I do think if that thread got you blocked then that’s sad (my guess is I think you were more right than Eliezer, though I haven’t read the full sequence that you linked to).
I do think Twitter blocks don’t mean very much. I think it’s approximately zero evidence of “cultism” or whatever. Most people with many followers on Twitter seem to need to have a hair trigger for blocking, or at least feel like they need to, in order to not constantly have terrible experiences.
Most people with many followers on Twitter seem to need to have a hair trigger for blocking, or at least feel like they need to, in order to not constantly have terrible experiences.
I think that this is a point that people not on social media that much don’t get: You need to be very quick to block because otherwise you will not have good experiences on the site otherwise.
I think our instincts may be misleading here, because internet works differently from real life.
In real life, not interacting with someone is the default. Unless you have some kind of relationship with someone, people have no obligation to call you or meet you. And if I call someone on the phone just to say “dude, I disagree with your theory”, I would expect that person to hang up… and maybe say “sorry, I’m busy” before hanging up, if they are extra polite. The interactions are mutually agreed, and you have no right to complain when the other party decides to not give you the time. (And if you keep insisting… that’s what the restraining orders are for.)
On internet, once you sign up to e.g. Twitter, the default is that anyone can talk to you, and if you are not interested in reading the texts they send you, you need to block them. As far as I know, there are no options in the middle between “block” and “don’t block”. (Nothing like “only let them talk to me when it is important” or “only let them talk to me on Tuesdays between 3 PM and 5 PM”.) And if you are a famous person, I guess you need to keep blocking left and right, otherwise you would drown in the text—presumably you don’t want to spend 24 hours a day sifting through Twitter messages, and you want to get the ones you actively want, which requires you to aggressively filter out everything else.
So getting blocked is not an equivalent of getting a restraining order, but more like an equivalent of the other person no longer paying attention to you. Which most people would not interpret as evidence of cultism.
This is the key to understanding why I think it’s more okay to block than a lot of other people think, and the fact that the default is anyone can talk to you means you get way too much crap without blocking lots of people.
I think whether it’s cultism depends on what model one has of how cults work. I don’t know much about it so I might be totally ignorant, but I think a major factor is just engaging in a futile, draining activity powered by popularity, so one needs to carefully preserve resources and maintain appearances.
Huh, I guess you mean cult in a broader “polarization” sense? Like, where are the democratic and republican parties on the cultishness scale in your model?
Huh, I guess you mean cult in a broader “polarization” sense?
Idk, my main point of reference is I recently read is Some Desperate Glory, which was about a cult of terrorists. Polarization generally implies a balanced conflict which isn’t really futile.
Like, where are the democratic and republican parties on the cultishness scale in your model?
I don’t know much about how they work internally. Democracy is a weird systen because you’ve got the adversarial thing that would make it less futile but also the popularity contest thing that would make it more narcissistic and thus more cultish.
in order to not constantly have terrible experiences.
This explanation sounds like what they’d say. I think the real reason this is common is more a status thing: it’s a pretty standard strategy for people to try to gain status by “dunking” on tweets by more famous people, and blocking them is the standard countermeasure.
The more prominent you are, the more people want to talk with you, and the less time you have to talk with them. You have to shut them out the moment the cost is no longer worth paying.
I do think if that thread got you blocked then that’s sad (my guess is I think you were more right than Eliezer, though I haven’t read the full sequence that you linked to).
I do think Twitter blocks don’t mean very much. I think it’s approximately zero evidence of “cultism” or whatever. Most people with many followers on Twitter seem to need to have a hair trigger for blocking, or at least feel like they need to, in order to not constantly have terrible experiences.
This is a very useful point:
I think that this is a point that people not on social media that much don’t get: You need to be very quick to block because otherwise you will not have good experiences on the site otherwise.
I think our instincts may be misleading here, because internet works differently from real life.
In real life, not interacting with someone is the default. Unless you have some kind of relationship with someone, people have no obligation to call you or meet you. And if I call someone on the phone just to say “dude, I disagree with your theory”, I would expect that person to hang up… and maybe say “sorry, I’m busy” before hanging up, if they are extra polite. The interactions are mutually agreed, and you have no right to complain when the other party decides to not give you the time. (And if you keep insisting… that’s what the restraining orders are for.)
On internet, once you sign up to e.g. Twitter, the default is that anyone can talk to you, and if you are not interested in reading the texts they send you, you need to block them. As far as I know, there are no options in the middle between “block” and “don’t block”. (Nothing like “only let them talk to me when it is important” or “only let them talk to me on Tuesdays between 3 PM and 5 PM”.) And if you are a famous person, I guess you need to keep blocking left and right, otherwise you would drown in the text—presumably you don’t want to spend 24 hours a day sifting through Twitter messages, and you want to get the ones you actively want, which requires you to aggressively filter out everything else.
So getting blocked is not an equivalent of getting a restraining order, but more like an equivalent of the other person no longer paying attention to you. Which most people would not interpret as evidence of cultism.
This is the key to understanding why I think it’s more okay to block than a lot of other people think, and the fact that the default is anyone can talk to you means you get way too much crap without blocking lots of people.
I think whether it’s cultism depends on what model one has of how cults work. I don’t know much about it so I might be totally ignorant, but I think a major factor is just engaging in a futile, draining activity powered by popularity, so one needs to carefully preserve resources and maintain appearances.
Huh, I guess you mean cult in a broader “polarization” sense? Like, where are the democratic and republican parties on the cultishness scale in your model?
Idk, my main point of reference is I recently read is Some Desperate Glory, which was about a cult of terrorists. Polarization generally implies a balanced conflict which isn’t really futile.
I don’t know much about how they work internally. Democracy is a weird systen because you’ve got the adversarial thing that would make it less futile but also the popularity contest thing that would make it more narcissistic and thus more cultish.
This explanation sounds like what they’d say. I think the real reason this is common is more a status thing: it’s a pretty standard strategy for people to try to gain status by “dunking” on tweets by more famous people, and blocking them is the standard countermeasure.
The dunking seems like constant terrible experiences.
The more prominent you are, the more people want to talk with you, and the less time you have to talk with them. You have to shut them out the moment the cost is no longer worth paying.