Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrew_ | Hacker News Reader

As someone who moved away from Twitter, the last thing I need in my life is another Twitter-owned property. The politics of the last month aside, Twitter is a foul, trite, snide place where the worst of us are trumpeted to the loudest voice and widest audience. The negativity and incentive to waste hours and focus are pervasive in every community I've participated in. Of course, YMMV. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to curate and filter away those things that I abhor about Twitter. A few weeks removed and my mental state feels all the better for it. Color me cynical, but I'll pass on another attempt for Twitter to monetize my attention.

View on HN

> YMMV

It does, enormously. I've reached out to people via Twitter and had nothing but great experiences. I've had dialogue with people I would never have had access to before. IME, so long as you stick away from politics, Twitter is fine but, of course, this depends on who you follow and interact with.

<sigh> I hear you. But Twitter is an incredible service. From the Arab spring to people like @balajis who broke COVID (for me at least) before major news networks.

The only interactive we have as users is positive (a heart or retweet) vs negative (thumbs down on Youtube, downvote on reddit).

I think a broken heart, </3, essentially as a downvote, could do a lot to make Twitter more of a community that rewards and punishes, rather than just allows people to exist in their own eco-chamber. The politicians of the last month would have likely seen way more downvotes / broken hearts than favs and retweets, and that might have done something for them personally...it's at least worth a test if anyone at Twitter reads this :).

> I think a broken heart, </3, essentially as a downvote,

God please no, that's the reason I love Twitter. The day people start downvoting Tweets because they disagree, instead of replying, is the day I make my account private, or leave the service.

I suspect that one problem on Twitter is how wide you "open the door". If you crack it open just a little (i.e. limited follows), you can have a nice, useful, informative stream there, without all the negativity. But if you insist on opening the door fairly wide (i.e. lots more follows), you're effectively inviting the whole world in.

And guess what? "the whole world", taken as a whole, isn't so great.

I like it but I have a policy to unfollow if they start to tweet about anything they don’t work in. So a programmer that talks about politics is going to be unfollowed. Also they have to consistently be able to educate me and not just say things I agree with.

Works pretty well. Main drawback is that it’s just singular focus nerds.

A drawback is that people don’t always seem charitable in their thoughts of why I choose to unfollow.

I guess I could just as easily follow their blogs instead of Twitter though.

Muting words related to political topics or the meme of the week can make a huge improvement in your Twitter timeline.

I’m bummed that Twitter limits the mute list to only 200 words. I’m maxed out and have to remove a word when I want to mute a new one.

I find it somewhat ironic that Twitter has only now banned Trump. They allowed him to stay on his platform so more people would sign-up, follow him and get radicalised. Now he's no longer the President, they've suddenly acquired morality. Fool me once, eh.

Didn't they ban him as a protective measure to curb additional violence after he incited the storming of the capitol?

I don't think twitter's tactics are as nefarious as you make them out to be.

They banned him after his Presidency. He did greivous harm and acts of hate before that, but only now are Twitter giving it the attention it deserves. Anyone else would have been banned long before now. He has incited a great deal of violence with racist dogwhistles, and only now he's facing any sort of punishment. The argument of 'free speech' falls apart when you factor this in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com