The Mathematics of Twitter Mobs - Areo. With enough skin in the game, a subgroup of only three percent of the population can often sway the rest; an even smaller minority can do so if they have no other options, or nothing to lose.

submitted by Chipit from areomagazine.com

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    It's a fact. Most people in Ireland were not part of the resistance. Most people were not mad bombers. Only 1-2% provided the food, shelter, and underground network to effectively support the resistance and only a few actually did the critical deeds that turned the tide.

    [–]yoke 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    be sure to check out eric hoffer's book 'true believer'

    [–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I've been thinking a bit about the concept of "Free Reach". I've only seen this slogan within the last few months, so in case it's new to some, it's yet another dismissive counterpoint to defenders of free speech online. When someone gets censored, they say "you do have a right to free speech, but not to free reach" or similar formulations that serve to move the "it's a private company" meme one step further.

    It's a play on words where "Free Speech" obviously means free as in liberis, but "Free Reach" can simply refer to the cost of the service provided, and can thus be refused.

    The internet certainly has made it too easy (and free, as in gratis) to post a hot take and have it seen by everyone in the world thanks to the interconnectedness of social networks. Viral spread is inherent with greater network connectedness, and I think we all learned about R-value in the last year. Add human nature to this, and strong emotions like outrage will always outspread any and all reasonable, sober thoughts.

    The points made in this article are not surprising at all. It really does take only a few percent of crazy people to completely dominate a reasonable majority. The same argument has been made about community standards & corporate culture, where the one toxic person can stifle everyone else.

    I don't know what could make this situation better when the internet is in everyone's hands, but this concept of free reach certainly allows a few individuals to create a façade and produce a much bigger influence than they actually have a right to exert over public discourse. I'm not talking about past forms of influence through one-way communication—newspapers & television. Those were forms of media that individuals could consume, digest, and then discuss privately, not spread globally by pretending that everyone shares the same opinion.

    We humans are not made to reason well about large groups, at least not without some kind of hierarchy of trusted authorities. And in the absence of those, we form our own hierarchies around shared understanding & culture, as tribal groups have always done.

    Ideas are not spread by word of mouth anymore—it's more like word of megaphone.