3 ms·

> Answering with a joke doesn’t change a thing. My point is that it doesn't answer anything. It doesn't matter if it's an attempt at a joke or not, when you do

> Answering with a joke doesn’t change a thing. My point is that it doesn't answer anything. It doesn't matter if it's an attempt at a joke or not, when you don't actually get the information you asked for. > A human answer on the Palestine-Israel issue for example (no matter what side it takes) that isn’t trying to not offend anybody will be organic and will be authentic and will draw support. Yet, over the last week, I've watched over 10h of good quality analysis of the conflict from various sources. It included reasons why any of the 5 or so sides of this conflict acts the way it does, without any need to be offensive. This was much higher quality content than what I can find on Twitter, even in long threads from people with lots of knowledge. (And those get lost in the sea of people thinking there are two sides of the conflict and that they need to choose one for some reason)

yieldcrv 3y ago
> (And those get lost in the sea of people thinking there are two sides of the conflict and that they need to choose one for some reason) reasons such as wanting to remain employable or being peer pressured to release a statement “your silence is noted” despite there being other former British Mandates with the exact same problems
- viraptor 3y ago
  > such as wanting to remain employable Given the number of shallow shitty takes from anonymous accounts I don't buy that it's due to employers. Where's the report about the significant ratio of companies searching your social media for support of specific political ideas as a precondition to employment? How do people know who to support to "remain employable" in the future? I'd put a big [citation needed] on this. Regardless, this is a thread continuing from "Maybe at some point, the only “high quality organic content” will be fount only on Twitter" - if these are the (potential / perceived) issues, then that's neither high quality nor organic.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    You shouldn't need a scientific study or any sort of report to tell you that publicly proclaiming that you believe that Hitler did nothing wrong is a career limiting move.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      That's not the claim I responded to though. The author claimed that not taking a side publicly is career limiting.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    maybe you’re too close to it to see a less algorithm induced opinions of individuals then people have friends in their career and have opinions, it’s not about random companies searching your social media history it’s about social ostracizing from former friends and colleagues you have worked with that will try to follow your professional career around in an endless vendetta for not saying the party line once the people in question don’t know who to support and are being told it’s to support one of two groups, not one of five groups some people pick, others do not. both sets of people have actual opinions that may be different and more nuanced. every one of those people are being told they’re wrong by one of the two (or five) groups.

yieldcrv 3y ago

> (And those get lost in the sea of people thinking there are two sides of the conflict and that they need to choose one for some reason) reasons such as wanting to remain employable or being peer pressured to release a statement “your silence is noted” despite there being other former British Mandates with the exact same problems

viraptor 3y ago
> such as wanting to remain employable Given the number of shallow shitty takes from anonymous accounts I don't buy that it's due to employers. Where's the report about the significant ratio of companies searching your social media for support of specific political ideas as a precondition to employment? How do people know who to support to "remain employable" in the future? I'd put a big [citation needed] on this. Regardless, this is a thread continuing from "Maybe at some point, the only “high quality organic content” will be fount only on Twitter" - if these are the (potential / perceived) issues, then that's neither high quality nor organic.
- fragmede 3y ago
  You shouldn't need a scientific study or any sort of report to tell you that publicly proclaiming that you believe that Hitler did nothing wrong is a career limiting move.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    That's not the claim I responded to though. The author claimed that not taking a side publicly is career limiting.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  maybe you’re too close to it to see a less algorithm induced opinions of individuals then people have friends in their career and have opinions, it’s not about random companies searching your social media history it’s about social ostracizing from former friends and colleagues you have worked with that will try to follow your professional career around in an endless vendetta for not saying the party line once the people in question don’t know who to support and are being told it’s to support one of two groups, not one of five groups some people pick, others do not. both sets of people have actual opinions that may be different and more nuanced. every one of those people are being told they’re wrong by one of the two (or five) groups.