6 ms·

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are c

by abhv 3y ago

See also this thread from yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147914 "Thousands of scientists are cutting back from Twitter" Essentially, a survey published in Nature about twitter usage among scientists dropping, in part, because of the phenomena mentioned in this New Yorker article. Eg: "Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had started seeing a lot of “strange” political far-right accounts espousing science denialism and racism in his feed. He has to block them constantly. “Twitter has always been not so nice let’s say, but it is a mess right now,” he said."

hotdogscout 3y ago
[flagged]
- klodolph 3y ago
  Scientists are on average a little left-leaning but science denialism, somehow, is something that crops up in both far-left and far-right spaces (just not equally). If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. Far-left science denialism starts with the “only use natural products, chemicals are bad for you, vaccines are bad for you” crunchy lifestyle accounts. Sometimes I think the political spectrum is more of an S1 topology.
  - eastof 3y ago
    > somehow Science is funded by government, so researchers come to conclusions that support them. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just incentives. Researchers just see which proposals get funded, and it happens those are the ones that support the mainstream narrative that the government would like to push. So it makes sense that if you are against the mainstream narrative, this would also pit you against some mainstream science. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to lend support to science denialism (I'm somewhat centrist). Just trying to explain why hard liners would tend to engage in it.
    - klodolph 3y ago
      I don’t think “mainstream narrative that the government would like to push” is in any way explicatory. The idea that there is some kind of mainstream narrative doesn’t seem to hold up to me. If you are doing food science you can conceivably get your funding from the FDA, USDA, NIH, or even DOD. Those agencies have their own objectives and are filled with people that have varying viewpoints about what kind of research is important or unimportant, and varying viewpoints about what the mission of their agency is. I’m not saying that this is an apolitical process. I don’t believe that an apolitical process is possible here, even in theory, and if we imagine a world where an apolitical process were possible, I don’t think such a process would be desirable. I’m also not saying that the process isn’t flawed. I’m just saying that there is not a coherent, unified political force here, and in this environment, there is plenty of room for good research, good science to be done. I would like to hear if you are basing this opinion on any of your personal experience applying for research grants, or on any informed analysis of how this works, or whether you are just making conjectures about incentives based on the same facts everyone else has.
  - bdavisx 3y ago
    >If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. That's interesting, if you ask me: "are you in a leftist bubble" - I would answer "probably a little." But I've NEVER seen any science denialism, so I guess I'm not? What kind of denialism are you talking about wrt leftists?
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      Antivax views have long been present on the left. Quack medicine (like Homeopathy) has a big market on the left. There’s also no shortage of self-diagnoses especially regarding mental illnesses there, which some have taken to adoptint extreme covid paranoia, contrary to actual scientific guidelines.
- joshmanders 3y ago
  You know you can type the real words right? There's no conspiracy. Echo Chamber. See. I'm still here I didn't get smi-
- dariosalvi78 3y ago
  who says that the scientist is leftist?
mvdwoord 3y ago
If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I mean that wasn't the case historically. Like if your favorite spot in town was a roller rink and it got bought out by a movie theatre. You'll lamente your loss but sure nothing illegal happened there but obviously you might rethink spending your time at the specific location.
- erickhill 3y ago
  The default feed is "For You" which absolutely includes people/posts you never followed. Users have to explicitly choose the "Following" feed to only see those posts. And, the setting resets itself constantly. If you aren't diligent, you get the firehose whether you wanted it or not.
  - MattDemers 3y ago
    While I realize this does nothing for mobile (RIP third-party clients), Control Panel for Twitter [1] has been nice for me to use as a browserscript. Defaults/hides "For You" and tweaks a bunch of other stuff (hideable trends, etc). [1]: https://github.com/insin/control-panel-for-twitter https://github.com/insin/control-panel-for-twitter
- ausbah 3y ago
  that's not true? it you follow the "for you" feed you'll get shit Twitter "thinks" you'll like - ie shit that'll get youre attention
  - dgellow 3y ago
    Not things Twitter thinks you will like but things you are likely to engage with. Lot of rage bait.

by abhv 3y ago

hotdogscout 3y ago

[flagged]

klodolph 3y ago
Scientists are on average a little left-leaning but science denialism, somehow, is something that crops up in both far-left and far-right spaces (just not equally). If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. Far-left science denialism starts with the “only use natural products, chemicals are bad for you, vaccines are bad for you” crunchy lifestyle accounts. Sometimes I think the political spectrum is more of an S1 topology.
- eastof 3y ago
  > somehow Science is funded by government, so researchers come to conclusions that support them. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just incentives. Researchers just see which proposals get funded, and it happens those are the ones that support the mainstream narrative that the government would like to push. So it makes sense that if you are against the mainstream narrative, this would also pit you against some mainstream science. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to lend support to science denialism (I'm somewhat centrist). Just trying to explain why hard liners would tend to engage in it.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    I don’t think “mainstream narrative that the government would like to push” is in any way explicatory. The idea that there is some kind of mainstream narrative doesn’t seem to hold up to me. If you are doing food science you can conceivably get your funding from the FDA, USDA, NIH, or even DOD. Those agencies have their own objectives and are filled with people that have varying viewpoints about what kind of research is important or unimportant, and varying viewpoints about what the mission of their agency is. I’m not saying that this is an apolitical process. I don’t believe that an apolitical process is possible here, even in theory, and if we imagine a world where an apolitical process were possible, I don’t think such a process would be desirable. I’m also not saying that the process isn’t flawed. I’m just saying that there is not a coherent, unified political force here, and in this environment, there is plenty of room for good research, good science to be done. I would like to hear if you are basing this opinion on any of your personal experience applying for research grants, or on any informed analysis of how this works, or whether you are just making conjectures about incentives based on the same facts everyone else has.
- bdavisx 3y ago
  >If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. That's interesting, if you ask me: "are you in a leftist bubble" - I would answer "probably a little." But I've NEVER seen any science denialism, so I guess I'm not? What kind of denialism are you talking about wrt leftists?
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    Antivax views have long been present on the left. Quack medicine (like Homeopathy) has a big market on the left. There’s also no shortage of self-diagnoses especially regarding mental illnesses there, which some have taken to adoptint extreme covid paranoia, contrary to actual scientific guidelines.
joshmanders 3y ago
You know you can type the real words right? There's no conspiracy. Echo Chamber. See. I'm still here I didn't get smi-
dariosalvi78 3y ago
who says that the scientist is leftist?

mvdwoord 3y ago

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

lesuorac 3y ago
> If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I mean that wasn't the case historically. Like if your favorite spot in town was a roller rink and it got bought out by a movie theatre. You'll lamente your loss but sure nothing illegal happened there but obviously you might rethink spending your time at the specific location.
erickhill 3y ago
The default feed is "For You" which absolutely includes people/posts you never followed. Users have to explicitly choose the "Following" feed to only see those posts. And, the setting resets itself constantly. If you aren't diligent, you get the firehose whether you wanted it or not.
- MattDemers 3y ago
  While I realize this does nothing for mobile (RIP third-party clients), Control Panel for Twitter [1] has been nice for me to use as a browserscript. Defaults/hides "For You" and tweaks a bunch of other stuff (hideable trends, etc). [1]: https://github.com/insin/control-panel-for-twitter https://github.com/insin/control-panel-for-twitter
ausbah 3y ago
that's not true? it you follow the "for you" feed you'll get shit Twitter "thinks" you'll like - ie shit that'll get youre attention
- dgellow 3y ago
  Not things Twitter thinks you will like but things you are likely to engage with. Lot of rage bait.