How Twitter poisoned politics • Hacker News Board

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#161

Post by chiefalchemist » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 11:18 AM UTC

zapita wrote: post #108

chiefalchemist wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry. I thought it was the common abbreviation. Maybe MsM then>?

I see. How do you define “mainstream media”? Outlets with a very large audience? In the sense that large media outlets covered Barack Obama one way, and small media outlets another?

Outlets where the emphasis is on the talking head and the entertainment value, while journalism takes a back seat.

Outlets that parrot press releases and the narrative dictated to them via back channels.

Outlets where asking questions, analysis and looking beyond the common narrative is frowned upon.

Outlets that shamelessly relabel editorial / op-ed as news and/or journalism.

Outlets that self-anoint themselves as "trusted."

Outlets that say they are "world news" or "international news" and then focus 95% of their coverage on the USA.

Outlets that use non-vetted tweets as content / sources.

Outlets that refuse to police other outlets because they are afraid of "retaliation" from other outlets.

Outlets that employ the BuzzFeed mindset and tactics as a means to "journalism excellence."

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#162

Post by CM30 » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

dlivingston wrote: post #44

brightball wrote: post #19

From the moment that news outlets started reporting on things said on Twitter years ago, I assumed this would happen. With enough bots, you gain the ability to create any narrative you want. Create story, then create the image that you want the supporters of one side to have, followed by the image for the other side. Use bots and retweets to amplify. You gain the power to define what's happening culturally if the new…

The engagement of user responses seems to have no bearing on whether a news article will embed them. I cannot count the times I have seen some CNN, Business Insider, etc. article talking about the latest Twitter 'controversy', and the tweets they link to have a handful (zero-to-five) of retweets and stars.

Yep, so many mountains made out of molehills when the media reports on Twitter (or any other social media site). Now one guy saying something is apparently seen as a 'trend'.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#163

Post by CM30 » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 12:49 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #19

From the moment that news outlets started reporting on things said on Twitter years ago, I assumed this would happen. With enough bots, you gain the ability to create any narrative you want. Create story, then create the image that you want the supporters of one side to have, followed by the image for the other side. Use bots and retweets to amplify. You gain the power to define what's happening culturally if the new…

It also doesn't help that no one seems to 'verify' anything anymore, especially when social media 'sources' are concerned. So, so many hoaxes make their way into the 'media' thanks to Twitter and Reddit that it's kind of ridiculous.

In the past there was at least some attempt to check the facts behind a story, now it's all a matter of 'let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks'. I've seen literal fake news sites have stories make their way into print media outlets, half the internet go insane over a blurry photo of a piece of paper and sites take random trolls at their word like its gospel.

The standards for proof in the gaming/tech/entertainment/celebrity worlds have basically hit rock bottom already, and the standards for more mainstream sources are steadily heading that way.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#164

Post by CM30 » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 12:51 PM UTC

thundershine wrote: post #124

Normal people got access to the internet. It all went downhill from there.

So in other words, Eternal September writ large.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#165

Post by CM30 » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 12:56 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #39

I can’t remember who originally said this, but the problem with Twitter is that you think you’re engaging in jokey banter with your mates but random strangers are reading each tweet without context in absolute seriousness and judging you

Makes sense. Then again, I think the more general explanation here is that social media removes the 'multiple faces' people put on for different situations. In real life, no one acts the same way towards their family, their friends, their colleagues, their boss, the police/government, random people on the street, etc. They say different things to different people based on whats socially acceptable in that situation.

Social media sites are like if everyone in the world could hear everything you said, without the necessary context to understand why you said it. They've unintentionally exposed the fact everyone has skeletons in the closet and that all kinds of disturbing things are said/done outside of the public view.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#166

Post by komali2 » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

justtopost wrote: post #104

komali2 wrote: post #43

I just wish it wasn't full of bots... facebook is my only actual way to put a thumb on political opinions across the spectrum I have access to (friends in SF, Texas, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and then internationally). Despite subscribing to one of those bot blocklists, it's still incessant. There's just so many bots . It's become a mild hobby of mine to hop on the latest "Twitter Moment" about politics just to refr…

> facebook is my only actual way to put a thumb on political opinions across the spectrum I... uhh... think that is arguably just about as biased as twitter. Maybe go talk to people, you know, outside? A dark bar if outsides not your thing? If you feel someones online statements are the truth in their heart, I am afraid we are at an impasse.

The only people I talk to on Facebook are my real life friends. Why wouldn't their posts be the truth in their heart?

Why are you presuming I don't talk to people at bars? Just last night I had the opportunity to talk to some of the flood of young conservatives shipped into the city for fleet week, at a bar.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#167

Post by arwhatever » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

arwhatever wrote: post #90

ordinaryperson wrote: post #34

Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison? By the end Thomas Jefferson hated George Washington so much he refused to attend his funeral. And that's just 242-year history of America, you can go back to Rome, Greece or Ancient Egypt and see thousands of years of vitriol inside any large human collective. Modern tools could do a better job, sure. Twitter, FB, YouTube and the rest could use some kind of reputa…

No doubt politics has always been dirty, but the existence now of a system which, by design, automates the amplification of the most obnoxious of its millions of users, has to have had some effect.

See Scott Alexander's "toxoplasma of rage" article, or cgp grey's "this video will make you angry" video on YouTube for some good analysis.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#168

Post by kgin » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

Twitter is great for publishing information updates. It's terrible for having a conversation or reasoned debate. Almost all of the built-in incentives are the exact opposite of what you'd want if you were creating a place for conversation and debate.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#169

Post by AnarchoYeasty » Sat, Oct 06, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #111

hnruss wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's classic divide and conquer. The ultra rich have framed politics as red vs. blue, when in reality it has always been (and always will be): them vs. the rest of us.

i remember during the financial crisis thinking if only the tea party and the occupy crowd realized they were two sides to the same coin maybe something great could have happened. I feel like that dawned on the powers-that-be and the old divide and conquer technique was quickly applied; tea party turned far right, occupy turned far left and they've been fighting ever sense.

Lol no occupy was always a leftist movement and the tea party was created by the Koch brothers. Centrists really need to stop trying to change history.

Re: How Twitter poisoned politics

#170

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

naravara wrote: post #95

Natsu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's a very long history of political assassinations, civil wars, etc. all of which predate Twitter. Everything is just more public now.

I love how every example of "It was always this bad" involves people reaching back to before the '60s and, in some cases, before The New Deal. In most cases, reversing several decades of stability and progress would have been considered a very troubling development.

The lesson isn't "this should be normal" or "don't worry about it", but that the underlying dynamics -- political, social, economic, media -- are so damned consistent. The dynamics are systemic. Which means it's quite helpful to see where and when the dager signs are reappearing.

For me, the watershed moment was reading the opening paragraphs of A.H.M. Joness, Augustus. The politicaal divides and platforms of 40 BCE look exactly like those of the 1960s (when Jones waas writing0 or 2010s, when I read his words.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jon...