5 ms·

Anecdotally, I’ve paid to promote a number of tweets over the last few years, and have consistently found that there is a certain percentage of users that are a

Anecdotally, I’ve paid to promote a number of tweets over the last few years, and have consistently found that there is a certain percentage of users that are apparently retweeting absolutely everything in their feed. My content is niche, and usually has a very small audience, and so these “blind retweeters” stick out like a sore thumb when I look into who does anything with my tweet. The behavior I’ve observed is consistent with the article, in that the timings of their flood of retweets could very well indicate a real human pressing the buttons, and I suspect they are. And, it does not surprise me that when looking at the long tail of the most absurd fake news that has a small audience on an individual tweet level, that one would find the majority of the retweets for such obvious fakeness is coming from such blind retweeters. The effect overall is that whatever bubble such users are in gets amplified a bit, absurdity and all, though I’m skeptical they play any role at all in what becomes truly popular. The real problem is far more nuanced with the less obvious fake news that even those not tapping blindly are taken in by, the less obvious fake news that gets a large audience because a lot of people find it believable, hoaxes that persist in the collective unconscious long after their time in the spotlight has faded, regardless of any debunking or fact checking that played a role in its popularity dying out. I think the effect of these super spreaders repeating complete nonsense is minuscule compared to the effect of organically popular almost reasonable nonsense that truly goes mainstream.

prox 2y ago
I was recently reminded of the 1/9/90 rule : The so-called 1/9/90 rule posits that on a social media network or review site, only 1 percent of users will actively create content. Another 9 percent, the editors, will participate by commenting, rating or sharing the content. The other 90 percent watch, look and read without responding. This is my experience as well. So also true on HN, where are majority are just lurkers. (Hi there lurkers, good time to get an account! ;) I think if you are lurking you far more likely to just consume something without actively giving it a second thought. I think of the adagio that to really know something, you have to teach it (or being able to explain at least) and that doesn’t happen in passivity. It happens in dialogue.
- b112 2y ago
  Likely more like 0.1 or even 0.01%, same with editors.
- spacechild1 2y ago
  > I think of the adagio I think you meant 'adage'. 'adagio' is a slow musical tempo, which left me confused for a while :)
  - alwa 2y ago
    I kind of like thinking about those two words set against each other, though! Sounds like “adagio” is a contraction of “ad agio” as in “at leisure” in Italian, while the usual references suggest that “adage” might have a couple possible derivations. The main one being that it comes through French from the Latin “ad” + a form of “aio,” or “I say,” so in the straightforward sense “a saying”; another etymlogy positing a root in “adigo” as in “drive, force.” [0] [0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/adage https://www.etymonline.com/word/adage
  - prox 2y ago
    I meant adage, I listened to classical music recently (more than usual) :) Thank you for the correction!
- kreyenborgi 2y ago
  > I think if you are lurking you far more likely to just consume something without actively giving it a second thought. Or you've learnt the hard way that voicing your opinion leads to getting invested in your viewpoint (and worthless internet points) and more time, energy and emotion spent on social media, whereas "passively" consuming you can just walk away from any silly argument that you weren't even trying to start, without it staying with you the rest of the night.
  - prox 2y ago
    Sometimes yes. It depends on how sincere or good faith a comment is, or the general atmosphere of a platform. While having lengthy discussions on HN is pretty much impossible, I still feel lots of people are showing willingness of entertaining “curious conversations” I do think you highlight a certain skill thats advantageous to have , like knowing when something is indeed a silly argument or lost cause of an emotional drain.

prox 2y ago

I was recently reminded of the 1/9/90 rule : The so-called 1/9/90 rule posits that on a social media network or review site, only 1 percent of users will actively create content. Another 9 percent, the editors, will participate by commenting, rating or sharing the content. The other 90 percent watch, look and read without responding. This is my experience as well. So also true on HN, where are majority are just lurkers. (Hi there lurkers, good time to get an account! ;) I think if you are lurking you far more likely to just consume something without actively giving it a second thought. I think of the adagio that to really know something, you have to teach it (or being able to explain at least) and that doesn’t happen in passivity. It happens in dialogue.

b112 2y ago
Likely more like 0.1 or even 0.01%, same with editors.
spacechild1 2y ago
> I think of the adagio I think you meant 'adage'. 'adagio' is a slow musical tempo, which left me confused for a while :)
- alwa 2y ago
  I kind of like thinking about those two words set against each other, though! Sounds like “adagio” is a contraction of “ad agio” as in “at leisure” in Italian, while the usual references suggest that “adage” might have a couple possible derivations. The main one being that it comes through French from the Latin “ad” + a form of “aio,” or “I say,” so in the straightforward sense “a saying”; another etymlogy positing a root in “adigo” as in “drive, force.” [0] [0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/adage https://www.etymonline.com/word/adage
- prox 2y ago
  I meant adage, I listened to classical music recently (more than usual) :) Thank you for the correction!
kreyenborgi 2y ago
> I think if you are lurking you far more likely to just consume something without actively giving it a second thought. Or you've learnt the hard way that voicing your opinion leads to getting invested in your viewpoint (and worthless internet points) and more time, energy and emotion spent on social media, whereas "passively" consuming you can just walk away from any silly argument that you weren't even trying to start, without it staying with you the rest of the night.
- prox 2y ago
  Sometimes yes. It depends on how sincere or good faith a comment is, or the general atmosphere of a platform. While having lengthy discussions on HN is pretty much impossible, I still feel lots of people are showing willingness of entertaining “curious conversations” I do think you highlight a certain skill thats advantageous to have , like knowing when something is indeed a silly argument or lost cause of an emotional drain.