Comment by bachmeier | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bachmeier | Hacker News Reader

I've used Twitter for more than a decade. I check it maybe once a day, and when I do, I read maybe 10% of my timeline and move on to something more productive.

The biggest problem is viral misinformation combined with a focus on people that are "good with Twitter". Someone with a bunch of followers tweets something like "the sun rose in the north this morning" and if you respond "that didn't happen and it couldn't have happened because science" you'll either be ignored, they'll be offended and block you, or they'll start cursing at you and all their tweets will be liked and retweeted.

The reason I used Twitter back in the day was to find out what was happening in the world and to interact with others. These days there are too many that think a big follower count means they can tweet stuff that's wrong.

Then there's the other stuff where you have to see someone called out for calling women brilliant (yep, happened today).

Try as I might, I can't return my timeline to what it was, and I can now go a week without looking at it and I don't miss anything.

>they'll be offended and block you

To them, their timeline is "curated" to remove "toxic" elements, which makes their filter bubble more pleasant. Then they blame you, even in this very thread, for finding these interactions useless. That isn't misinformation, that is a point of view.

The biggest problem is that Twitter- and Mastodon-style blocking make it impossible to engage with people who need to be engaged with, regardless of why (whether informational or emotional).

> people who need to be engaged

Who needs to be engaged with? On Twitter, you choose who to follow. Why in the world would you have an obligation to listen to random strangers who want to argue with you? Imagine if you were in a restaurant talking with your friends, some stranger sitting at another table overheard you, and then decided to come over and butt into the conversation? And when the stranger is told to go away, they complain "You're talking in a public place where people can hear you, what did you expect?" And somehow the stranger feels that they're wronged by that.

One man's need is not your obligation, and Twitter is a public place. I don't understand your analogy.

> One man's need is not your obligation

I don't understand your reply.

> Twitter is a public place. I don't understand your analogy.

The point is that in order to meet other people, you have to go out into the public. But that doesn't mean you want to meet with and talk with anyone and everyone out in the public. It's a terrible tradeoff if the only way you can get pleasant social interaction with others is to also suffer unpleasant social interaction with strangers who want to argue with you.

None of us designed Twitter. We have to take it as it is. Twitter is public, yes, but that's not an excuse for you personally to debate with every stranger you happen to disagree with. That's not on Twitter, that's on you.

You personally debating every stranger is not the same thing as not blocking anybody who gets a rise out of you. Maybe that clears the confusion.

> if you respond "that didn't happen and it couldn't have happened because science" you'll either be ignored, they'll be offended and block you, or they'll start cursing at you

Have you considered that the problem might be you, and "Someone is wrong on the internet" repliers are super tedious?

Yes, and that's not the problem at all.

But I do want to thank you for a perfect demonstration of how misinformation spreads. Folks like you don't even care that the content of a tweet is factually incorrect, and in most cases, it's made up so they can get likes and retweets. The post-truth world is alive and well. And, unfortunately, profitable for some.

> a perfect demonstration of how misinformation spreads

Which misinformation did I spread?

> Folks like you don't even care that the content of a tweet is factually incorrect

That's quite an interference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com