Too many people have peed in the pool • Hacker News Board

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#91

Post by jgrahamc » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

zkhalique wrote: post #81

jgrahamc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like the way that millennials communicate with emoji I'm GenX and not a millennial. I don't see anything wrong with using some emoji as part of my language. I already speak a language (English) which is some bastard child of French, German, Dutch, Arabic, etc. I'm happy to add a (poo emoji) when it's appropriate.

Emojis are fine. But I remember the first times I started seeing "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO". And I realized that the person wasn't really laughing, but they were quietly typing that on the keyboard. If you think about it, before AIM and online chat (way before texting), people hardly ever faked their emotions so much. I mean, you could fake a small laugh, but you didn't outright say that you're rolling on the floor laughin…

If you think about it, before AIM and online chat (way before texting), people hardly ever faked their emotions so much

In the late 1980s terms like LOL were used on BBSes and on Usenet. Perhaps you just aren't old enough to remember that? :-)

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#92

Post by maker1138 » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

jonstokes wrote: post #53

seren wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it will prevail in the end, but I think that Reddit approach by splitting the community in small subgroups/communities has a better chance to last in the long run. Of course, you'll create feuds between communities but at least it is somewhat confined and not always spilling in the common public space. Unfortunately it also greatly increases the echo chamber / filter bubble but it seems you can not ha…

"A long time ago, I used to believe that Internet would usher a new age of Enlightenment since every one would have access to many different opinions and unbiased sources." Heh, same here. I think that so many of us simply underestimated the immense power of capitalism to co-opt and commodify everything it touches.

voluntary exchange is not the problem with society. involuntary exchange on the other hand...

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#93

Post by justifier » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

jonstokes wrote: post #38

I have a theory about FB and Twitter -- or maybe more of an observation. Anyway, back in the stone age, people had bumper stickers with little slogans on them. And in the break rooms of various places of work, there was always a bulletin board an on a corner of it there was always some faded-from-to-many-xeroxes bit of humor/racism/sports fandom/sexism/dirty joke or other us-vs.-them thing on it that people would loo…

i consider emojis as the tonal element missing from text

think of it as visual intonation (o)

(o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intonation_(linguistics)

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#94

Post by mentos » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #31

The problem isn't that this is a Twitter problem. It's that this is a cultural problem. People kinda suck. People kinda suck a lot. I was having a conversation with a friend at lunch, when I started putting ketchup on my hotdog. He looked at me and incredulously questioned, "really? What are you, like, 8 years old?" I had never even heard of the idea that "only children put ketchup on a hotdog." Yet here was someone…

The best and worst traits of humanity have been amplified by computers and the internet.

How can the better traits prevail?

Feels like a sequel to Mike Judge's Idiocracy

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#95

Post by monksy » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

malsun wrote: post #17

I left Twitter last year when it looked like the 'professionally offended' were becoming too influential. They didn't affect me as I keep a low profile, but it was like seeing an omen and noticing friends were buying into their hype. The way Twitter is now pandering to this lot with the recently announced Orwellian-style group, and other odd behaviour suggests that they approve of the current momentum. I'm just glad…

Something that I've seen is that Twitter claims to be interested in cracking down on people who harass.. But when people come and bully in the name of "social progress" .. they tend to look the other way. I've reported a tweet or two that attacked the reputation of an individual and was told "it's been reviewed but we deem it ok."

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#96

Post by DanielBMarkham » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #67

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Not directly applicable to Twitter, but to online communities in general) It'd be interesting if you could have two votes: whether you liked what the person posted (which would only be visible to them) and whether you'd personally share it with your friends (which would affect it's ranking only among your friends) Or put differently, I wonder if it's not possible to create a system that dynamically sorts content, in…

The follower system on twitter already sorts content like that, it's just the retweet system amplifies certain types of content so strongly that it drowns out other types. Amongst other glaring problems, like driving an evil feedback loop that makes twitter money by making everyone angry.

Many times online I see a friend who is justifiably upset. Let's say they like to put their dog in a sweater and somebody said it was animal abuse.

Now I could care less about dogs in sweaters, but I like my friend. I hear them and I want them to know that they have been heard. So I "like" the content.

When you've only got 1,000 or so followers, no big deal. But if you're around 50 or 100K? statistically you're going to end up with dozens, maybe hundreds of likes. Some likes are "I agree!" Some likes are "I like you". How could any system distinguish the two? I have difficulties doing this in small groups where people are physically nodding their head.

I know designers don't want to move away from the one-button like/vote/heart/plus/whatever, but hell if I can figure out how you'd make a system work like that without massive feedback noise (which is what's happening).

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#97

Post by KerryJones » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

rblstr wrote: post #86

I watched the BAFTAs with my girlfriend last night and I have to say, when Stephen made that comment we both said 'woah that's a bit mean' out loud. Of course, being the general public we're not aware of Mr Fry's relationship with the lady who won the award but from an outside perspective it came across as a bit bullying. I only found out today about the twitter backlash and I don't think it should be lumped in with…

This is the problem. He shouldn't have to clarify his relationship, he shouldn't have to explain everything. In essence, that destroys jokes.

It's not our job to know, but as we should assume innocence until proven guilty we should assume friendliness before assuming ridicule.

If Beaven had a problem -- let her handle it. She's a big girl, we're not her collective parents.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#98

Post by lmm » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #61

braythwayt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a moment to look around, you’ll realize that a lot of socially progressive people are saying the exact same thing about Twitter, that the “professionally offended” are becoming too influential. Mind you, they’re talking about what happens when a woman criticizes video game culture and winds up with death threats and snuff porn choking her mentions. I am not saying this to suggest that one “side” or “the o…

I don't think Twitter is making things worse than they used to be. Society has the problem. Twitter just makes it public. Remember, the US used to have anti-communist witch hunts in which people were forced to give up their careers, it had actual physical lynchings, and it still has a culture where the police can do more or less whatever they want with limited accountability. People being disrespectful or even stalke…

I think Twitter by its very nature promotes that kind of thing. The 140-character limit inherently pushes towards zingers and outrage. Nuance is stripped away by the medium.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#99

Post by fche » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

seren wrote: post #23

carsongross wrote: post #15

I'm a bit monomaniacal about this, but the current online culture wars (and the previous offline culture wars) make me wish that secession didn't have such a bad name. It is obvious that large groups of people have irreconcilable differences of opinion on matters of free speech, sexuality, gun ownership and so on. It is a shame that rather than a firm handshake and friendly wave goodbye, we will end up with a totalit…

I don't know if it will prevail in the end, but I think that Reddit approach by splitting the community in small subgroups/communities has a better chance to last in the long run. Of course, you'll create feuds between communities but at least it is somewhat confined and not always spilling in the common public space. Unfortunately it also greatly increases the echo chamber / filter bubble but it seems you can not ha…

Re. your last paragraph, the "different opinions" is exactly what we get, so it's not "instead" but "consequently". As for unbiased sources, that is a pipe dream as it ever was.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#100

Post by lhnz » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

hnlogics wrote: post #90

It is never acceptable to attack and use violence against other individuals. The fact that you perceive them as making money from their marginalization does not make it acceptable for you and others to attack them to send death threats, and to engage in other horrific and violent behavior. It is reprehensible and disgusting that you think your hatred and bigotry is acceptable... because somebody might've made money.…

I don't know what you're talking about as I've never engaged in violent or horrific behaviour or sent death threats.

Bigotry and hatred are disgusting. Not once did I say they were acceptable.

I think deep down you know you're making vicious, unfounded accusations and that's why you feel the need to do so from a new account disconnected from your real name.