Twitter’s usefulness mostly comes from the celebrities being there. The initial reason the celebrities were attracted probably had to do with the char limit, its pretext, that they are not expected to read too much and that they are not expected to write too much.
Interesting. So if Twitter’s celebrity appeal is about brevity, and brevity is a big part of why the platform is so toxic, maybe the best outcome is for it to just get regulated out of existence? Like, we could pass a law that prohibits character limits on social media sites or something.
Woah, this seems like a big jump to a form of technocracy / paternalism that I would think would typically require more justification than spending a short amount of time brainstorming in a comment thread why the thing millions of people use daily is actually bad.
Like, banning sites from offering free services if a character limit is involved because high status members of communities you like enjoy such sites seems like bad policy and also a weird way to try and convince these people to write on forums you prefer. Now, one counterargument would be “coordination problems” mean those writers would prefer to write somewhere else. But presumably if anyone’s aware of “inadequate equilibria” like this and able to avoid it it would be Eliezer.
Re-reading my comment, I realize it may come off as snarky but I’m not really sure how better to convey my surprise that this would be the first idea that comes to mind.
ETA: it’s not clear to me that Twitter is so toxic, especially for people in the broad bubble that encompasses LW / EA / tech / etc. I agree it’s not the best possible version of a platform by any means, but to say it’s obviously net negative seems like a stretch without further evidence.
Woah, this seems like a big jump to a form of technocracy / paternalism that I would think would typically require more justification than spending a short amount of time brainstorming in a comment thread why the thing millions of people use daily is actually bad.
Under what circumstances do you feel introducing new policy ideas with the preface “maybe this could be a good idea” is acceptable?
I don’t expect anyone important to be reading this thread, certainly not important policymakers. Even if they were, I think it was pretty clear I was spitballing.
Like, banning sites from offering free services if a character limit is involved because high status members of communities you like enjoy such sites
If society’s elites are incentivized to use a platform which systematically causes misunderstandings and strife for no good reason, that seems bad.
Now, one counterargument would be “coordination problems” mean those writers would prefer to write somewhere else. But presumably if anyone’s aware of “inadequate equilibria” like this and able to avoid it it would be Eliezer.
Let’s not fall prey to the halo effect. Eliezer also wrote a long post about the necessity of back-and-forth debate, and he’s using a platform which is uniquely bad at this. At some point, one starts to wonder whether Eliezer is a mortal human being who suffers from akrasia and biases just like the rest of us.
I agree it’s not the best possible version of a platform by any means, but to say it’s obviously net negative seems like a stretch without further evidence.
I didn’t make much of an effort to assemble arguments that Twitter is bad. But I think there are good arguments out there. How do you feel about the nuclear diplomacy that’s happened on Twitter?
First of all, I apologize, I think my comment was too snarky and took a tone of “this is so surprising” that I regret on reflection.
Under what circumstances do you feel introducing new policy ideas with the word “maybe this could be a good idea” is acceptable?
To be clear, I think introducing the idea is totally fine, I just have a decently strong prior against widespread bans on “businesses that do this”.
I don’t expect anyone important to be reading this thread, certainly not important policymakers. Even if they were, I think it was pretty clear I was spitballing.
Agreed, I was not worried about this.
Let’s not fall prey to the halo effect. Eliezer also wrote a long post about the necessity of back-and-forth debate, and he’s using a platform which is uniquely bad at this. At some point, one starts to wonder whether Eliezer is a mortal human being who suffers from akrasia and biases just like the rest of us.
Fair enough. I agree the Eliezer point isn’t strong evidence.
I didn’t make much of an effort to assemble arguments that Twitter is bad. But I think there are good arguments out there. How do you feel about the nuclear diplomacy that’s happened on Twitter?
I don’t have time to respond at length to this part at the moment (I wanted to reply quickly to apologize mostly) but I agree it’s the most useful question to discuss and will try to respond more later. To summarize, I acknowledge it’s possible that Twitter is bad for the collective but think people may overestimate the bad parts by focusing on how politicians / people fighting about politics use Twitter (which does seem bad) and that even if it is “bad”, it’s not clear that banning short response websites would lead to a better long-term outcome. For example, maybe people would just start fighting with pictures on Instagram. I don’t think this specific outcome is likely but think it’s in a class of outcomes that would result from banning that seems decently likely.
Hahah. That’s a funny thought. I don’t think it does lead inevitably to toxicity, though. I don’t think the incentives it imposes are really that favourable to that sort of usage. There’s a hedonic attractor for venomous behaviour rather than a strategic attractor.
Right now the char limit isn’t really that hostile to dialogue. There’s a “threading” UI (hints that it’s okay to post many tweets at once) so it’s now less like “don’t put any effort into your posts” and more like “if you’re gonna post a lot try to divide it up into small, digestible pieces”
Interesting. So if Twitter’s celebrity appeal is about brevity, and brevity is a big part of why the platform is so toxic, maybe the best outcome is for it to just get regulated out of existence? Like, we could pass a law that prohibits character limits on social media sites or something.
Woah, this seems like a big jump to a form of technocracy / paternalism that I would think would typically require more justification than spending a short amount of time brainstorming in a comment thread why the thing millions of people use daily is actually bad.
Like, banning sites from offering free services if a character limit is involved because high status members of communities you like enjoy such sites seems like bad policy and also a weird way to try and convince these people to write on forums you prefer. Now, one counterargument would be “coordination problems” mean those writers would prefer to write somewhere else. But presumably if anyone’s aware of “inadequate equilibria” like this and able to avoid it it would be Eliezer.
Re-reading my comment, I realize it may come off as snarky but I’m not really sure how better to convey my surprise that this would be the first idea that comes to mind.
ETA: it’s not clear to me that Twitter is so toxic, especially for people in the broad bubble that encompasses LW / EA / tech / etc. I agree it’s not the best possible version of a platform by any means, but to say it’s obviously net negative seems like a stretch without further evidence.
Under what circumstances do you feel introducing new policy ideas with the preface “maybe this could be a good idea” is acceptable?
I don’t expect anyone important to be reading this thread, certainly not important policymakers. Even if they were, I think it was pretty clear I was spitballing.
If society’s elites are incentivized to use a platform which systematically causes misunderstandings and strife for no good reason, that seems bad.
Let’s not fall prey to the halo effect. Eliezer also wrote a long post about the necessity of back-and-forth debate, and he’s using a platform which is uniquely bad at this. At some point, one starts to wonder whether Eliezer is a mortal human being who suffers from akrasia and biases just like the rest of us.
I didn’t make much of an effort to assemble arguments that Twitter is bad. But I think there are good arguments out there. How do you feel about the nuclear diplomacy that’s happened on Twitter?
First of all, I apologize, I think my comment was too snarky and took a tone of “this is so surprising” that I regret on reflection.
Agreed, I was not worried about this.
Fair enough. I agree the Eliezer point isn’t strong evidence.
I don’t have time to respond at length to this part at the moment (I wanted to reply quickly to apologize mostly) but I agree it’s the most useful question to discuss and will try to respond more later. To summarize, I acknowledge it’s possible that Twitter is bad for the collective but think people may overestimate the bad parts by focusing on how politicians / people fighting about politics use Twitter (which does seem bad) and that even if it is “bad”, it’s not clear that banning short response websites would lead to a better long-term outcome. For example, maybe people would just start fighting with pictures on Instagram. I don’t think this specific outcome is likely but think it’s in a class of outcomes that would result from banning that seems decently likely.
Hahah. That’s a funny thought. I don’t think it does lead inevitably to toxicity, though. I don’t think the incentives it imposes are really that favourable to that sort of usage. There’s a hedonic attractor for venomous behaviour rather than a strategic attractor.
Right now the char limit isn’t really that hostile to dialogue. There’s a “threading” UI (hints that it’s okay to post many tweets at once) so it’s now less like “don’t put any effort into your posts” and more like “if you’re gonna post a lot try to divide it up into small, digestible pieces”