2 ms·

> If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend to be more aligned with the people they follow” Maybe it's a semantic thing bu

by Spivak 2y ago

> If your position is closer to “on average, people who follow other people tend to be more aligned with the people they follow” Maybe it's a semantic thing but is that not what is meant by this usage of the word signal? "A child growing up in an affluent neighborhoods is a strong signal of their future success." implies => "The proportion of the set of all kids who live in affluent neighborhoods who achieve success as adults is high."

haswell 2y ago
That’s not how I read your use of signal in the broader context. Putting people on lists for who they follow is a growing trend and it’s pretty clear in Bluesky culture that many people actually believe following someone implies some kind of support for that person and “taints” the follower somehow. This goes alongside a host of problematic behaviors ranging from all-or-nothing thinking “if you’re not with us you’re against us” to simple bad faith. My goal isn’t to argue here, but to understand and clarify what you meant. It sounds like you didn’t literally mean that on an individual basis, following someone strongly indicates their values, but that in the aggregate (due to the current social climate), it’s more likely they won’t follow people they disagree with. I don’t think this is just a matter of semantics given the context, but a necessary clarification. In the affluent neighborhoods example, there’s no call to action (block people), the situation isn’t a highly charged issue in the cultural zeitgeist, and there aren’t a lot of reasons someone would interpret that example in some other way. The same is not true for the current social media climate.