So I have I. I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed.
That said, my personal account has overlap with a separate startup/media/tech account because of some shared interests in the tech space. But there is also a lot of very different items I see in the personal account because of local accounts in the city I live in as well as topical news accounts relating to Asia and Europe that interest me. Naturally, anything relating to current events in those areas also touches on U.S. politics, foreign policy, and military policy, so I get that too, despite some muted keywords.
> But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it?
You missed the part in the paragraph that followed:
However, there is bleed because people you follow and Twitter's recommendation features can't help themselves (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up).
And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave.
Not disagreeing with your point about outrage, though. Like you said, there's nothing quite as engaging as content that gets lots of responses/RTs/shares/"likes," and this content tends to be negative.
> I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed.
> And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave.
You're describing how you have general views into twitter, but which are imperfect and require _active_ maintenance on your part to retain utility.
My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
> My experience is that _while engaging in that maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter for strong content and not eventually either recede into accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
I reached the same conclusion. It’s garbage, and I quit. Occasionally I’ll get a text from a friend linking to Twitter and I regret following the link, every time, within 60 seconds or so.
I also quit it and whenever someone links to it, I get a physiological reaction, like nauseousness and just have to close the tab. It's toxic fumes all over. Not possible to curate. I have blocked some words and mostly follow researchers but the controversial politics are shoved in my face. Everyone bending over backwards regarding Ukraine-Russia, some are still ranting about masks pro or contra, performatively being very concerned, some gender stuff, people at each other's throats regarding privilege and inclusivity, people bragging, humblebragging about their careers, self-claimed gurus telling their communities off, hot takes, then people complaining about too much bragging and calling out hustle culture and toxic positivity, others one upping these in some way or agreeing and fuming together. People only seeing other people as caricature stereotypes, like ah you must be a techbro, you must be an sjw, everyone assuming the worst, everything too serious and no lightheartedness.
It's pure monkey emotions and it brings out the worst of otherwise intelligent people. I've lost respect for several highly regarded scientists through this.
So I have I. I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each following different types of accounts with limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians posting about those topics and very little else. People that stray too much get unfollowed.
That said, my personal account has overlap with a separate startup/media/tech account because of some shared interests in the tech space. But there is also a lot of very different items I see in the personal account because of local accounts in the city I live in as well as topical news accounts relating to Asia and Europe that interest me. Naturally, anything relating to current events in those areas also touches on U.S. politics, foreign policy, and military policy, so I get that too, despite some muted keywords.
> But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it?
You missed the part in the paragraph that followed:
However, there is bleed because people you follow and Twitter's recommendation features can't help themselves (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up).
And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only have one account. Those are the most likely to leave.
Not disagreeing with your point about outrage, though. Like you said, there's nothing quite as engaging as content that gets lots of responses/RTs/shares/"likes," and this content tends to be negative.