Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 784 posts

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#181

Post by CountSessine »

vorpalhex wrote: post #146
toastercat wrote: post #71

I tried being a Twitter user for a bit last year, mostly because a lot of engineers I admire use it to communicate about interesting topics and also their work. But after a while, I realized even they will pollute my feed with politically divisive topics, whether it be from them retweeting something, or liking a tweet, or even entering into the fray themselves -- Twitter will find a way to get me to see it. For a whi…

One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else. If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship. If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'…

This was one of the ideas behind Google+ - "circles". You could put other people in different broadcast "circles" and then you wouldn't end up announcing your weird fetish preferences or drug use to your grandma or your coworkers - at least not intentionally.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#182

Post by cgriswald »

tayo42 wrote: post #109
thinkingemote wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now define "hurt". It's not easy as "hurt" is not objective, is relative to others and no longer connected to intention.

This isn't some clover got you, if someone tell you your offended them then that's it, you offended them. You don't get to redefine it

That's an unreasonable standard. If I chose to see your use of the phrase 'clover got you' as some slur against Irish people and was offended, would you have offended me?

This is an unfair question, not because it's not a reasonable one given your argument, but because if you say 'yes' I can't take you seriously.

Of course, that's not really the issue. The issue is what the response is when people are offended. I can certainly modify my language and behavior to reduce the chances of offending someone. I can even apologize when I've accidentally put my foot in my mouth.

Twitter lacks the tolerance and nuance for either of those scenarios, though. If something 'not ok' is said, what was intended or meant doesn't matter (and any nuanced is typically ignored). An apology isn't seen as an apology for a mistake, but as an admission of guilt of being a terrible person who doesn't deserve oxygen.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#183

Post by Atlas667 »

This is almost exclusively the fault of media trying to engage viewers through culture war.

These people [one random, average person passionate about something they know little about] are saying these things[taken out of context by reporter or site] about you[random attribute you will identify with].

Media demographics are killing harmony. These people feed our brains. They are our eyes beyond what our real eyes can see. Which is not very far. That's how people come to hate people they've never met. Or how wars are started.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#184

Post by nomdep »

ayngg wrote: post #54

I thought this was fairly well understood that these communities follow some sort of Pareto ratio where a minority of people churn out most of the content, or are responsible for sending content to the top of feeds. I recall reading about it with regards to Twitter and Reddit, and it probably applies in some form or another with every social network that allows for passive participants.

And yet, companies and conference organizers seem to think the Twitter mob represents everyone

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#185

Post by andrewflnr »

aarondf wrote: post #176
throwmeariver1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to take away from your post but you are copy and pasting it all over the place in every thread that mentions twitter or social media... That's against the rules of the site.

Ah good call, I didn't know that.

Did you really need someone to tell you it would be annoying? Now I know a twitter account I'm definitely going to look askance at.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#186

Post by MrPatan »

tayo42 wrote: post #109
thinkingemote wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now define "hurt". It's not easy as "hurt" is not objective, is relative to others and no longer connected to intention.

This isn't some clover got you, if someone tell you your offended them then that's it, you offended them. You don't get to redefine it

I find your words offensive, please stop posting in HN forever.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#187

Post by emjoes1 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #146
toastercat wrote: post #71

I tried being a Twitter user for a bit last year, mostly because a lot of engineers I admire use it to communicate about interesting topics and also their work. But after a while, I realized even they will pollute my feed with politically divisive topics, whether it be from them retweeting something, or liking a tweet, or even entering into the fray themselves -- Twitter will find a way to get me to see it. For a whi…

One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else. If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship. If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'…

Well said. I buy into your theory and $0.02. If we fall back to rules of polite conversation than trying to "fix" our compulsions then we don't even need a social network with filters or circles.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#188

Post by TechBro8615 »

wanderingmind wrote: post #119
jameskilton wrote: post #12

"Never pass up a chance to keep your mouth shut" Words my Dad taught me as I was growing up, but only really sank in the last 5 or so years ago.

This is all cute, but the most important quality for getting jobs and moving up the ladder is self promotion, which requires opening your mouth.

Not really. Anyone can open their mouth. The challenge of "moving up the ladder" is in leveraging your resources (which might include your voice) to provide value to people who can help you. Most of these value exchanges do not happen on Twitter or even in public. Besides, how do you even quantify the series of events that leads someone to (for example) an Ivy League university, a job at McKinsey, a private equity firm, and eventually the top echelon of a company? There is a lot more to this than "opening your mouth" – in fact, "closing your mouth" is probably a better representation of the soft skills required for corporate success than "opening" it.

I bet if you tallied the executives of F500 companies, you would find a vast majority of them do not have a blog, or even a Twitter. And of those that do, you'd find most of them using it as an explicit asset (e.g. a VC tweeting for "thought leadership" that increases dealflow, a CSO building an audience to sell to, etc.). You will not find many of them tweeting personal political opinions, certainly none outside of the orthodoxy.

IMO, it's a miscalculation even to post thoughts aligned with the orthodoxy — you don't know how the environment will change. Five years from now, maybe we'll be cancelling all the people doing the cancelling today.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#189

Post by cgriswald »

shankr wrote: post #170
recursive wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really think it's not a thing, here's an early cancellation. Pretty much everyone involved lost their jobs, and it was all over social media for a cycle. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...

My earliest memory of getting "cancelled" predates twitter where Dixie Chicks were "cancelled" by their own fans because they criticized the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy

The show Soap was (literally) canceled for positive representations of homosexuals by people complaining to employers, issuing death threats, and etc.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/soap/

> Though the show’s ratings were still good in season four, ABC cancelled the series because of continued pressure from the so-called “moral majority.” By the end of the series, Vlasic pickles was the only advertiser interested in advertising on the series. In They’ll Never Put That on the Air, executive producer Paul Junger Witt said, “We weren’t killed by a fearful network. The network had been incredibly supportive. We had been doing this long enough to understand that they were in a business, and they sat down and showed us — dollar for dollar — why they couldn’t afford to do it anymore.”

The people who are part of cancel culture now are literally using the same scare tactics that were used to suppress and oppress homosexuals and other minority groups.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#190

Post by AussieWog93 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #101
tayo42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really easy to not be "canceled", just be a good person. What genuinely OK opinion are people being canceled for?

Here is a good example: "You just used 'OK' in your comment, only white supremacists use 'OK'."

I mean, it's an example...
Post reply on HN