4 ms·

>Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. I don't care if you're skeptical, I'm not going to placate sealions. Go use Bluesky. My experience

>Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. I don't care if you're skeptical, I'm not going to placate sealions. Go use Bluesky. My experience there is it's just as political. Let's revisit in a year. >The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change. "...while providing zero contextual links."

subsection1h 2y ago
> I'm not going to placate sealions. It's called citing sources. You've posted 2,087 times and only 56 of those posts include "http"[1], which is a measly 2.7%. In comparison, I've posted 556 times and 205 of my posts include "http", which is 36.9%. The problem isn't sealioning; it's that you're either lazy or you just make things up. And given that you're not too lazy to reply to a request for a source without actually providing a source, it's reasonable to assume you might be making shit up. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=author%3Aitsoktocry+http https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=autho...
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  Putting random links in your comments is of limited value, and it shouldn't add authority to your claims. It's actually too common on HN for people to make things up and then put some sort of citation that actually doesn't support what they are claiming whatsoever, knowing that 99.9% of users just don't care that much. The fact that it actually works on some people is hugely unfortunate. However while I'm not the other guy, how about [1] and [2]. I desperately hope that this ups my links to post ratio! The whole "block list" thing on bsky has been a massive torch mob/brigading tactic, and it's boorish. [1] https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ [2] https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w
afavour 2y ago
> "...while providing zero contextual links." I can't provide a contextual link for a subjective judgement about the quality of conversation on Twitter. You can provide a contextual link for the guy on Twitter who posts about AI and has been reposting his Bluesky interactions on Twitter. All I'm hearing from your contributions to this thread is "I'm interested in saying things, I'm not interested in listening to responses". Which makes for a pretty poor level of discussion that's beneath HN.

subsection1h 2y ago

> I'm not going to placate sealions. It's called citing sources. You've posted 2,087 times and only 56 of those posts include "http"[1], which is a measly 2.7%. In comparison, I've posted 556 times and 205 of my posts include "http", which is 36.9%. The problem isn't sealioning; it's that you're either lazy or you just make things up. And given that you're not too lazy to reply to a request for a source without actually providing a source, it's reasonable to assume you might be making shit up. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=author%3Aitsoktocry+http https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=autho...

llm_nerd 2y ago
Putting random links in your comments is of limited value, and it shouldn't add authority to your claims. It's actually too common on HN for people to make things up and then put some sort of citation that actually doesn't support what they are claiming whatsoever, knowing that 99.9% of users just don't care that much. The fact that it actually works on some people is hugely unfortunate. However while I'm not the other guy, how about [1] and [2]. I desperately hope that this ups my links to post ratio! The whole "block list" thing on bsky has been a massive torch mob/brigading tactic, and it's boorish. [1] https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ [2] https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w

afavour 2y ago

> "...while providing zero contextual links." I can't provide a contextual link for a subjective judgement about the quality of conversation on Twitter. You can provide a contextual link for the guy on Twitter who posts about AI and has been reposting his Bluesky interactions on Twitter. All I'm hearing from your contributions to this thread is "I'm interested in saying things, I'm not interested in listening to responses". Which makes for a pretty poor level of discussion that's beneath HN.