There is a ton of alt-right, extremist content on Twitter. Not just in English, mind you.
  - ycombinete 5y ago
    And a lot of it is young
- herdcall 5y ago
  OK, "Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter" ^ "Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook" => Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)?" That's ageism of first order right there.
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    I think his point was that because "good" is entirely subjective, and since HN aligns with Twitter, HN subjectively will consider Twitter good.
madeofpalk 5y ago
Compare to before, where the only voices you heard where ones that were allowed by a hand full of media execs.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  I don't see Twitter as an improvement over what we had before. The same people controlling the media once, are on the boards of the companies that allegedly made the change possible. On the other hand, their faces are hidden now, so we can't really say if a certain topic is legitimately important for the general public or the consensus has been fabricated or, even worse, their platform has been abused and we won't know until it's too late because it's bad PR. At least in the past I could almost be sure that a media outlet was not easy to infiltrate so their opinion reflected their beliefs and I could take a stance pro or against. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitte... Now if I think Twitter has been corrupted by malevolent entities, I can't really do a lot about it, because I risk to.lose my voice too. There aren't many other ways I can have the same exposure. There's a completely different set of incentives at play.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose. Edit: re-reading this, I’m giving Twitter too much credit, but I hope the point I’m trying to make is still visible.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose. it depends on where and when people with no voice are still with no voice, even with Twitter people that had some kind of voice, still have a voice, probably more. people with lots of voice power, still have a lot of power except now people that have gained popularity don't want to lose it to silence potentially dangerous actors, because they are on the same boat, and entities with a lot of resources can have a voice (sometimes very convincing) where they wouldn't have before. Think about the staggering amount of visibility the Talibans have on platforms like IG, they are influencers now! Not entirely Twitter's fault, but the Jack Dorseys didn't think about the consequences and here we are. They did what they are good at: built a platform, made it grow exponentially, lost control of it, but profited. Not judging the intentions, they could have been the best ever, but the result is that they built something that we have to deal with, whether we like it or not.
GabeIsko 5y ago
Meanwhile, I'm over here wishing that they actually applied their terms of service uniformly. Instead of making exceptions for famous people.
rpmisms 5y ago
This is nonsense. I talk with my favorite furry purveyors of printable guns on twitter nearly daily. I have criticisms of how Twitter bends to the establishment left, but there's a lot of stuff on twitter that makes many blue people very angry.
sullyj3 5y ago
That stuff is an issue, but it's nothing compared to positive effects arising from an increased ability for people to communicate and coordinate in actual oppressive states

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).

StevePerkins 5y ago

Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because: 1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter. 2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook. 3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort. All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.

__float 5y ago
That's a weird conclusion to come to. There is a ton of alt-right, extremist content on Twitter. Not just in English, mind you.
- ycombinete 5y ago
  And a lot of it is young
herdcall 5y ago
OK, "Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter" ^ "Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook" => Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)?" That's ageism of first order right there.
- khazhoux 5y ago
  I think his point was that because "good" is entirely subjective, and since HN aligns with Twitter, HN subjectively will consider Twitter good.

madeofpalk 5y ago

Compare to before, where the only voices you heard where ones that were allowed by a hand full of media execs.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
I don't see Twitter as an improvement over what we had before. The same people controlling the media once, are on the boards of the companies that allegedly made the change possible. On the other hand, their faces are hidden now, so we can't really say if a certain topic is legitimately important for the general public or the consensus has been fabricated or, even worse, their platform has been abused and we won't know until it's too late because it's bad PR. At least in the past I could almost be sure that a media outlet was not easy to infiltrate so their opinion reflected their beliefs and I could take a stance pro or against. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitte... Now if I think Twitter has been corrupted by malevolent entities, I can't really do a lot about it, because I risk to.lose my voice too. There aren't many other ways I can have the same exposure. There's a completely different set of incentives at play.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose. Edit: re-reading this, I’m giving Twitter too much credit, but I hope the point I’m trying to make is still visible.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose. it depends on where and when people with no voice are still with no voice, even with Twitter people that had some kind of voice, still have a voice, probably more. people with lots of voice power, still have a lot of power except now people that have gained popularity don't want to lose it to silence potentially dangerous actors, because they are on the same boat, and entities with a lot of resources can have a voice (sometimes very convincing) where they wouldn't have before. Think about the staggering amount of visibility the Talibans have on platforms like IG, they are influencers now! Not entirely Twitter's fault, but the Jack Dorseys didn't think about the consequences and here we are. They did what they are good at: built a platform, made it grow exponentially, lost control of it, but profited. Not judging the intentions, they could have been the best ever, but the result is that they built something that we have to deal with, whether we like it or not.

GabeIsko 5y ago

Meanwhile, I'm over here wishing that they actually applied their terms of service uniformly. Instead of making exceptions for famous people.

rpmisms 5y ago

This is nonsense. I talk with my favorite furry purveyors of printable guns on twitter nearly daily. I have criticisms of how Twitter bends to the establishment left, but there's a lot of stuff on twitter that makes many blue people very angry.

sullyj3 5y ago

That stuff is an issue, but it's nothing compared to positive effects arising from an increased ability for people to communicate and coordinate in actual oppressive states