I would bias towards people who have a concrete position they are advocating for and not just talk about what they are against. Critique is cheap and mostly pointless without a real solution.
I tend to find the best accounts are ones that you disagree with on some things but not everything. Avoid people who still need herd acceptance to survive. So either niche accounts or people with a social moat/fairly uncancelable, this will get you rawer inputs.
DO NOT JUST FOLLOW PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH. They should either make you think at a deeper level or inspire you. If they just parrot back what you already think then what's the point of reading what they have to say?
@evacide @JohnArnoldFndtn @sama @ShellenbergerMD @balajis @dhh @micsolana
Also find people who break up the monotony with interesting things: @Rainmaker1973 @Mikeachim @simonsarris
Also do not unfollow people just because they believe/do something your tribe says is "unforgivable". When someone asks you to hate a stranger on the internet, just say no.
I'm a big believer in this. I feel a bunch of social issues would be assisted and better understood if people somehow had to attach a possible/attempted solution to any stated gripe. It would 1) serve to generally shut up complainers for a more positive enviroment, 2) make people aware of reasons things are often the way they are once they consider a problem more deeply and 3) aid healthier conversation.
I like the HN view conversation must be interesting or add value type approach. I hope this gets increasingly enforced here as there seems increased volume of low effort comments the last 6 months or so.
Eg. Famous actor advocating for some luxury belief
It doesn't mean anything more or anything less than that these people are verified to be who they claim they are. But the person above is trying to indicate it means some kind of "endorsement" by some vague "establishment" that he dislikes.
