3 ms·

> Twitter is what you want it to be, topic-wise, based on who you follow and what they like to talk about. I've tried this. It's false. It's a myth that Twitte

> Twitter is what you want it to be, topic-wise, based on who you follow and what they like to talk about. I've tried this. It's false. It's a myth that Twitter users tell themselves, AFAICT. Even disregarding the trending topics and explore interfaces, all it takes is for one of the curated members that you follow to retweet something you're not interested in seeing. > What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law" approach kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments will get so extreme that it will drive millions of people away, and those who are left will see the quality of their feeds decline. Then many of them will bail, too. But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it? Because Twitter _isn't_ what you claim it is. Twitter is optimized for outrage-oriented engagement. It _wants_ to show you things that will encourage you to engage, to return, and there's nothing quite as engaging as content that upsets you.

ilamont 4y ago
> I've tried this. It's false. So I have I. I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed. That said, my personal account has overlap with a separate startup/media/tech account because of some shared interests in the tech space. But there is also a lot of very different items I see in the personal account because of local accounts in the city I live in as well as topical news accounts relating to Asia and Europe that interest me. Naturally, anything relating to current events in those areas also touches on U.S. politics, foreign policy, and military policy, so I get that too, despite some muted keywords. > But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it? You missed the part in the paragraph that followed: However, there is bleed because people you follow and Twitter's recommendation features can't help themselves (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up). And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave. Not disagreeing with your point about outrage, though. Like you said, there's nothing quite as engaging as content that gets lots of responses/RTs/shares/"likes," and this content tends to be negative.
- dleslie 4y ago
  > I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed. > And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave. You're describing how you have general views into twitter, but which are imperfect and require _active_ maintenance on your part to retain utility. My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
  - jasonladuke0311 4y ago
    > My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness. I reached the same conclusion. It’s garbage, and I quit. Occasionally I’ll get a text from a friend linking to Twitter and I regret following the link, every time, within 60 seconds or so.
    - bonoboTP 4y ago
      I also quit it and whenever someone links to it, I get a physiological reaction, like nauseousness and just have to close the tab. It's toxic fumes all over. Not possible to curate. I have blocked some words and mostly follow researchers but the controversial politics are shoved in my face. Everyone bending over backwards regarding Ukraine-Russia, some are still ranting about masks pro or contra, performatively being very concerned, some gender stuff, people at each other's throats regarding privilege and inclusivity, people bragging, humblebragging about their careers, self-claimed gurus telling their communities off, hot takes, then people complaining about too much bragging and calling out hustle culture and toxic positivity, others one upping these in some way or agreeing and fuming together. People only seeing other people as caricature stereotypes, like ah you must be a techbro, you must be an sjw, everyone assuming the worst, everything too serious and no lightheartedness. It's pure monkey emotions and it brings out the worst of otherwise intelligent people. I've lost respect for several highly regarded scientists through this. Twitter should just run itself into the ground.
JohnBooty 4y ago
> What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law" > approach kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments > will get so extreme that it will drive millions > of people away, and those who are left will see > the quality of their feeds decline. Then many of > them will bail, too. But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it? What? It's not contradictory in the slightest. Nobody is claiming that Twitter would somehow magically somehow continue "be what you want it to be" if most of the quality contributors leave. Because Twitter _isn't_ what you claim it is. Twitter is optimized for outrage-oriented engagement. I have a few accounts and I simply don't see what you describe. I don't follow or engage with controversial crap. My follows are people in my hobbies, and funny people. My feed is pretty close to 100% strife-free. Either it's really easy to avoid the hellscape of outrage that you describe or I'm extremely lucky/talented.
- dleslie 4y ago
  Or you have a higher tolerance for negativity and hate than I do.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    Good point. Although, I don't think it's the case: mine's essentially zero. Don't misunderstand: I've seen that stuff on Twitter. I've reported a few people. And political topics and other controversial topics are absolutely rife with it. I do not excuse it in any way. I just find it easy to avoid?
    - dleslie 4y ago
      You've just described how you haven't avoided it, but instead have actively engaged with it by availing yourself of moderation tools. It leads me to suppose that you're underestimating how much you're exposed to that you find disquieting.
      - JohnBooty 4y ago

ilamont 4y ago

> I've tried this. It's false. So I have I. I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed. That said, my personal account has overlap with a separate startup/media/tech account because of some shared interests in the tech space. But there is also a lot of very different items I see in the personal account because of local accounts in the city I live in as well as topical news accounts relating to Asia and Europe that interest me. Naturally, anything relating to current events in those areas also touches on U.S. politics, foreign policy, and military policy, so I get that too, despite some muted keywords. > But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it? You missed the part in the paragraph that followed: However, there is bleed because people you follow and Twitter's recommendation features can't help themselves (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up). And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave. Not disagreeing with your point about outrage, though. Like you said, there's nothing quite as engaging as content that gets lots of responses/RTs/shares/"likes," and this content tends to be negative.

dleslie 4y ago
> I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed. > And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave. You're describing how you have general views into twitter, but which are imperfect and require _active_ maintenance on your part to retain utility. My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
- jasonladuke0311 4y ago
  > My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness. I reached the same conclusion. It’s garbage, and I quit. Occasionally I’ll get a text from a friend linking to Twitter and I regret following the link, every time, within 60 seconds or so.
  - bonoboTP 4y ago
    I also quit it and whenever someone links to it, I get a physiological reaction, like nauseousness and just have to close the tab. It's toxic fumes all over. Not possible to curate. I have blocked some words and mostly follow researchers but the controversial politics are shoved in my face. Everyone bending over backwards regarding Ukraine-Russia, some are still ranting about masks pro or contra, performatively being very concerned, some gender stuff, people at each other's throats regarding privilege and inclusivity, people bragging, humblebragging about their careers, self-claimed gurus telling their communities off, hot takes, then people complaining about too much bragging and calling out hustle culture and toxic positivity, others one upping these in some way or agreeing and fuming together. People only seeing other people as caricature stereotypes, like ah you must be a techbro, you must be an sjw, everyone assuming the worst, everything too serious and no lightheartedness. It's pure monkey emotions and it brings out the worst of otherwise intelligent people. I've lost respect for several highly regarded scientists through this. Twitter should just run itself into the ground.

JohnBooty 4y ago

> What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law" > approach kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments > will get so extreme that it will drive millions > of people away, and those who are left will see > the quality of their feeds decline. Then many of > them will bail, too. But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it? What? It's not contradictory in the slightest. Nobody is claiming that Twitter would somehow magically somehow continue "be what you want it to be" if most of the quality contributors leave. Because Twitter _isn't_ what you claim it is. Twitter is optimized for outrage-oriented engagement. I have a few accounts and I simply don't see what you describe. I don't follow or engage with controversial crap. My follows are people in my hobbies, and funny people. My feed is pretty close to 100% strife-free. Either it's really easy to avoid the hellscape of outrage that you describe or I'm extremely lucky/talented.

dleslie 4y ago
Or you have a higher tolerance for negativity and hate than I do.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Good point. Although, I don't think it's the case: mine's essentially zero. Don't misunderstand: I've seen that stuff on Twitter. I've reported a few people. And political topics and other controversial topics are absolutely rife with it. I do not excuse it in any way. I just find it easy to avoid?
  - dleslie 4y ago
    You've just described how you haven't avoided it, but instead have actively engaged with it by availing yourself of moderation tools. It leads me to suppose that you're underestimating how much you're exposed to that you find disquieting.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago