Live data from Hacker News

The tyranny of the supertweeter

omnibudsman.substack.com

171–180 of 259 posts

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets to the heart of the problem and is even understated. If your audience is partisan, going against what they want to hear by providing nuance, context, or even straight news, can provoke extreme outrage. Perhaps people will recall when the NYT had to change a factually correct headline because it wasn't sufficiently critical of the previous president.

And good luck fitting nuance and context into ~~140~~ 280 characters !

compression and curation are the parents of persuasion

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Nazis were openly and explicitly engaged in genocide . They killed millions of people in death camps. They didn't talk about it, they didn't allude to it. They did it. MILLIONS of people were killed like cattle. This happened in real life. White nationalists are bad. Racists are bad. The people associating themselves with those people shouldn't be. Being a stupid ignorant racist, and building actual in real life…

[deleted]

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very curious, but what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I've tried googling but can't find anything related to a right-left-liberal distinction. But in case it helps explain, at least in America, "liberal" has the basic connotation of "individual equality". Originally this meant equality before the law, often called "classical liberalism" which both left and right generally endorse. B…

> what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I quite like the definitions here[0] honestly, and to quote from that: > We believe markets are astonishingly good at creating wealth but less good at distributing that wealth. We support a market-based economy that promotes economic growth and nurtures innovation, while also supporting a safety net that shares the gains of that growth with everyone…

OK, I see what you mean. Does that correspond to actual political parties in the UK? Is there a "liberal" party that is considered neither left nor right?

I would say that in the US, what you're calling liberal would translate to "centrist/mainstream Democrats" who believe in the market but also in a social safety net. In other words, the majority of Democrats. But we also just call that the left, because it's the mainstream political viewpoint that is opposite to the right.

What you are calling the left, we call "progressive", which is why you see so many references to the "progressive wing" of the Democrats. Which includes Bernie and also AOC, who also call themselves "socialists", but in the US this doesn't mean communist -- it's not about government ownership, but vastly stronger regulation, protection, and government action generally.

While Elizabeth Warren is really her own idiosyncratic category. She's doing her own thing that isn't really aligned with mainstream Democrats or with the progressives, or with anybody else particularly. If anything, you might call her more "technocrat" than anything else.

But at the end of the day I hope I've answered your question as to why liberal = left in the US. Because liberal means pro-equality, and for whatever historical reasons, equality moved from mere legal equality to a more robust equality of opportunity. And we use "classical liberal" to distinguish the old liberal from the new.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#174
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure who you're talking about now. Sounds like Russian BS. Do you have a source for any of these three things? > were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis > Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad.

Quoted post unavailable.

That is why I asked, the points made were different from anything out of even the fringe.

> Comical "anything I don't like is Russian" response.

I agree calling people a bot is too common, but in this case Russians are the main people calling Zelensky's government and country Nazi.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#175
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture... > Today they argue that Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-turns-a-... > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868328

Thanks for replying, some of the assertions didn't seem right now I see where you come from. I didn't classify ADL as neo-con. The Wapo article does say there are a few thousand far right soldiers, which I think is well known, it certainly isn't 20% of its army. The last quote is post on HN, which I dont think is proof of any official neo-con policy.

That user had said neoliberal, not neocon.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#176
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also an excellent Exra Klein podcast where he talks to game-philospher C. Thi Nguyen about Twitter's Like button's effect on journalists. [1] He says that as a journalist on twitter (which almost every journalist is) it's nearly impossible to get away from measuring your worth/impact by the number of likes you get. It's so buit into our minds, we can't not use Likes as a proxy for how engaging our story is. T…

This is less of a problem to me than the other side effect of like-driven journalism. If you only preach to the choir, you can get away with misleading or inaccurate claims. Like-driven journalism encourages a style where you present only some of the facts or even just make stuff up. Folks like stuff because of what it says. They don't care if it's partial truths or lies. Like-driven journalism quite literally punish…

The best part is the reward of lying for "journalists".

If you lie and get caught, ignore it.

If the person who called you out has too much of a following to ignore, then just write a small sentence at the bottom clarifying how you're not lying, you just interpreted things different.

They still won't go away? Find one of their followers who makes a comment that's just a bit out of line. Can't find one? Well a Twitter account is free to make. Boom, the story is now how your critic is inciting violence, sexist, racist, probably voted for Trump, and insurrectionist, a climate change denier, white supremacist, transphobe, etc. That's the story now and you're the victim at the center of it all.

And the people employing these "journalists" don't just shield them from consequence, they reward them for it.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#177
>Twitter Is Not Real Life

Maybe this depends on if real life is defined by quantity or quality.

Quoting comment section of that article:

"This article proves Twitter is real life. The main people that use it are the politicians, journalists, academics and educated people. To me that fits the 80/20 rule. That's the 20 percent of the population that influences and controls this world."

Is TV real life? Are movies? How about online news sites, are those real life? Especially back when a few monopolies and 3 or 4 channels dominated the discourse, this one-way flow composed of even fewer voices still greatly influenced "real life".

Reminds me of "hyper-reality" defined by Baudrillard. Most people's references points for understanding significant portions of their world-view come from constructed realities of media, not first hand experience anyways. So impassioned debate from extremely-online minority may actually impact the real world in various ways. I know different political issues that only seemed to exist on Twitter 10 years ago made their way into most other nooks and crannies of the real world a few years later.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very convenient if you want to run influence operations, to change the perception of reality for news consumers you only have to influence a handful of journalists by planting some tweets on their timeline.

Interesting how you see people "leaving" careers in the CIA and NSA for posts in news organizations.

How would one "see" that?

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#179
post #152
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is true but don't just blame Twitter. Look at the major "news" networks. Look at the poor quality of "reporting". The bigger cause is the engagement above all else mentality of generating advertising. Click-bait, faux outrage, sensationalism, half-truths, posting 5 year old images out of context as "just in", creating scary fake crises, etc.

I agree but how do you suggest they make money?

That is a fair question to ask. One big issue is that the Fairness Doctrine was repealed long ago. TV news used to make quite a lot of money actually reporting the news. While times have changed, they have taken the easy road down the TMZ path. I think people would be even more interested in actual news instead of the "who can shout the loudest" nonsense we have now.
Post reply on HN