I think @kathhayhoe's "friendly fire" statement about mastodon is one of the saddest and most depressing things I've heard in the last days (and I've heard a lot of sad and depressing things, both in the context of the overall world and of my private l...
-
I think @kathhayhoe's "friendly fire" statement about mastodon is one of the saddest and most depressing things I've heard in the last days (and I've heard a lot of sad and depressing things, both in the context of the overall world and of my private life).
And yes, this is also often how it feels to me here:
Dr. Katharine Hayhoe (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Comparing the percentage of comments that are negative versus neutral/positive on each platform, you can also see that (a) Twitter has always had proportionately more trolls than other platforms, but also (b) trolling has massively increased post-Musk. Note 1: The reason there were no negative comments on FB is because my page there has been shadow-banned since Aug 2018 when climate change & clean energy were added to the list of politically sensitive topics and FB refused (twice) to verify my identity, the step they claim is needed to post on those topics. So only a tiny fraction of the people who already follow my page see my posts there. They are not shared beyond that tiny bubble. Note 2: it's also interesting that negative comments on Twitter/X, LinkedIn and Threads are nearly 100% denial, whereas negative comments on Mastodon are 100% from people worried about climate but who are mansplaining me or who want to harass or attack me for different reasons (e.g. not explaining the science the way they think I should, saying that climate action can make a difference, standing firm on the social science of effective communication, being a person of faith, etc.). This platform is #1 for "friendly fire," which is why I still post but don't engage here very much. It's not good for my mental health. If you want to see more of my posts here though, no worries: I have a bluesky bridge account @[email protected] Onward!
FediScience.org (fediscience.org)
-
S [email protected] shared this topic
-
@vicgrinberg @kathhayhoe I think her Masotodon interpretation is not accurate . Here she gets a critical questioning dialogue from mainly diverse individuals. I follow her on Linkedin and there the comments are pretty negative about unrealistic climate change costs, not practical, insurmountable political obstacles, etc. Mostly made by corporate types, climate change business hustlers, and government officials.
-
T [email protected] shared this topic
-
@yuhasz01 @vicgrinberg yes, this is exactly the type of comment I'm referring to....anonymous men in sailboats who know more than climate scientists and feel that it's inappropriate for women to object to "critical questioning" of their expertise.
-
Dr. Victoria Grinbergreplied to Dr. Katharine Hayhoe last edited by
@kathhayhoe @yuhasz01 there are a few comments that exemplify exactly what you mentioned in your original post
-
@vicgrinberg @kathhayhoe In science everything is open to transparency , objective scrutiny and discussion....... no matter where it is posted. [By the way I am not anonymous, I use my own name on Mastodon profile, and have a Phd from University of Cambridge in applied statistics and demography]
-
U [email protected] shared this topic
-
@yuhasz01 @vicgrinberg @kathhayhoe If I may jump in here, because this issue is of such fundamental importance to the well being of this platform: I think your reply @yuhasz is confusing two things: a) fundamental norms of science that mean everything can, in principle, be challenged and b) social rules on engagement/communication. That everything in science is subject to debate doesn’t make all debate attempts socially appropriate. The requirement for scrutiny doesn’t make it appropriate, e.g., for me to find your home number and ring you at 2am expecting you to discuss a thought I have on a recent article of yours. That’s the problem, I think.
