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

561–570 of 784 posts

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

#561

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

dredmorbius wrote: post #547
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #343

I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The two-party system keeps dominating all the news cycles, so it’s got to be pretty difficult for all of the marketing analytics companies to keep up with the noise.

Seeing like a state ... turns out to be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article?

> Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."

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

#562

Post by xdennis »

Graffur wrote: post #446
mdoms wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User who is receiving unsolicited messages from strangers should be the one banned because he decides to respond with a little joke?

I think he spammed the same text every time. Definitely worthy of a ban for any community online or offline.

Spam is unsolicited. You don't get to message someone and cry "spam" when he replies.

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

#563

Post by ReactiveJelly »

lazide wrote: post #440
sjmm1989 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My roommate basically put it in his project for university as a similar theory to Toaster Fucker. I too have a personal similar theory where I just refer to the 'village idiot'. They all basically revolve around one truth I think. The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to rad…

I don’t think so - my impression is that it’s feed algorithms pushing the most incendiary topics to people because they get the most engagement. Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all. So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.

> Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive

Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

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

#564

Post by ReactiveJelly »

seneca wrote: post #488
LordDragonfang wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same author, further down in the thread: > All these twitter/facebook/youtube bans are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, Parler is gaining steam Did not age nearly as well.

Why? Parler was gaining steam until a consortium of megacorporations aligned to erase it from the internet.

Not much value in being wrong for the 'right' reason

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

#565

Post by pessimizer »

Finnucane wrote: post #326
pessimizer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shocking story is that 25% of Americans tweet. As a non-tweeter, I would have assumed that number was more like 1-5%. 25% sounds pretty representative to me. I'm annoyed by how this story seems to be jamming together unrelated things to paint a picture. Are people under the impression that twitter users are big political donors, or that twitter users don't mostly self-identify as independents? Are [capital-I]ndep…

Most independents are not really 'in the middle', however much they may be disillusioned with existing party structures. They tend to lean one way or the other. I'm fairly liberal, but strongly anti-partisan (I've never belonged to a party). I think shrinking party affiliation is a good thing.

I agree. I also think that twitter reflects that. The vast majority of political twitter claims to be independent. Axios is doing a thing that centrists do often, which is to equivocate between independents, "swing voters" and centrists in order to make themselves a silent plurality.

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

#566

Post by dredmorbius »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #561
dredmorbius wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing like a state ... turns out to be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article? > Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidenc…

Any synoptic work can be criticised on the basis that its author strays from areas of specific expertise and selects from available evidence or narratives.

That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet.

The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to be true.

Appropriate consideration of disconfirming evidence is a valid concern, though I'd have to see what Laitin is proposing in that regard to see if that critque has merits.

What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.

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

#567

Post by FalconSensei »

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'…

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.

You can't 'agree to disagree' on those topics though, specially when laws ban abortion, for example. If you think we should do that, then making laws regarding those things (abortion, "don't say gay") would need to be completely forbidden and you would need to let people do what they want.

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

#568

Post by FalconSensei »

everdrive wrote: post #221
cgrealy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?

> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?

Of course, let's put the transphobes and trans people on the same room. That should play out well, like KKK and black people and Nazis and the Jews, right?

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

#569

Post by yodsanklai »

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 follow exactly one person on Twitter. A scientist who I consider particularly interesting. And even then, I get a lot of garbage and political ranting. I realise how it can get entertaining and addictive, but I rather spend my time in a more fulfilling way.

Also, there are so many narcissists there...

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

#570

Post by nullc »

taurusnoises wrote: post #506
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'…

"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'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while." I have a slightly different view of this. People's opinions on things are always in flux, even if they sway heavily toward one side. What we see on social media is a person's opinions without the context of…

and writing it down in public may make it a lot harder for Sue to change her views, or walk back an over reach after those interactions happen since at any point in the future she could be confronted with her prior dissonant statements.
Post reply on HN