Live data from Hacker News

The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

axios.com

461–470 of 784 posts

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

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he was probably not a great person early on, he's now generally contributing to universally approved causes, and otherwise just there, so to some extent he's a symbol of the possibilities available through tech. You probably haven't been following Gates lately. His reputation has tarnished in the last couple of years.

Do you have a source or examples?

1. Some kind of relationship with Epstein

2. Divorce

3. Melinda hinting that 1. had something to do with 2.

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

#463

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'…

I agree with this. I've found that in order to maintain my relationships with some good friends, I've had to stop following them on twitter (and other social media).

On twitter, it's really easy for my to ignore all the insane and stupid things that complete strangers blather about on there all the time. There's a ton of noise, but just enough signal for me to check in regularly.

But then suddenly I see a ridiculous post from someone I truly care about. Someone who I've known for years and know their spouse and kids and families. I can read their post in their voice as if it were said to me, personally. And now I'm angered and incensed and putting up maps and charts and pins in my head preparing a response that this person whom I care about deserves.

But they weren't talking to me. They were shouting something crazy into a cacophony of crazy strangers. If we were at dinner we would have a long, deep, and nuanced conversation on the subject and we'd listen to each other's points and respond accordingly. But in 240 chars they're wrong and now I will reserve two hours of mental capacity to argue with myself about why.

Nope. Just block them, knowing I'll see them next time they're in town, and we'll have a real conversations about real things in a forum more befitting two people trying to understand each other.

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

#464
post #273

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

4channers made a comic of this concept a few years ago, but it was something like "gay dragonkin neonazis" instead of toaster lovers.

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

#465
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I definitely chose my phrasing by design: "less healthy" I have no doubt there are vigorous academic arguments happening whether there are ways to mitigate the stress of population density and be healthier than would be expected. I'm open to that concept and ideas. Yet the research on urban living and mental health is overwhelming - your chances of schizophrenia, mood disorders and anxiety skyrocket in cities. I was…

driving is much more stressful to me than subway-riding

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

#466
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "my life as a member of group X should be better than that of other groups" is a political position. This isn't at all what the GP said, and that fact is one of the biggest reasons we don't like engaging in these types of conversations: a hostile stranger is liable to stop in and hammer you with a comment that reeks of contempt and disdain, and egregiously distorts what you said. "I don't want to experience all the…

Quoted post unavailable.

I just don't think anyone has to be on Twitter to learn about (for instance) bad legislation that affects marginalized people so they can oppose it. It tends to bubble up into other media sources. And nowadays, those media sources will cite the big influential tweets anyway, so it's not even like you can escape from Twitter.

It seems like you're reading the original comment as saying "I feel justified in never thinking about marginalized people and systematically preventing myself from seeing anything that might prompt that thinking"... and I think that's a really big leap to make. There are ways to be informed without exposing yourself to the firehose of everyone's random opinions and feelings, which can be a complete lose-lose proposition, damaging your own mental health and relationships without helping anyone.

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

#469

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…

> the stance that everything is political

Which is itself a political stance. It’s not a universal truth but a very narrow political ideology. Never mind that “political” is not a well-defined thing to begin with.

If we can’t agree to neutral territory then one of the sides is going to have to win. Because you can’t bully your way to victory.

We need more meetings of the mind and fewer meetings of unfalsifiable rhetoric. Fewer crusaders and more peacemakers.

Post reply on HN