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

Substack Notes Launched

on.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 789 posts

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#731

Post by AlbertCory »

Retr0id wrote: post #646
AlbertCory wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon showing the number of impressions a tweet or reply actually got was an eye-opener for me. Probably about 1-2% of "Followers" -- not just mine but most people's. Twitter has been completely worthless anyway for promoting my Substack channel. In their Dashboard, it doesn't even show up in the top five referers.

Maybe I'm just "good at tweeting" but my average top-level tweets have at least as many views as I have followers. The "bad" ones are maybe around 15-25%. However, if I link to an external article or something, the percentage of people who actually click on it is relatively tiny.

You must be good, TBD, but when I look at other people's tweets, they also have way fewer views than followers.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#732

Post by 2h »

Tepix wrote: post #676
getcrunk wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terrible idea is only having an algorithmic feed. If you always offer the user the option to not use it and instead have a feed they can control, then it’s a non issue

Is there a way to get rid of suggestions on Instagram?

As soon as the site is owned by a public company, it's over. They are legally required to have an algorithm only feed, as this gives the best engagement, regardless of how much the userbase might hate it.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#733

Post by btilly »

freejazz wrote: post #582
btilly wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand people like you interpreting "this is a cause of that" as "legitimizing" that. It doesn't. I strongly oppose the riot, which is why I want people to take seriously the things that helped cause that. Similarly I'm not legitimizing gang violence when I say that the War on Drugs helps cause gang violence, I'm explaining why I oppose the War on Drugs.

It's legitimizing the notion that it's even a response to the thing you claim it is. I totally dispute that. Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: Mike Pence not overturning the election, nancy pelosi's existence, the federal court system which completely rebuked Trump's stolen election narrative, ALL of the media, the LIBERAL media, media in GENERAL, twitter, twitter moderation, george sor…

Meh. You still seem like you're so fixed on making your point that you're entirely missing mine.

My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse.

Whether or not this dynamic happened is completely independent of the specific extremist rhetoric that they absorbed. But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes. And it was easy to discount all information coming from any source which denied the existence of the conspiracy that they experienced.

The result is that they were convinced that powerful liberal forces had subverted democracy and were trying to shut down the truth that Trump presented. This made Trump's lies about a stolen election very believable to them. And they got fired up enough about such conspiracy theories that it came to seem reasonable to them to ensure that the TRUE will of the American people prevail, even if that required undoing electoral fraud by tying down representatives with zipties and making them recognize Trump as President. And executing those at the heart of enabling this fraud to destroy democracy.

If we don't like this outcome then it is on us to decide how to handle such extremists. My position is that it is best to undo the conditions that encourage the creation of extremism. An alternative position is to fight fire with fire, to become as extreme in opposing the extremists as they are in fighting for what they believe.

However I fear that the alternative position, as emotionally satisfying as it might be, is a recipe to turn political polarization into political unrest and potentially into a civil war down the road. Enough other countries have gone down that road to project what it would be likely to happen then. And it isn't pretty.

Everything that I've said is part of an argument about how to best respond to the potential for extremism. None of it legitimizes extremism or extremist positions.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#734

Post by sanderjd »

jeroenhd wrote: post #655
Ecstatify wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federation is someone doing a cool card trick at a cocktail party. Does it look cool? Yes. Is anyone going to go out and buy a deck of cards the next morning and learn how to do it? No.

Federation is the core of the internet and that has taken off, so sure they do. Email and phone numbers took off, isolated ISPs all died out. We're getting some form of federation of messengers and other technology companies deemed "gatekeepers" by the EU. Companies serving large user bases won't have a choice, so there's no need to go out am buy anything.

I think this has "because" and "despite" flipped. The internet took off despite federation, because it let people do things they couldn't otherwise do.

But reinventing something that everyone can already do (eg. tweeting) with federation is not a winning game.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#735

Post by freejazz »

btilly wrote: post #733
freejazz wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's legitimizing the notion that it's even a response to the thing you claim it is. I totally dispute that. Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: Mike Pence not overturning the election, nancy pelosi's existence, the federal court system which completely rebuked Trump's stolen election narrative, ALL of the media, the LIBERAL media, media in GENERAL, twitter, twitter moderation, george sor…

Meh. You still seem like you're so fixed on making your point that you're entirely missing mine. My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse. Whether or not this dynamic happened is completel…

"But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes."

Yeah... this is what I'm talking about when I say legitimizing. And hiding it in everything else you wrote doesn't make me not see your point. Clearly the opposite is going on.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#736

Post by jeroenhd »

rybar wrote: post #672
jeroenhd wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disable Javascript on occasion to save power. Twitter definitely does not load without loading several megabytes of Javascript. Nitter.net is a quick and easy substitute that loads instantly without it, though some video playback still requires Javascript (HLS video).

How much power have you quantified saving by disabling JavaScript over the course of a week?

I can't do any objective measurements but there's a clear impact in battery life while browsing with Javascript disabled. The entire web becomes snappier and loading times instantly drop.

Doing so also breaks all web applications (and web applications posing as websites, i.e. React rendering) so it's not something I turn on permanently. I usually only disable JS when my phone is running low and I'm not near a charger, or when I'm trying to read something and the terrible website hijacks scrolls/taps/somehow makes my phone run hot doing stuff in the background.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#737

Post by tracker1 »

emodendroket wrote: post #498
tracker1 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your assertion that I'm using it in bad faith?

No, but rather that Musk has been using it in bad faith (I’m assuming “I support free speech” was meant to qualify the criticism of Twitter under Musk’s leadership).

Yeah, Musk's definition of supporting free speech wasn't much to speak of... better than the old guard, but really weird in ways too. For me, short of threats or calls for violence I'm pretty open to whatever... As long as you're able to as an individual block/filter. Though the NSFW content on Twitter can be pretty bad and wouldn't mind being able to selectively filter that as a user too.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#738

Post by astrange »

brigandish wrote: post #678
astrange wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah, bugs that get you in legal trouble are the worst kind. Their traditional largest issue is their terrible ad targeting but that's not gotten better.

Private tweets aren't private, they're limited audience. If you're saying something defamatory behind "private" tweets then, I hate to break it to you, it's still defamation. You might get some mitigation from limiting the audience but that's it.

Hm? I'm talking about private info leaks. GDPR fines are quite severe, you know.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#739

Post by rchaud »

shanebellone wrote: post #687
Incipient wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no company would ever lie about their intentions, or at the very least pivot to the exact opposite of their original point without a second thought. Would they?

"Because no company would ever lie about their intentions, or at the very least pivot to the exact opposite of their original point without a second thought." No business would pivot to a dying monetization model unless it was their last option. Advertising is not a solution for Substack; but rather a Trojan Horse.

Dying monetization model? Is that why Microsoft, Amazon and Apple App Store are splattering their properties with them like a Jackson Pollock painting?

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#740

Post by least »

Pxtl wrote: post #344
naravara wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There still isn't much of a reason to move away from it, except for those who want to signal their disdain for Musk's political views Most of the people I follow have moved off it. They use Twitter largely for announcements when they've put out something new but all their casual, unfiltered thoughts are going in Mastodon. Every time I check in on Twitter now it seems the noxious behavior to signal ratio gets worse.

In the artistic/creative space, a crapload of the best artists on twitter are trans. Musk is a loud and proud transphobe, and has implemented his politics into Twitter's moderation. You don't have to be LGBTQ to see how important trans people are to Twitter's health. Many are still there because business is business, but many trans people and their allies have left because the new owner seems to hate them on a deeply…

> W00t deep negatives for affirming that trans people exist and for stating the obvious that Musk hates them.

People aren't downvoting your post for trans affirmation or that Elon doesn't like trans people. They're downvoting it because you are inflating the value of the trans population on Twitter as integral to Twitter itself. I would not be surprised if there is a higher percentage of trans people using Twitter relative to the general population, but I find it unlikely that they make up a significant enough portion of its users to even move the needle if they all migrated away to Tumblr, Mastodon, or another social network.

Post reply on HN