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

421–430 of 784 posts

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

#421

Post by hjanssen »

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…

Im not sure that the apolitical stance many people believe to hold is such an apolitical stance. In fact, living in any state and taking part in any kind of society is political in and of itself.

You do not get to take part in any community without having a political stance - being part of a community is communicating that you agree with the morals and values of the community and wilfully accept them - thats the basis and general agreement of a community, it's what differentiates a group of people from a community.

Now, Im not sure that turning a blind eye to the consequences that this has is inherently wrong, that surely depends on what impact the concrete political/moral/ethical stance has, but I disagree with the notion that, really, anything is apolitical. In context, everything is political, and we have to live with the notion that anything we do has impact on other people, as long as the consequences of the the thing we are doing is visible to other people.

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

#422

Post by LAC-Tech »

wpietri wrote: post #247
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Why do you automatically assume wanting to ignore politics translates to support of the status quo?

I've heard this argument before a lot, and it just seems like a massive assumption. You can't read peoples minds.

There are several plausible reasons to ignore and not discuss politics:

- You don't want to argue

- You don't think it will change anything

- You don't want to lose friends and acquaintances

- You don't want to find out someone you respect is "one of them"

- If the aggregate political beliefs of your industry does not match your own, you don't want to "out" yourself

- You want to change the status quo, but not in the way other people want it changed

- Your political beliefs are not strongly held

- You don't feel knowledgeable enough (I wish this was more common and people would share their opinions less when they know close to nothing).

I personally don't want to discuss politics much even if people agree with me - it either turns into a weird intellectual circle jerk, or gripe session about how evil the "other" is. Neither of which I really enjoy.

In short there are a lot more reasons to try and avoid politics than there are to seek them out. Being happy with the status quo is one needle in a haystack of other reasons.

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

#423

Post by delusional »

rcoveson wrote: post #388
wpietri wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Some people get to ignore "politics"... No, they don't, because they invite this exact reply whenever they try to do so.

Bazinga.

Seriously though. When he says "ignore politics" it doesn't mean you get to live without them happening. It means you get to decide not to care. Getting the reply doesn't mean you don't get to ignore it.

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

#424

Post by manmal »

dogleash wrote: post #295
MiddleEndian wrote: post #147

I got my twitter account MyfirstnameMylastname somewhere early in the site's existence, probably around 2009. But never really got the appeal of Twitter so I never used it for anything, I'd check it once every six months or so. I eventually learned I share a name with a tech journalist who is very active on Twitter, and occasionally I would get tagged instead instead of him. Every time, I would respond with the Navy…

>Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this Fucking killjoys. If twitter is moderating for people who can't even figure out not to take that copypasta seriously[1], then they're showing their hand. There's no end state. No goal. There is no cultural equilibrium point that even perfect moderation could ever achieve. Therefore, visible attrition is the end state. Twit…

IMO it’s not unreasonable to ban users who are outliers in terms of complaints from other users.

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

#425

Post by deanCommie »

madrox wrote: post #273
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'…

My favorite theory comes from an HN comment describing it as the "toaster fucker problem." I'd attempt to re-explain it, but the original comment is great (and easy to search for. Not many mentions of the phrase "toaster fucker" on HN.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362

It's a funny analogy, but there is a spectrum, no? Surely you could acknowledge that there is a spectrum somewhere between Black, Gay, Trans, and Toaster Fucker?

It's extremely easy to dismiss all of these as equally irrelevant. In fact many do (not saying you are) - "I don't care if you are black, white or purple. I treat everyone equally". "I don't care if you're straight, gay, or curvy - what you do in the bedroom is no business of mine". These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances. And being asked to be treated equally gets perceived as asking for special treatment until it becomes ridiculous: "Gay people want special treatment by asking gay marriage - they're not being discriminated - they can already marry someone of the opposite sex".

It's easy not to care about race or sexuality when society treats yours as irrelevant.

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

#426

Post by Dylan16807 »

thrwawy283 wrote: post #402
Dylan16807 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think circles were too tied to privacy. Public posts ended up mushed together just like twitter.

Now I'm annoyed that in 2022 I'm understanding Google+ better. I want to follow the /intersect/ of "Jane Smith" and "Catan". Both of these are topics. I might be broadly interested in "computers", and "board games", or interested in just my friend "Jane Smith". I likely don't want to know everything Jane is posting - or those posting things about her - but when I choose to Follow her, I should be prompted with a list…

The problem is I don't think Google+ ever worked that way either. You used circles to decide who to send to, but there wasn't a good way to filter as a receiver.

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

#427

Post by EastSmith »

donatj wrote: post #412

I've been using Twitter for something like 12 years now. I can count on one hand the number of actual positive interactions I've had in the last couple years. I'm my experience you can't even ask people mildly pointed questions anymore without getting blocked. You can't even try to start a conversation anymore. It's just person makes grand sweeping statment. You cheer them on, ignore them, or get blocked. It's not a…

I don't think twitter was made for interactions, but interactions drive engagement metrics, so twitter optimizes for interaction.

I am using twitter since 2008, and I have like 5 interactions per year. I unfollow noisy people. 3 tweets a day? You are too noisy. I also do not hit the like or retweet buttons a lot.

Around events I follow some extra accounts (Ukraine) that are noisy. Then unfollow at some point.

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

#428

Post by delusional »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #422
wpietri wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Why do you automatically assume wanting to ignore politics translates to support of the status quo? I've heard this argument before a lot, and it just seems like a massive assumption. You can't read peoples minds. There are several plausible reasons to ignore and not discuss politics: - You don't want to argue - You don't think it will change anything - You don't want to lose friends and acquaintances - You don't wan…

> You don't feel knowledgeable enough (I wish this was more common and people would share their opinions less when they know close to nothing).

I think it's more common than you think to stay out of it. The unfortunate thing about the asymmetrical communication afforded by social media is that you don't see the hundreds of people that didn't engage with what someone said.

At least that's what I tell myself when i see a bunch of comments that are out there. All the people that aren't crazy probably just didn't want to engage.

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

#429

Post by deanCommie »

pvarangot wrote: post #345
wpietri wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

In my experience running joke and pseudonymous Twitter accounts most "respectable engineers" talking about politics on Twitter are not posting about their real problems as much as trying to appeal to signal they belong to a certain culture because it's beneficial for their careers or their public image. There's a lot of exceptions of course but honestly most good engineers will probably be tweeting the interesting po…

No post body was provided.

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

#430

Post by brailsafe »

Like others have mentioned, even if you just want to use twitter to follow other engineers or designers etc.. Twitter will invariably find a way to show you their annoying political takes, and other from people they liked or are even vaguely connected. I was on Twitter for a little while about 10 years ago now for the same reason, but then ditched it in 2015/16 when I started seeing this happen more. Everyone wanted social points for shitting on whoever was deemed to be on the wrong side of history or whatever it was then. I used the t ruby cli for twitter and backed up my lists of follows and followers, then unfollowed everyone without deactivating my account. Interestingly, even while following nobody, I still got the same shit in my feed. I eventually did an official twitter backup (which is admittedly quite a good offline webapp), and deleted the account, because fuck that place. My approach was the digital version of tossing all your potentially useful possessions in a bag and putting it in a storage locker; if you don't think to go and get it for a year, toss it in the garbage.
Post reply on HN