91–100 of 157 posts
Can't wait to see what their plans is for that. I don't think any can be made, the space will always attract frustrated people and they will fill the void no matter how few there are.
Maybe it would be worth repeating the 'myths' he lists in the tweets: Myth 1: A lot of misinfo on social media No, research suggests there is little, shared by few & having small effects. Those sharing misinfo are not dumb. But they have intense political animus, which motivates to share what fits their worldview, true or false. Myth 2: Social media makes people hateful No, research suggests that online hate reflects…
I would love to read the research he's referring to, but I couldn't find any links or citations. I intuitively believe that there's truth to all of these so called myths, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Anyone know where I can read more about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not talking about obvious (and easily labeled morons), but instead there are many educated and real scientists that raise questions and there is no dialogue, but instead only defunct-fact checkers totalitarian response. Science is always open to listen, discuss and stand open to be corrected and in no time in history there was "attack on me is attack on science" attitudes that ended up be right or productive. It…
Kind of reminds me when one of the foremost mRNA researchers, Dr. Robert Malone was temporarily banned on LinkedIn regarding his views on the vaccine. While speaking at a JRE interview, he says later on after the ban, LinkedIn (probably after public backlash) sent him an apology letter, quoting they could not assemble a team (or they themselves were not) qualified enough to fact-check him. Let that sink in for a mome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience is that people are more socially refined when offline and that anti-social behavior is there but gets corrected and contained. Offline experiences can escalate much more but at tge same time there seems to be more conflict resolution. Everything is more intense. But it’s refreshing to read about a different view on the topic.
My opinion is that it's rooted in the anonymity people feel on the 'Net. There are no, if little consequences to being a jerk online---not nearly like in "real life". The other problem I see is that a person says what they feel in the moment---and then they move on. But the (emotionally charged) comment from that moment lives on, potentially for years. The "energy" doesn't dissipate with time like it does in "real li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Myth 2: Social media makes people hateful > No, research suggests that online hate reflects offline frustrations that make them hateful both online & offline. That's just a sleight of hand. Sure, people may have been hateful before, but social media amplifies that hate exponentially. Social media thrives on outrage, being addictive, and uses algorithmic ranking to feed it as much as possible. > The hateful are few…
Are people talking about Jan 6 hateful? I don't get what you're saying.
Quoted post unavailable.
I appreciate your desire to point to the research. Many if not most of the comments in this thread are rejecting it out of hand without even looking at it. That's disappointing and, given the topic, ironic. However, breaking the HN guidelines against shallow dismissals, snark, and sneering is definitely not a good way to make this point. Besides adding poison to the ecosystem, posts like this have no persuasive power…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, these are general features of mass media that predate the internet. Much of the hysteria about social media is signal boosted by the traditional media establishment that it disrupted
I doubt these dare-I-say-conspiracy theories. Among other reasons, just consider that media suffered as much, financially, from monster.com and eBay, which devastated classifieds. For many local papers, that was the single largest change in the last two decades. And I don’t remember any campaigns against those companies. The individual journalist and editor actually writing and deciding on a story also doesn’t hold t…
That assertion doesn't hold up when you read the personal Twitter feeds of many journalists and editors of the publications pushing the anti-tech narrative.
This is to Danish parliament. I wonder if the research he is quoting applies to (a) a larger country (b) with a heterogeneous population that (c) communicates primarily in English (where most misinformation seems to be aimed). Since he didn't link to the studies, it's hard to know. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that these studies really exist. But I certainly think those three factors may be important in his re…
All of the studies are referenced in the slides linked in the final tweet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one of the things social media does is force us to simplify our discourse In this case it's not because of social media, since the author cites a 10 min constraint to present to the Danish parliament.
If I only get 10min, I’m still including citations in my 10min presentation (which they claim to have done on the last Tweet in the thread linking to a Dropbox with slides and citations). Last thing I want is to come across as someone who didn’t do their research.