471–480 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
journalists leaving twitter is an improvement.
Care to expound on that? Journalists are typically the ones bringing any sort of credibility to topics. Without journalists, it's just randos and bots shit-posting their hot takes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of news articles about Twitter because journalists use twitter, and have come to depend on it to boost their readership. Just this week there was an article on HN front page about journalism school requiring twitter accounts, and pushing journalists to build "their own brand" by getting lots of followers. These journalists hate the changes in twitter, and dont want it to go away. Hence the endless art…
journalists use twitter and love to pretend that everybody else does too, and pass a few tweets as "the people have spoken" all the time.
If you want an example of "inside the bubble" it's thinking any of the social media channels, private or not for profit represent a realistic cohort of community engagement comparable to "the people have spoken" It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the…
Or there is no such method, in which case: Why do you specifically advise to drop social media channels? What makes them less valuable as a method of gauging public views than, say, talking to a taxi driver, or an opinion poll? You are suggesting that I drop every belief that each one of these parts accurately represents the whole, but then why specifically ask us to drop out of one of these methods over any other?
If you want an example of "inside the bubble" it's thinking any of the social media channels, private or not for profit represent a realistic cohort of community engagement comparable to "the people have spoken" It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the…
Where can we find "A true expression of public views in the wide"?
I've been using social media all my life and for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
I never believed it should be my sole source of information just as much as gossiping or talking to my hairdresser shouldn't be my sole source of information. If I want to have a nuanced opinion.
If you want an example of "inside the bubble" it's thinking any of the social media channels, private or not for profit represent a realistic cohort of community engagement comparable to "the people have spoken" It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the…
Your argument appears incomplete. Either there is some method of obtaining "a true expression of public views in the wide", in which case: What is it? Or there is no such method, in which case: Why do you specifically advise to drop social media channels? What makes them less valuable as a method of gauging public views than, say, talking to a taxi driver, or an opinion poll? You are suggesting that I drop every beli…
I advise to drop because of cumulative deleterious effects on my mental health and real world social relationships. Some people may have more resilience. I think most people become trapped in mostly narcissistic behaviour.
If you want an example of "inside the bubble" it's thinking any of the social media channels, private or not for profit represent a realistic cohort of community engagement comparable to "the people have spoken" It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the…
What you say just seems to be a general property of humans exchanging information. Not an intrinsic problem to social media. Where can we find "A true expression of public views in the wide"? I've been using social media all my life and for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I never believed it should be my sole source of information just as much as gossiping or talking to my hairdresser shouldn't be my sole…
If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place.
I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wider community view. Quite apart from being anything but random sample, it's riddled with both bots and trolls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you say just seems to be a general property of humans exchanging information. Not an intrinsic problem to social media. Where can we find "A true expression of public views in the wide"? I've been using social media all my life and for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I never believed it should be my sole source of information just as much as gossiping or talking to my hairdresser shouldn't be my sole…
Good outlook. You weigh it comparable to other channels. Media at large places greater weight on it, what's said on it, and it's relative importance. If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place. I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wid…
I weigh a news article in a tabloid newspaper less than I would an article in the New York Times for example.
Why do we need to make a blanket statement about social media being untrustworthy? Information without context can't be trusted no matter the medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously there's a a key difference between instagram and all those others services I just mentioned and I posit that common difference is why you're using instagram instead. What is it? It’s the media bit… Insta is created to share pictures and videos with your _own_ selection of followers. You couldn’t do that in WhatsApp without creating some horrific cartesian product of different groups chats for every node o…
"It's the user experience" haha Yeah you couldn't do it by whatsapp, but you could do it with discord, slack, teams, skype and a bunch of other services that you failed to mention to create a strawman. That you get so defensive is really, and I mean REALLY, telling of the real reason.
The most absurd part of this argument is that discord, WhatsApp, messenger, etc… are all also social media platforms. This is by far the silliest “well actually” I’ve ever seen on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of news articles about Twitter because journalists use twitter, and have come to depend on it to boost their readership. Just this week there was an article on HN front page about journalism school requiring twitter accounts, and pushing journalists to build "their own brand" by getting lots of followers. These journalists hate the changes in twitter, and dont want it to go away. Hence the endless art…
journalists use twitter and love to pretend that everybody else does too, and pass a few tweets as "the people have spoken" all the time.
Every single time they say "Let's see what people on the internet are saying.", the scene always changes over to tweets and tweets and tweets.
Journalism is beyond redemption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good outlook. You weigh it comparable to other channels. Media at large places greater weight on it, what's said on it, and it's relative importance. If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place. I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wid…
I weigh a tweet by the BBC more than the tweet of my racist neighbour. I weigh a news article in a tabloid newspaper less than I would an article in the New York Times for example. Why do we need to make a blanket statement about social media being untrustworthy? Information without context can't be trusted no matter the medium.
Society isn't better because of social media. Maybe you're OK. Society at large isn't.
Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ.
I might add my immediate family is also split on this. So I don't believe I am in the majority on this.