Hacker News Reader

Comment by Exuma | Hacker News Reader

Headlines like this make me not read the article, because anyone who actually writes this headline seems to lack the unawareness that his opinion is literally 1 insignificant stupid opinion floating in a sea of 10 billion shitty opinions.

Headlines like this are an immediate benefit to me because it allows authors to filter themselves out.

There are so many better ways to offer takes on things that don't depend on the stupidest worded headlines like "We dont ____", as if my use case is the same as yours.

It's actually mindblowingly painful to me when people would even consider that, I mean it's physically painful to think that someone thinks that. And, obviously it half the time might not mean to be taken literally, and in this case the author lacks insight as to how many people are disgusted by stupid headlines that have this "I decide what's best for you" energy. Yes Cal Newport, certainly you know what is best for the entire world.

View on HN

It's physically painful to you when people have opinions about what is not useful for other people? If that is so, you really need to see a doctor

It is painful when the link is a clickbait blog intro linking to actual article that is paywalled

"An Essay In Which I Present Points About The Social Media Service Formerly Known As Twitter, Arguing That Newer Systems Should Not Attempt To Duplicate It Because That Would Reduce Their Value To Society."

"We Don't Need A New Twitter"

and trust that people will supply context.

So ... someone or some entity should not attempt to start a new Twitter-style because Cal Newport says it will emphasize negativity?

Surely the vast amount of brainpower could go into perhaps modifying the style or the algorithm, or tweet length, or some variable to help? Surely there is an embedded solution, somewhere in there.

That's why I'm saying headlines like this are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes. This opinion as a statement of "what is best" is literally useless, like what true value does it offer? Do you think companies read Cal Newports blog and are like "gee I guess building a new twitter clone exactly like it is could lead to increased world negativity... better not do it"

I would read this article if it were like "Ways to Reduce Negativity in Twitter-Like Algorithms." Now THAT would be useful, and interesting.

Or even, if he doesn't want to think about solving it, then "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity". Now it's a statement of fact and its up to the reader to use the information usefully, ("Hmm.. maybe I shouldnt build this new platform, or I should change how I look at it") rather than treating the user like a bumbling child.

>Do you think companies read Cal Newports blog and are like "gee I guess building a new twitter clone exactly like it is could lead to increased world negativity... better not do it"

Well, yes, that's his intent: to influence people by presenting his opinion.

Interesting... so given that is true, do you think Cal Newport believes:

1) Twitter-clone emphasizing negativity not solvable in any possible way

2) He has considered every single solution that exists in the entire problem space, even those which might take teams of minds to come up with answers to

> So ... someone or some entity should not attempt to start a new Twitter-style because Cal Newport says it will emphasize negativity?

Yeah, sure, he's all alone in saying that.

> Surely the vast amount of brainpower could go into perhaps modifying the style or the algorithm, or tweet length, or some variable to help? Surely there is an embedded solution, somewhere in there.

"Surely"?!? There is no more reason to be sure of that than of the opposite. On the contrary, all the evidence so far rather strongly supports the opposite. So... "Surely"? Muahahahaa.

> That's why I'm saying headlines like this are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes.

That's a bit like saying "That's why I'm saying headlines like 'We don't need a new bubonic plague' are stupid, there are literally near infinite variables that affect outcomes". What, you're saying Twitter isn't like the bubonic plague? Like I said, all evidence so far points toward it being so, so why don't you prove that it isn't. That's the only way to prove your claim that the headline is stupid.

> Or even, if he doesn't want to think about solving it, then "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity". Now it's a statement of fact and its up to the reader to use the information usefully

1) Twitter is the quintessential Twitter-like platform.

2) WTF would "a new Twitter" even mean, if not precisely any new "Twitter-like platform"?!?

3) The headline has always been a statement of fact.

Your analogy just escapes all reason. Twitter is an entertainment platform that obviously millions of people find enjoyable, and certainly astronomical amounts of good come out of it to certain individuals. I bet there are many experiences of people getting their name out there, or some insignificant thing no one would notice. You want to tell me someone who's life changed for the better is going to agree with that headline? Not only "that person" but EVERY PERSON on twitter who likes it? Get the fuck out of here.

The bubonic plague killed millions of people.

"We dont need __some tech thing__" is definitely not a statement of fact. There's literally no universe where this is true.

"Twitter when analyzed in X way, appears sentiment trends towards the negative" is much more a statement of fact, but won't be preferred because its not clickbait paternalistic garbage

> "We dont need __some tech thing__" is definitely not a statement of fact.

It's precisely as much a statement of fact as your proposed "Twitter-like platforms lead to increased negativity", just not quite as mealy-mouthed.

> There's literally no universe where this is true.

Besides this one.

Social proof is probably one of the strongest cohesive bonds of civilization. Cal Newport is a fairly well known person in tech. You might not respect him, but there are probably hundreds of people who's opinions you will take as gospel.

I can't think of a single person who's opinion I would take as "gospel." Just sort of vague outlines that 99% doesnt actually apply to the way I think about it. If there are any opinions that hold weight, it would be down to the creative technical aspects about technique of things I haven't 100% mastered yet in all areas (artists better than me explaining tonal value principals, programmers better than me explaining design patterns, etc). Either way, this isn't even the point of what I wrote. I have no problems with opinions.

My point is that headlines written like "We dont need _______" is idiotic, because it's an opinion stating what is best for others while excluding/ignoring all variables which would change that outcome the opinion is based on. How about just writing what it's about? I explain more what I meant in my other comment.

You seem to be arguing against people reading your comment.

I don't pose my comments as...

"Here's why we need to stop making headlines like this"

I said a statement of fact (to my own mind) which may be a fact or an opinion to someone else.

Regardless, never once in my opinion did I say "Heres whats best for you." I simply stated a fact about what I believe to be true, and what looks stupid to me.

I can't decide what is best for everyone else. Perhaps someone likes being spoon fed their decisions, and in this case the headline would be great for them, however that doesn't change my statement.

Also, my statements of facts/opinions could be wrong, and that is still further beside the point. Being wrong about something has nothing to do with me asserting that YOU would benefit from my opinion by adhering to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com