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

251–260 of 784 posts

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

#251

Post by slingnow »

vecinu wrote: post #231
calumetregion wrote: post #177

Highly online life leads to instability. It's like living your life in a packed subway car. Stress response. This is why cities are less healthy for you as well.

> This is why cities are less healthy for you as well. Is there a citation for this? First time I've heard this said. If that were true wouldn't all the ultra wealthy avoid living in cities at all?

In your opinion do _all_ of the ultra wealthy also avoid _all_ behaviors that might be considered unhealthy? Seems like a weird conclusion to make.

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

#252

Post by frosted-flakes »

psyc wrote: post #151
tombert wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar quote by Mark Twain > It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

This seems like a riff on Proverbs: "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues."

This is why people like Queen Elizabeth (specifically, not the rest of the royal family) are widely held in such high regard. She rarely makes any comments about anything that could be discerned as political, and as a result she has stayed largely neutral. Even people like my dad, who is highly conservative and vocally dislikes all celbrities, still thinks she's a saint. I'm not convinced—she keeps her mouth shut because she's done for if she makes a fuss about anything.

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

#253

Post by UnpossibleJim »

jollybean wrote: post #226
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #204

So, this article states that 42% of Americans identify as politically independent. This beats the next largest political identity (Democrats, 29%) by 13%. Yet, the political system has been rigged - obviously so, for anyone who cares to look - so that an independent party fails to get the 5% necessary to get onto the ballot and future funding for the next election cycle for presidential running. How is it that there…

It's much more complicated than that those ostensible 'affiliations' indicate. Many Trump voters do not identify as 'Republicans'. Don't assume elections are 'rigged' because of some uneasy data. There are obviously specific issues with voting but even then it's more nuanced.

I just think of Perot, after which the voting rules, or rather the percentages for for entry were changed. Also the association running the debates went from the League of Women Voters to the Commission on Presidential Debates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_deb....

That's when it changed from 2% to 5%, and on and on. It was the Perot incidents that make me lean towards a "rigged" system, more than anything, really.

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

#254

Post by BeFlatXIII »

cgrealy wrote: post #244
BeFlatXIII wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the topic can never come up in organic conversation altogether.

Maybe, but you have to imagine at some point, things that are in the news will get discussed over a beer. And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner. Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.

Since when has "I'm pregnant" been a socially-acceptable cue to start ranting about your views on abortion in either direction?

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

#255

Post by onion2k »

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…

I know a lot of folks in my field side by the stance that everything is political, even code.

Twitter isn't code. Why would you expect someone to limit what they publish to code topics just because you want to limit what you read to just code things? Their Twitter account is their domain. There's no reason why someone shouldn't tweet about code and other stuff if they want to.

I honestly have no idea why people think they should have any say over what someone tweets, and even suggest that people are wrong to tweet the way they do. That level of entitlement is baffling.

Please don't follow me on Twitter. You'll hate my account.

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

#256

Post by superfrank »

jafoi wrote: post #194
CountSessine wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't work in practice - no one is going to pass an opportunity to broadcast their political views to as many people as possible.

I don't know. I definitely think some people would just mass broadcast to everyone.

Using the example above, there's nothing stopping that person from bringing their whole self to board game night. They're choosing to avoid certain topics with a certain group of people, so I would expect some of that behavior to cary over to social media.

If I think about something like the "close friends" feature on instagram, I have some friends who just share way too much with everyone, but I've got others who use that feature pretty heavily.

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

#257

Post by anotherman554 »

fantod wrote: post #136
anotherman554 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that quote is an insult and not good faith advise.

Personally, I always read it as "advice" rather than as an insult. Unfortunately, can't seem to find much context for that quote so it's hard to determine what was intended.

Apparently Mark Twain never said it.

If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy).

But I read the quote as essentially saying:

"You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject".

But maybe some people don't take it that way.

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

#258

Post by amluto »

I have a different problem with Twitter: the mechanics of using it keep getting worse. Once upon a time you could read Twitter without logging in. This meant that one could communicate via Twitter to anyone without much friction. Now Twitter is barely functional logged out, and even making an account just to read Twitter is a hassle: you need to give an email address and then get persistent nagged. Twitter wants verification and phone number, it sends spam (I mean helpful links to content), and it generally tries to drive engagement in a way that drives away users.

In short, people who want to have readers want a platform that makes reading easy. Twitter is no longer that platform.

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

#259

Post by vorpalhex »

cgrealy wrote: post #203
vorpalhex wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.

Within LGBTQ communities there are mass disagreements. Should women-only spaces include trans people? Is the word "transsexual" a valid identity even when self chosen?

There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it".

The trick is that it's not a boolean question. Someone can be gay and anti-trans and this is trivially true.

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

#260

Post by itronitron »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #240
vorpalhex wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else. The common theory is roughly the opposite of this: people disproportionately share their better moments on social media. Its users project the impression of having a much better life than they actually have. This bias is one of the reasons social media is so awful for 'FOMO'. edit Of course, that's not…

I think your comment and the parent's comment can be in agreement if you think about people in your social media as now sharing an office with you. You get to be stuck in a room with them for eight hours a day while they share their personal drama, monger gossip, and boast about their work accomplishments.
Post reply on HN