Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I find the exact same thing; on every other social platform you get out more or less what you put in and it's reasonably easy to build persistent acquaintances and even intimate friendships over time.

I decided to make a concerted effort to participate more on Twitter a few months back, but if you have a low number of followers hardly anyone interacts with you, it's like being in a big crowd where a few people have megaphones and everyone else is whispering. I suppose I could buy a bunch of followers for $ in order to seem more worth talking to but that's a bullshit tactic and I don't respect platforms where bullshit is rewarded. Twitter seems to function best as an adjunct to other media than as a self-sustaining ecosystem.

Frankly I feel Twitter has made the internet (and by extension, society) worse in numerous ways - the dumb 140 character limit (notwithstanding this being inherited from SMS), its appalling user interface, and the overuse of simplistic metrics to score everyone and everything they say, promoting the crudest sort of lowest-common-denominator social proof.

As far as I can see the best way to be popular on Twitter (other than already being famous to start with) is to be an ass, which will get social approval from people who feel the same way but are inhibited from expressing that for whatever reason. The good things about Twitter (speed and flatness) persist despite the other factors rather than as a result of them. If it shut down tomorrow I think people would get over the loss within a week.

I did the same a year ago, largely agree with this, though I would note that it has been extremely useful to follow journalists (and comedy people/funny users). Specifically in regard to journalists however, I feel, just barely, that its worth it. One is able to gain a sense of what these people actually feel, away from an editorial board. Which is both enlightening and highly useful, if you actually devote time to reading journalism. Its also been very useful for organizing, as in, "there is a rally ya'll, come to such and such, like, now". More than once I've missed emails or other communications that would have pulled me into an action, meeting or other event but saw references to it on twitter and was able to make it at the last minute.

I went to this event two nights ago: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/experts-debate-solution-...

One interesting comment during the debate was that many (liberal) journalists use Twitter as a side platform on which they feel comfortable voicing more personal views. While it is an acceptable practice in their circles, conservative readers often point to those tweets as evidence of liberal bias in the industry. Regardless of the professional ethical consensus, it may be a cause of distrust, and suggests a general problem of liberal journalists preaching to the choir.

It's certainly contributed to the irreparable ending of the relationship between conservatives and the MSM (to the detriment of both, and society itself). But conservative journalists and pundits are no less shy about spouting off, provided they work for a conservative outlet. I think what you don't see is journalists at mainstream (read: liberal) outlets who happen to be conservative, instead of token conservative pundits like @DouthatNYT, expressing their views publicly.

Eh, I'm kind of in the Colbert (although far more to the left) view of "reality has a well known liberal bias". It was a great joke, and I think got to the heart of the screeching about "bias" from "conservatives" (reactionaries). I find the idea that there is a neutral impartial view laughable, honestly. But then, I'm a commie, so shrug.

A final thought as well, I think, whatever your politics, that much of the liberal bias talk from the right, especially the now unmasked far right, was simply language policing. It was an attempt to set the terms of the debate and pull the frame as far right as possible, which seemed to have been largely successful in my opinion. Thanks for the link and the comment, I'll check it out!

I get the idea behind the "reality has a well known liberal bias" shibboleth. I think, however, that a more accurate and less self-serving formulation is that reality is non-partisan. Reality doesn't care about anyone's cherished political views.

I follow developers and journalists, and spend a decent amount of time replying to things I see. I usually get responses from people.

I've found that twitter has gotten close to replacing email for sending a message to a "stranger" (software dev, journo).

I post stuff more for myself. I get sad when my clever tweets don't get looked at, but just writing is fun too.

I'm like you. I would rather a tweet than email from a stranger. It just feels less intrusive and better for quick a back and forth with a bit of personality.

> if you have a low number of followers hardly anyone interacts with you

I don't have this problem, but the only people that follow me are typically my friends who may be interested in the things I have to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com