We don’t need a new Twitter • Hacker News Board

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#41

Post by eastof » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #26

hotdogscout wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Scientists are on average a little left-leaning but science denialism, somehow, is something that crops up in both far-left and far-right spaces (just not equally). If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. Far-left science denialism starts with the “only use natural products, chemicals are bad for you, vaccines are bad for you” crunchy lifestyle accounts. Sometimes I…

> somehow

Science is funded by government, so researchers come to conclusions that support them. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just incentives. Researchers just see which proposals get funded, and it happens those are the ones that support the mainstream narrative that the government would like to push.

So it makes sense that if you are against the mainstream narrative, this would also pit you against some mainstream science.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to lend support to science denialism (I'm somewhat centrist). Just trying to explain why hard liners would tend to engage in it.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#42

Post by nmz » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

hotdogscout wrote: post #13

Just use Mastodon (?).

Specifically, an instance for each branch of science would be nice.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#43

Post by lesuorac » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

mvdwoord wrote: post #35

abhv wrote: post #9

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are cutting back from Twitter" Essentially, a survey published in Nature about twitter usage among scientists dropping, in part, because of the phenomena mentioned in this New Yorker article. Eg: "Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had sta…

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

> If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice?

I mean that wasn't the case historically.

Like if your favorite spot in town was a roller rink and it got bought out by a movie theatre. You'll lamente your loss but sure nothing illegal happened there but obviously you might rethink spending your time at the specific location.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#44

Post by bdavisx » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #26

hotdogscout wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Scientists are on average a little left-leaning but science denialism, somehow, is something that crops up in both far-left and far-right spaces (just not equally). If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. Far-left science denialism starts with the “only use natural products, chemicals are bad for you, vaccines are bad for you” crunchy lifestyle accounts. Sometimes I…

>If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now.

That's interesting, if you ask me: "are you in a leftist bubble" - I would answer "probably a little." But I've NEVER seen any science denialism, so I guess I'm not?

What kind of denialism are you talking about wrt leftists?

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#45

Post by mattbgates » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

Soon as the takeover happened, my account got hacked, used for crypto spam, and banned. I can't use X. Had that account ever since the early days of Twitter. Tried putting in an appeal but its automated. Am I really missing out on anything?

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#46

Post by erickhill » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

mvdwoord wrote: post #35

abhv wrote: post #9

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are cutting back from Twitter" Essentially, a survey published in Nature about twitter usage among scientists dropping, in part, because of the phenomena mentioned in this New Yorker article. Eg: "Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had sta…

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

The default feed is "For You" which absolutely includes people/posts you never followed. Users have to explicitly choose the "Following" feed to only see those posts. And, the setting resets itself constantly. If you aren't diligent, you get the firehose whether you wanted it or not.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#47

Post by Covzire » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #36

Covzire wrote: post #31

Free speech is a fundamental human right.

Making another company host your speech is not.

I agree. Monopolies muddy the waters though.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#48

Post by ausbah » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

mvdwoord wrote: post #35

abhv wrote: post #9

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are cutting back from Twitter" Essentially, a survey published in Nature about twitter usage among scientists dropping, in part, because of the phenomena mentioned in this New Yorker article. Eg: "Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had sta…

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

that's not true? it you follow the "for you" feed you'll get shit Twitter "thinks" you'll like - ie shit that'll get youre attention

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#49

Post by Doxin » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

mvdwoord wrote: post #35

abhv wrote: post #9

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are cutting back from Twitter" Essentially, a survey published in Nature about twitter usage among scientists dropping, in part, because of the phenomena mentioned in this New Yorker article. Eg: "Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had sta…

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

What you're actually describing there is how Mastodon works. Twitter has been "algorithmic" for the longest time now and will show you whatever it thinks you should see.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#50

Post by zzzeek » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 2:49 PM UTC

oh whatever, says "The New Yorker" that would like to keep making $12 a print issue and whatever crazy amount they charge for online. Come to us! not them. you need us to feel connected.