undefined | Better HN

0 pointssievebrain9y ago0 comments

There's a big spectrum in-between an essay that took two days to write and a tweet. Hacker News is a good example of messages that are long enough to say something useful and short enough to not require any commitment by the reader.

I dislike the way the article uses the word "violence". Nothing that happens on Twitter is violent. The definition of violence right from a Google search for "define:violence" is

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Nonetheless, the author articulates the reasons I do not use Twitter myself. The amount of drama that site creates seems, to a non-user, to be far in excess of the amount of insight it generates. I have never heard of a really great conversation or unique, insightful idea emerging on Twitter. I have heard, a lot, about idiotic fights that escalate into real world problems. I agree that the 140 character limit is the cause of such problems.

0 comments

adrianratnapala9y ago

Yep.

I can understand that he wants to make a distinction between aggressive word usage, and non-aggressive. But calling it "violence" is hyperbolic, and dangerous to free speech.

Threats of and exhortations to violence are universally considered unprotected by free speech. So people who dislike other peoples speech have an incentive to call it "violence".

jonathankoren9y ago

"Mental anguish" and "harassment" (which is also a a crime, and not protected) are a much better terms for things that are not a threat of actual physical violence. However, trying to dismiss all of this as simply hyperbole is... well... dismissive. See http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-hara... This is a woman who gets vile harassment and actual death threats for doing academic critiques of video games.

Let's be honest here. These tweets aren't a discourse. It's a mob.

adrianratnapala9y ago

A death threat is a threat of violence in the tradtional sense. It might not be violence, but it sure as hell is wrong, illegal, and not protected free speech.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssievebrain9y ago0 comments

I dislike the way the article uses the word "violence". Nothing that happens on Twitter is violent. The definition of violence right from a Google search for "define:violence" is

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

0 comments

adrianratnapala9y ago

Yep.

I can understand that he wants to make a distinction between aggressive word usage, and non-aggressive. But calling it "violence" is hyperbolic, and dangerous to free speech.

Threats of and exhortations to violence are universally considered unprotected by free speech. So people who dislike other peoples speech have an incentive to call it "violence".

jonathankoren9y ago

Let's be honest here. These tweets aren't a discourse. It's a mob.

adrianratnapala9y ago

A death threat is a threat of violence in the tradtional sense. It might not be violence, but it sure as hell is wrong, illegal, and not protected free speech.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse