3 ms·

On outrage: I'd be worried about where that aggression would be directed without twitter as the whipping boy. It seems as if those that are most persistently ca

by 0des 4y ago

On outrage: I'd be worried about where that aggression would be directed without twitter as the whipping boy. It seems as if those that are most persistently caustic derive from twitter a sense of regaining control, and a fleeting ability to internally re-balance their lack of power they experience IRL

hprotagonist 4y ago
alternative: it just goes away. for a long time the thought was that most suicides would find a way, so specific countermeasures weren’t useful; turns out, it’s not true.
- ianai 4y ago
  My long hoped (rarely or never seen) conclusion for people to reach is that these systems should be taken with a massive amount of skepticism and independent verification. Also that the same fulcrum like power to spread outrage/“othering” be used for inclusion.
version_five 4y ago
To some extent that may be true, but I think there is some truth to the whole algorithmic promotion thing that makes sure Twitter keeps your attention by riling you up. So say I'm mad about something Elon Musk did, and I go to Twitter to post about it, I'll get fed a bunch more tweets reinforcing how bad the thing was and get even more outraged, and keep scrolling. Even without a Twitter account, I find clicking on seemingly benign Twitter links on HN quickly gets me into threads of political discussion that rile me up. Contrast that with going to e.g. HN and sharing a story or commenting on a post about something I don't like. It's definitely still possible to get into an argument that pisses you off, but at least its actual people provoking you, in a community that has a pretty low tolerance for that, so it's not going to go to far. If you're pissed off enough, you'll find another outlet, though I think twitter is less an outlet than a place to make you even madder
andrew_ 4y ago
Twitter is low-effort outrage. Before that space existed, people just sighed and went about their day. If it's more difficult or higher-effort to express or dip into outrage, people will bow out.

by 0des 4y ago

hprotagonist 4y ago

alternative: it just goes away. for a long time the thought was that most suicides would find a way, so specific countermeasures weren’t useful; turns out, it’s not true.

ianai 4y ago
My long hoped (rarely or never seen) conclusion for people to reach is that these systems should be taken with a massive amount of skepticism and independent verification. Also that the same fulcrum like power to spread outrage/“othering” be used for inclusion.

version_five 4y ago

To some extent that may be true, but I think there is some truth to the whole algorithmic promotion thing that makes sure Twitter keeps your attention by riling you up. So say I'm mad about something Elon Musk did, and I go to Twitter to post about it, I'll get fed a bunch more tweets reinforcing how bad the thing was and get even more outraged, and keep scrolling. Even without a Twitter account, I find clicking on seemingly benign Twitter links on HN quickly gets me into threads of political discussion that rile me up. Contrast that with going to e.g. HN and sharing a story or commenting on a post about something I don't like. It's definitely still possible to get into an argument that pisses you off, but at least its actual people provoking you, in a community that has a pretty low tolerance for that, so it's not going to go to far. If you're pissed off enough, you'll find another outlet, though I think twitter is less an outlet than a place to make you even madder

andrew_ 4y ago

Twitter is low-effort outrage. Before that space existed, people just sighed and went about their day. If it's more difficult or higher-effort to express or dip into outrage, people will bow out.