Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter's Fucked

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#351

Post by jomamaxx »

jomamaxx wrote: post #78
gaius wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not helped by organizations such as the BBC who report on what happens on Twitter as if it is actually news.

"It's not helped by organizations such as the BBC who report on what happens on Twitter as if it is actually news." Ah. That's a trick used by 'credible news outlets' to promote an ideology when they're supposed to remain 'neutral'. When a journo wants to say something ideological, but is limited in editorial scope by supposed 'neutrality', all he needs to do is find a Tweet somewhere that says what he wants, and can…

I should add, there are actually very few news outlets that make the pretence of being centrist. In particular, Western state agencies such as BBC and CBC and the US, arguably CNN 'kind of' long that vein. They are definitely left of centre in actuality, though not an obvious editorial bias, it's definitely there.

As far as other agencies (Sky, NBC, Fox, MSBNC, FT, WSJ etc), well, the aforementioned 'trick' is used a lot.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#352

Post by 67726e »

thex10 wrote: post #322
67726e wrote: post #7

I don't think the author knows the definition of "violence"

'An action that intentionally hurts other people' sufficed for me. Why do so many HN commenters have trouble reading this simple idea?

Because for most folks it's always meant physical harm. People using "violence" to describe being insulted are trying to capture the emotional value of the real definition to add weight to their argument. All this does is devalue the word.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#353

Post by jomamaxx »

VLM wrote: post #165
hacker_9 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter had 350 million active users in Q1 of 2016, this is quite a lot actually.

The majority might be bots. Surely for financial reasons the most tenuous definition of "active" will be applied. Still, its like the old saying about email, I don't care if 99% of email is spam, as long as I get my electric bill email on time, I'm all good. Twitter might become like TV, where everyone knows everyone watches, but it turns out statistics prove almost no one actually watches. Its like the endless debat…

" but it turns out statistics prove almost no one actually watches"

... ha ha .. ha ...

People still watch a lot of regular TV and will continue to do so for quite a long time.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#354

Post by ivraatiems »

forloop wrote: post #312
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you were getting downvoted because of your indignant hysteria and outright harassment of a commenter over something completely irrelevant, and now I suspect that will transition to being downvoted for complaining about downvoting. Don't do either.

> indignant hysteria Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie. > outright harassment I'll come back to this. > a commenter over something completely irrelevant OK. From OP: "The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no…

I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to.

Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility.

The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar.

Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not.

It seems to me that you have a preconceived understanding of what I was trying to say. I can't speak to what t that is or why, but I can see that rather than admit that you have a difference of opinion with me or engage me on my points, you attack me as a liar. In the process, you break HN rules and destroy part of the civility this comment chain has otherwise been enjoying. You are the one causing the issue here, not me, and you ought to stop.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#356

Post by forloop »

ivraatiems wrote: post #354
forloop wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> indignant hysteria Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie. > outright harassment I'll come back to this. > a commenter over something completely irrelevant OK. From OP: "The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no…

I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to. Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it fa…

> Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility.

But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point.

> The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false.

That's not what you lied about and you know it. It was this statement you made (which I directly referenced):

"The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example."

In your original comment you stated: "I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation".

You describe the situation in the first para, and then say it's Milo Yiannopoulos' situation. So you talk about his situation in the first paragraph, and then in the second.

Your first paragraph (of the first post) is 117 words. The second is 71 (according to some word count web site). That's well over 50% of your post.

And you say that it's true that your post has nothing to do with Milo except as an example. I'm starting to think you didn't read what you wrote (as well as the post!).

> Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar.

I made reference to that to show that someone not reading an article before commenting is relevant. It had nothing to do with my position on your honesty. It was a reply to another comment.

The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example.

> Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not.

It wasn't your original comment which was a lie it was your defence of (supposedly) not reading the article in its entirety (the second comment).

And the last two sentences are a tiny fraction of your entire comment. Most of the comment was on Milo.

You like your strew men.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#357

Post by ivraatiems »

forloop wrote: post #356
ivraatiems wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to. Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it fa…

> Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point. > The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make…

From my original post:

> "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste."

These are points. The content above them is evidence leading to the points. The points can be made on their own without the evidence, but a good way to construct an argument is to state the evidence before the points. I could have posted them on their own without the stuff about Milo and they would have stood just fine. That's what I'm referring to in my second comment. Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.

But I think you probably know that, since you ended this comment by insulting me again instead of responding to my content. It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I'm done with this conversation now. If you need to think me a liar in order to protect whatever your narrative is about all this, okay. If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. The rest of HN can (and has, judging by the flags and downvotes) decide for themselves.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#359

Post by forloop »

ivraatiems wrote: post #357
forloop wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point. > The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make…

From my original post: > "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a was…

> Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.

In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value.

With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy.

> It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying.

I just wrote a massive comment. When you say things like this, it brings out the gadfly in me. It's absurd to say I don't engage with what you're saying. I wrote a reply to nearly everything you said.

> If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay.

I explained why. With the mistake, you're referring to the your first comment again. To repeat: it has nothing to do with that!

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#360

Post by jsmthrowaway »

forloop wrote: post #359
ivraatiems wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original post: > "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a was…

> Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value. With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy. > It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I just wrote a massive comment. When you say t…

Can you stop, please? You are literally arguing about someone reading the article, and being completely uncivil while doing so.
Post reply on HN