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

The tyranny of the supertweeter

omnibudsman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 259 posts

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#61

Post by Bakary »

bombcar wrote: post #53
nradov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substack is trying to provide an intermediate channel where journalists can develop an audience independently of publications, but allowing for long-form content. It will be interesting to see if that works but I suspect only a small number of journalists can be successful in that model.

It also introduces even more weakness to certain types of influence. The NYTimes has some defense against people not liking an article because while people can cancel a subscription it’s not directly tied to the editor-author/journalist. But substack is directly tied - so unless people really trust the author and refuse to cancel if they write something they don’t like you’ll be more inclined to avoid going outside t…

I think the causality is reversed here. Financial success on substack will come from developing a particular style that doesn't exist elsewhere in quite the same way, just like a writer or musician. It's not that people will walk on eggshells as they build a bigger audience, but rather that they have to start flanderizing themselves from the start to get that audience in a crowded market.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#62

Post by bombcar »

Bakary wrote: post #34
refurb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the article doesn't literally mean "insane" as in mental illness, but it reminded me of something that happened long ago and its implications for the internet. My buddy and I were watching a news show and it had a number to call in and "leave your opinion" - super common back in the 90's. Well, we called and it was a voicemail box. You guess what happened next, but we correctly guessed the admin code and could…

You don't even need serious mental illness. Just the desire to have someone listen because you are discontent but otherwise sane.

As people’s “real world” connections dwindle the desire to just talk continues - I’ve known people who are perfectly content with their crazy idea if they can talk about it now and then, but if they have no outlet at all it’s like it begins to grow and starts to dominate them.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#63

Post by bombcar »

guerrilla wrote: post #43
enviclash wrote: post #35

Is it only me perceiving that people is growing aware of the disadvantages of twitter, or at least its frequent use?

Most people on Twitter have referred to Twitter as "this hellsite" enough times that I can't say that I think this is anything new. Knowing Twitter is terrible and terrible for you is a prominent part of Twitter culture. There are many memes around the subject.

A quite large group of people call it a hellsite precisely because there are people on it who disagree with them.

The real red pill is realizing it is a hellsite because it is full of people who agree with you.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#64

Post by asicsp »

colpabar wrote: post #44
fortran77 wrote: post #23

I keep my twitter politics-free. And I follow tech/hacker people and routinely mute/block those who think I want to hear their inane/naïve political opinions. And you know what? Twitter is pretty nice! It keeps me in a nice tech filter bubble where the biggest argument is 8080 vs 6502.

What do you do about the recommendations? I am constantly bombarded with suggestions for topics that I have 0 interest in. I click not interested, I update my settings, I create custom ublock rules, and yet they always come back eventually.

Use lists.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#65

Post by bombcar »

metacritic12 wrote: post #11
password1 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also thrives in "hot takes" that might sound smart at first glance but are incredibly ignorant if you analyse them. Everything is oversimplified to fit the character limit, but nobody seems to notice. It's ignorant hot-takes in answer to other ignorant hot-takes. TikTok is basically the same btw, but in video format.

Agreed. I first thought the flaw with twitter was that people tweeted insights with a minimal of background or literature research. This leads to shallow analysis of problems others have spent years thinking about. I realized later that the more accurate flaw is not that, but correlated to that. The real flaw is that it's a breeding ground for low-effort takes. The person espousing some grand theory of life can tweet…

Like all social media it values speed way more than anything else. Even on HN you’ll see it. Hundred page document gets posted, but the first comments will be from people who clearly couldn’t have read it.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#66

Post by metabagel »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #3

Twitter is one of the worst places I've ever visited. In general makes me feel bad after just reading 1 to 3 tweets. It thrives on snarkiness, rage, anger and outrage. Even though there are some gems in the mud. In this case it would be best to shut it down and start over.

Depends on who you follow. I unfollow and if necessary mute people who create drama.

You can also create a list of people who you are consistently interested in hearing from.

However, I agree that you’re probably better off without Twitter. It’s a time sink.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#67

Post by DonnyV »

Bakary wrote: post #7

The part about journalism is particularly troubling because Twitter is like crack for journalists and has thus played a big part in decreasing the credibility of the profession. The platform is a journalist's fantasy brought to life. The ability to exist as an individual and have an audience independently of their publication. Blue check-marks. As the article mentions, the capacity to find stories with little effort.…

Disagree The amount of events posted on twitter that aren't covered by traditional news is staggering. If anything twitter has exposed how much main stream news doesn't cover real major events. If not for twitter I don't think the #MeToo or #Occupy movement would of ever been acknowledged. Also the amount of abuse the police do to citizens.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#68

Post by jimmaswell »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #3

Twitter is one of the worst places I've ever visited. In general makes me feel bad after just reading 1 to 3 tweets. It thrives on snarkiness, rage, anger and outrage. Even though there are some gems in the mud. In this case it would be best to shut it down and start over.

We made a 100% accessible, globally connected town square, and this is what we got. Either we accept it or admit that humanity can't deal with the kind of interconnected open discourse that proponents of direct democracy dreamed of for ages.

I think the cat's out of the bag and we'll just have to adapt to it, in the long run probably for the better.

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#69

Post by peteradio »

refurb wrote: post #16
amadeuspagel wrote: post #2

A classic on this topic, more general: Most of Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People [1]. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...

I know the article doesn't literally mean "insane" as in mental illness, but it reminded me of something that happened long ago and its implications for the internet. My buddy and I were watching a news show and it had a number to call in and "leave your opinion" - super common back in the 90's. Well, we called and it was a voicemail box. You guess what happened next, but we correctly guessed the admin code and could…

Bulk? That seems hard to believe, is that outside of HN or are you including your own large paragraph here as part of the denominator?

Re: The tyranny of the supertweeter

#70

Post by bombcar »

Bakary wrote: post #61
bombcar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also introduces even more weakness to certain types of influence. The NYTimes has some defense against people not liking an article because while people can cancel a subscription it’s not directly tied to the editor-author/journalist. But substack is directly tied - so unless people really trust the author and refuse to cancel if they write something they don’t like you’ll be more inclined to avoid going outside t…

I think the causality is reversed here. Financial success on substack will come from developing a particular style that doesn't exist elsewhere in quite the same way, just like a writer or musician. It's not that people will walk on eggshells as they build a bigger audience, but rather that they have to start flanderizing themselves from the start to get that audience in a crowded market.

Yeah, what I was getting at is that you end up with a very defined market and you can’t easily switch out of it. A substack started around “public transit is pretty cool/good” will eventually be unable to have any article that implies cars have value, to pick and arguably bad example.

It’s an interesting personal question to ponder - who of those I read would I read if they wrote something diametrically opposed to what I hold? The lists are often pretty short, sadly.

Post reply on HN