41–50 of 150 posts
They're both internet forums with 330M Active users, both have basically the same content and same level of discussion. Think we need to start being more honest about what Twitter actually is and stop pretending it's the real world.
Earlier I used to follow all sorts of famous twitter accounts and had joined all sorts of (ugly debate). I really liked Twitter in comparison to FB in the sense that it introduced me people of millions types from all over the world. On FB, everyone was already known to me so there was no novelty in what I was browsing. However, later on I realized that Twitter is actually a "outrage generating machine". Everyone is o…
You get a clear stream of useful, relevant content. Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble".
I want a filter bubble.
The problem in practice is that twitter actively fights you doing this. It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to see.
At this point in time the biggest value of twitter is it's userbase, it's critical mass, people are on twitter, they're not on mastodon.
Hearing about 'snitch tagging' for the first time (I have to admit I am not a frequent twitter user). Is it really frowned upon? I know the act of 'talking about someone and not tagging them' is called subtweeting and it is also frowned upon isn't it?
The takeaway for me is to stay away from threads like this.
Also the advice to 'let the third party know about the conversation privately' is interesting. I can see how it may help you evade backslash but from game-theoretical point of view it seems to me to be worse for the 'subtweeters' as it provides them with less information.
Earlier I used to follow all sorts of famous twitter accounts and had joined all sorts of (ugly debate). I really liked Twitter in comparison to FB in the sense that it introduced me people of millions types from all over the world. On FB, everyone was already known to me so there was no novelty in what I was browsing. However, later on I realized that Twitter is actually a "outrage generating machine". Everyone is o…
This is the best way to use twitter. You get a clear stream of useful, relevant content. Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble". I want a filter bubble. The problem in practice is that twitter actively fights you doing this. It tries to pour raw sewage into your nice clean stream and you can't stop it. You see what other people have liked, or what's popular or lots of other things I don't want to se…
I have an honest question for Twitter users of HN: what's the net positive value of Twitter to your life? It feels like using Twitter or not has been an uninterrupted argument for years, even on HN, as if on one end your rational brain knows Twitter is detrimental to your mental health, but on the other end: it's a great dopamine, and outrage dispenser.
But it's the worst platform to have any type of discussion. IMHO if they would remove the "retweet with comment" feature, and start considering comment threads as comments instead of posts (so make a clear distinction between the two), things would be way nicer to navigate, but that will never happen.
The best way so far is to mute everything annoying.
Earlier I used to follow all sorts of famous twitter accounts and had joined all sorts of (ugly debate). I really liked Twitter in comparison to FB in the sense that it introduced me people of millions types from all over the world. On FB, everyone was already known to me so there was no novelty in what I was browsing. However, later on I realized that Twitter is actually a "outrage generating machine". Everyone is o…
One thing I noticed in my own time on Twitter was that this is easier said than done. It's very difficult to accurately gauge whether something is 'without any hidden connotations'. I'm not a historian or a biologist or a sociologist. I'm not a scholar of constitutional law.
There may not be an agenda there, perhaps not even an agenda consciously realised by the author, but it's hard to accept the idea that we can escape 'connotations'. Very much like how the best propaganda appears as fact, or how ideology must first present itself as non-ideological, this gets extremely tricky when it comes to something like history, or even biology.
Similarly, the mere presence of a plurality of ideas is insufficient to overcome this.
I suspect that many who would follow your advice will find themselves still trapped in very similar bubbles of ideology, but this time without the knowledge that it really is ideology. This is a more insidious kind of politicisation, because it primes the user to put down their critical guard in the fact of a lack of 'hidden agenda or connotations'.
> My field (#NLProc) is working to maintain fully anonymous review. In such conditions, it’s important to be careful when tweeting about work (your own or others) that is under review. Interesting! I wasn't aware that anyone was doing double-anonymous peer review. I would love to know how that is working out.
https://blog.siggraph.org/2018/10/the-magic-of-technical-pap...
> Snitch tagging: You may come across a conversation where people are discussing someone else and be tempted to reply by tagging the person discussed. This is snitch tagging and it’s frowned upon. [...] Hearing about 'snitch tagging' for the first time (I have to admit I am not a frequent twitter user). Is it really frowned upon? I know the act of 'talking about someone and not tagging them' is called subtweeting and…
It is only social in the most twisted sense of the word. Rarely do you interact in a positive way.