Surprised at how split the answers are on this. I’d generally choose the first answer. For most tough problems, I expect there are a handful of “hardcore contributors” who do most of the work, and some “wannabes”/“cheerleaders” who don’t help or hurt much.https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1194708253537521664 …
-
-
A related issue is whether a wave of inflated hype around a technology is net good, bad, or neutral for the underlying fundamental progress of that technology.
Show this thread -
I sometimes see aggressively unfriendly tactics used to scare off “casuals”. Some people see casuals as obviously toxic; some people see alienating them as obviously stupid; I think there’s got to be contextual nuances here.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Managing this passive energy is an active management skill. Whether shallow commitments lead to greenwashing or useful-in-aggregate contributions depends largely on how the core deep commitment people learn to hack and manage the crowd.
-
The real danger is not the passive slacktivists, but the deep ones being too weak to resist takeover by sociopaths driving towards entirely different agendas. Think billionaire metal straw maker who wants to take over the ill-informed anti-plastic-straw movement for own ends.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If a thing's power comes from a claim to moral authority, being shown to lack the underlying morality totally undermines that. e.g. in several countries, the "free range" in "free range eggs" has been redefined so widely as to be meaningless to animal welfare.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.