Twitter should ask users to solve a captcha before each tweet. Not only would that solve the problem of bots, but it would give everyone a chance to think longer before tweeting.
The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
681–690 of 784 posts
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
To hundreds of thousands of people who use that as an identity, it is not a slur.
You can call whatever this bizarre and obviously false claim is what you want, but this entire subthread is very transparently an attempt to justify using a slur. It has very "why can't I say the n word" energy.
This is an extremely poor faith interpretation of a reasonable argument: if someone asks me to call them a word that is often perceived as a slur, because they belong to a member of that group and would like to "reclaim" it, should I do so? Am I being racist by using the word? This is not a clear question like you present it to be, and has absolutely nothing to do with an inherent desire to use slurs against marginalized people.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't workable. If you ban the 2% most complained about users there will still be a 2% most complained about users. There should be something as close as possible to an objective standard of what is and isn't allowed.
Do you have any evidence they are doing this? I rather think they are using a threshold like > 10 complaints in a certain time period.
Supposing they do use a threshold based on an absolute value, by what measure would they have chosen this value in the first place? How, when, and why would they review this value? In the end, if their decision process is based purely on a number, it will eventually become a popularity contest or an excluder of outliers. It's turtles all the way down.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, actually a fundamental rule of comedy: always get the audience on your side. If they don't know you, aren't rooting for you, or think you're on the "wrong side", they will misinterpret your joke as a real insult. Comedians directly insult people all the time and get laughs, but only because the audience believes they're on the same side as the comedian.
Did nobody read the entire copypasta? What comedian jokes using death threats?
To quote Achmed, the dead terrorist: "Silence, I kill you!"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xKlehf_4rRg
It's not only a death threat, it appears to be said by a committed terrorist. ;)
On a more serious note: humor, satire and sarcasm are typically super hard to categorize, especially at scale. It's an unsolved problem.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it” Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
1. No. 2. Yes, yes.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd never heard of "navy seal copypasta", so I googled it, and to my read, its very hard to see any >wink wink< in the text, which ends after a long screed, with threats of violence against the poster. So I think its reasonable to believe that maybe on of the people on the twitter abuse team didn't get the joke and instead saw what on its surface looks like a threat. I don't know twitter's ToS, but I'm guessing that…
The part about "gorilla warfare" wasn't a hint?
No, it wasn’t. There are plenty of people online who both a) can’t spell, and b) are unhinged enough to make genuine threats against a stranger’s life.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#687Earlier 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?
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don't think most of the people engaging with you are doing so completely in good faith, I don't think you understand the "fickleness" of the tweeting masses either. Just like you're getting downvotes and a lot of blowback for your opinion on this matter here, it's way worse on twitter. I've heard someone say that twitter is a game where the goal is not to be the main character of the day. And that kind of hol…
are people using cancel to refer to the pile on mobs or what they consider unfair escalation in consequences? i mentioned in another post, im on the receiving end on a pile on I think, but i wouldn't say i'm being canceled. if you say internet communities have an issue with pile on mobs and harassment, id agree but i think that's different then canceling, which i don't think happens to the average person or they even…
"Cancel" is a nebulous term, it means almost whatever the person using it wants to mean.
Is banning cancelling? What about HN's rate limiting? Being harrassed off of a platform?
All these things have been called "cancelling" by someone. And fair play by others. I think, in this context, we do have to consider the mobs as a part of "cancelling" because this is a thread about an article about people who don't engage in social media. Partly due to the fear of the amount of negative engagement.
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#689Earlier 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.
But it's still people at the end of it. The "algorithm" didn't come up with the topic, didn't write the article, didn't perform the actions. People did. People bought the ads. People promoted the content. And ultimately, people also wrote the "algorithm".
Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet
#690Earlier 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'…
> 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. Two out of three of those aren't just random positions. If you believe someone else is literally advocating for murdering children, I can see why you would judge them. Similarly, if you see people oppressi…
The T part is contentious.
Blue side wants trans women to be treated identically to women, based on their personal conception of identity, not necessarily tied to any external or societal factor. So if they say they're a trans woman, you call them "she" regardless of how masculine they make look or dress. Being trans is a valid and inherent part of a person. We need to educate children that gender is a social construct.
Red side disagrees with the notion that personal identity overrides societal norms. It's an imposition, or a farce, to call a man in a dress a woman. Why should we change thousands of years of grammar because some people are nutcases? Being trans is a mental illness that instead of being treated is being celebrated and normalized, in turn harming society. It's a shame you're ill, but keep that out of our schools and get help.
You can see how these viewpoints are not going to get along