This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My bad, I meant $100/year.
She certainly can afford it, but that's different from finding it valuable enough to purchase.
If it's implemented as you describe, where verified posts crowd out nonverified no matter what, wouldn't that that'd severely degrade the twitter experience, because unverified people often post better replies than verified people? not sure what you mean precisely
They've spent a lot of time as VC/executives, and even smart people who are experts can make mistakes. I know someone who works in a related area IRL who agrees, and the people I follow on twitter who work at twitter seem to agree too.
I mentioned a realtor because the general sentiment I'm seeing on retwitter and fintwit is a mix of "wtf why so cheap" and a few "I want to verify but stay anon". For example @realestatetrent, an anon account wants to be verified as "a PE guy who buys strip malls" so people take him seriously when he talks about never buying a place where a dry cleaner ever was.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587500060853424129
How does it degrade the experience? Musk has explicitly described bluechecks getting to the top of replies, search and mentions. Assuming the typical screen holds 6 replies, and the typical @kanyewest tweet gets >1000 replies, you need 0.6% of people who reply to be verified to push spammers and cheapskates 1-2 screens down where most people will never see. Eyeballing a few other celebs - @kingjames, @kyliejenner - suggests 1000 is a reasonable number. For your 20% number to make sense, are you aware of many crypto scams in the replies of minor celebs who get only 30 replies/tweet?
0.6% is a lot less than the 20% you were talking about, making me think you didn't do any back of the envelope math on the mechanics proposed.
I have no direct experience with replies, but my experience with search and browse is that > 2 screens might as well not exist. Do you have different info? What do you think is the 95'th/99'th percentile of scroll in twitter replies?
Color me shocked that people angry about a hostile takeover don't like anything about the new guy.
Yeah, and that means the top replies will be 'by people who paid' and not 'the funniest tweets as selected by likes'. It degrades the experience by destroying the 'like' mechanism sorting good tweets to the top! It's better to have the top reply be <funny joke that got 500 likes> as opposed to <tweet from verified user @JoeRealtor saying "Wow, great job!".
I'm specifically referring to the bluecheck thing here.
I also can't tell if the checkmark will involve identity verification? As it stands I don't think it will, it'll just be a nice checkmark that's part of blue?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link