Thank you! I try, but it upsets me people feel this way. I made the platform to help users open their minds more, and it seems the people who should be using it are just hating on it.
I initially had a negative reaction but after thinking about it I changed my mind. There is a major need to cut through the algorithmically generated suggestions that provably fuel misinformation, group think, and general hate. Twitter is a great medium to hack at this problem, and the first iteration of a product will always have some (positive or negative) biases in an effort to find itself and move forward on key features and mission.
Personally I think the conversation on this thread needs to stop thinking this product criminalizes content choice. If my interest is engineering blogs and most engineering blogs are written by men its ok for me to predominantly follow engineering blogs. What this product (to me) is there for is when I want to branch out I have an option for doing that in a powerful new way.
Finally (offtopic) I think we do need to have more civil conversations about virtue signaling. I don't think this product or announcement is virtue signaling. But virtue signaling IS a big problem in Silicon Valley, people shouting from the rooftops how they want to do good before quietly slinking back into a board room to do bad.
Good job OP, I'm not a hardcore twitter user but will definitely follow this projects development and wish it the best.
Following like-minded profiles and hope for a follow back is one way to increase your audience. Another is to let your content speak for you.
To make this easier for the little guy I played with the thought of retweet incentivization. This could start as simple as http://peepmore.43z.one which I put together in an afternoon. Would be interested to hear what others think if this model.
This is interesting. I'll have a look. It reminds me of my platform to find underrated content, also based on a point system (check out 5 links to submit yours. After 50 clicks, your content is archived). It's https://exposure.cards, if you're curious. Not sure if Twitter is against these kinds of platforms though?
Glad you find it useful, then again in this aspect the platform would likely be lacking as it does not allow users to analyse the "diversity rate" of the users they followed. It's certainly a future planned feature, when the platform grows past its 600 users.
Thank you! When you become a patron, your profile is displayed in a category on the right sidebar and sticked on the top of every category. A patron user reported an increase of twice her usual daily followers just today, if that gives some reference of its performance. Unless you mean something else by the rankings?
I can easily see myself using this, going through twitter recently to prune and replace some of the accounts I follow.
One suggestion if I might? I noticed some of the imagery didn't seem to immediately 'grok' with their topics. For example "Sports" shows a photo of a bicycle propped against a wall in what looks like someone's flat, while "Arts" shows a photo of a basketball court, "Animation" showed a photography studio and the "Comedy" topic has a group shot of business suit types (albeit in a 'silly' pose).
It was a little odd, definitely nothing that breaks the platform but it may help 'discovery' to make images a bit less...ambiguous given the topic they're related to? I think sports and my mind goes to team sports and not necessarily riding a bike to work (the image looks like an average commuter bicycle versus a racing bike) so maybe that's on me to make the mental adjustment when assuming the connectedness of topics.
That's a valid suggestion. I pulled the images from Unsplash (free to use), and needless to say, there's not really an endless assortment of pictures there, so I did with what I found, sadly. It is definitely something to improve upon, maybe I will get someone to do the photography for some of the topics, or alternatively go for a design. In reality I am not exactly fond of the execution of the categories - in the end they're sort of a filter, so I could have simply created a "super-page" where you could have those interests listed as filters, and could have found users sharing more than 1 category. On top of that, currently the platform has a fixed amount of categories, and it does not allow users to add themselves to any other interest, which is a bit limiting and unfortunate. Because of that, in the future I might redo this section entirely, which could help fix the issue you raised at the same time.
This is really interesting and I hope it does well! Are you considering refining the domains at all, like say splitting development and technology into machine learning, devops, webdev, etc?
Thanks! It's something I have planned for when the platform is bigger in terms of users. Currently it has 900 (close to 1K, insane for just 2 days!), so if I split the categories more, many would be empty, making it difficult to find users in general. On top of that, more categories means more work for the users to select their desired categories. Overall it doesn't seem worth it for me currently.
What are my future plans in this regard though? When the site gets past 1K users, I will start brainstorming and developing a new way for users to select their categories. Likely through a textbox vs multiple checkboxes, where people could type the areas they are into and they would autocomplete. I'd like to also let users suggest categories, eventually maybe even let them create their own interests. Could be exciting!
You can put "Other" if you don't want to disclose it, but I understand the sentiment. It could be understood as NB / Trans for example, and it could be misleading. I'll keep that in mind for a future revision.
I used PHP/HTML, CSS, Js (with jQuery) and MySQL for the database. The entire platform is hosted in a DigitalOcean droplet and managed using ServerPilot's free plan.
Absolutely great idea. I saw this on Indie Hackers too. I have also played with your Product Hunt previewer. Your work ethic and output has inspired me to step my game up. Keep up the good work.
As to be as compliant as possible, Twitter users have to connect their accounts manually and select multiple data in regards to their interests, gender identity, and much more, which is complemented by the data gathered from the Twitter API (language, verification status, followers, following, tweets, likes...).
To be a place to find users from "different backgrounds" it looks to me to only show the political bias of the author.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only sanctioned different background seems to be "POC" (what does that even mean), "LGBTQ+" and "with disability".
The home page sports a "check 1.000 inspiring women" but not a "1.000 inspiring men". I guess only inspiring women are worth following.
But actually they don't even need to be inspiring, since they also have a "random women" section. I thought propping up some people based solely on their gender was sexist. I guess it's not when we do it for women.
Also, a fairly glaring omission in the topics seems to be religion. And I say it as a non believer. It looks like non-religious people won't be allowed to look for someone with a different background.
In the end, the site is yours, and you can of course list, or not list, whomever you please. But the claim of discovering people from "different backgrounds" seems to me disingenuous at best.
More accurate, given the current content, would be "a few, politically-sanctioned backgrounds".
Well done on slamming the 18 yr olds first product. This is very clearly the first release of a product and it is definitely targeting a slice of the functionality, but that's just good sense right.
Get it out there for people to try and give feedback on.
I appreciate the effort and thinking that has gone into a product like this.
Sure there are a whole bunch of features that I would love to see added but I'm sure that will come with time.
The fact that it targets PoC, LGBTQ+ and Women is a fantastic start. I remember an article that went around on HN a while back that analyzed the gender balance of twitter follows, and the results were not good.
Working on diversity in tech and on twitter and highlighting women over men is not sexist, it's pushing the needle back in a direction that it needs to go in.
That is a fair perspective on the platform. I initially created the website because of a lack of women in my following list - I had ~80% men and only 20% women, many of which were friends of mine (as a woman myself). I struggled to find women in my field (technology), and this was the origin of Twiverse - allowing you to use filters and categories to find different people.
I understand it might feel biased with the current filters, but I could not have endless filters in the platform right on launch, considering the lack of users, so I thought of a few, implemented them, and reached out to as many people I knew with that criteria to try to have a userbase for each.
In terms of your concern in regards to men, truth is I made the category for women after receiving a suggestion from a partner of mine who wanted to have a page displaying women to feature in her newsletter, and I decided to implement it as a bit of an extra. See that I did not add any other category like that around, it was a lot of extra work and it did not feel worth it. Other than that, keep in mind you may search for any of the categories for only men by selecting said filter, so I don't think you are so right to call me out on the supposed wrongdoing.
Religion & political ideology were 2 filters I wanted to implement prior to launch but I did not fearing controversy, specially as a small & young maker trying to get a (good) reputation. Then again, I might implement those in the future, as the website grows. Thanks for the reminder.
Overall, I would say that your comment has a good basis, but you seem to have omitted the fact that the website's core concept is to find diverse users, as in minorities & underprivileged group, and men don't happen to be one of those groups. Nonetheless, if the random women section bothers too many people (I've received a few complaints sadly, in spite of the plenty of positive comments that many people have sent me in regards to it), I might get rid of it and replace it for something a little bit more customizable. I will see. Thank you for the insight.
Um. Relative to the mainstream / status quo most of these are different. It might also be relative to what Twitter typically suggests. That is, if Twitter's suggestion are a reflection of the composition of the user base and Twitter isn't composed of a fitting percentage of different, then different will be over looked.
You might have a point. But trying framing it as useful and constructive instead of bitter and confused.
How “different” a person is has little to no influence on how good their content is. Being “diverse” doesn’t make you great. Being great makes you great.
Instead of showing who people are upfront, show their tweets without their identities attached, and let people follow based off of that. Anything else is just a diversity virtue signal.
Sounds fair. I don't like judging people by their physique and identity indeed, and I think most people would agree with me on this. Taking this into account, your point makes sense - why focus on showing different people based on their identities entirely?
There's a couple reasons as to why I believe that it makes sense in the platform. To begin with, the concept that started off this project 6 months ago was simply to make women more present in people's following lists. This was an entirely identity based project from that point, attempting to increase & amplify the voices of a particular group. Needless to say, with a concept set up & validated, I kept going in the same direction.
Secondly, while some of the filters of the platform are identity-based (ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ...) I also implemented multiple based on their background (low-income, migrants, language...) as well as based on their interests. I plan on expanding this group further, as I find it extremely valuable to better diversify our feeds. There is much more other than whether someone is a man or a woman, a person of colour, or a person with disabilities.
There is a third reason, one which I might not be too fond of, but thing is, in order to achieve diversity, people tend to prefer going about it through people, faces, and real identities. As a rather "private" and ambiguous person online, I've noticed how hard it has been for me to have recognition or validity, since all in all people can just judge me by my work and ideas. Had I gone this path with the platform, it would have likely failed, and I could have not contributed to solving this issue.
All in all, your idea is good in an ethical perspective, but when it comes to its implementation, it's absolutely useless, unless you change people's mindsets (very hard, specially because you also have to change some people's mindsets in terms of diversity already...). Then again I will see if I can implement something like this in the future, I think I might be able to figure something out. Thanks for your insight!
> I made the category for women after receiving a suggestion from a partner
You are still the one that made the decision to implement a one-sided feature, though, so you considered it worth it.
> so I don't think you are so right to call me out on the supposed wrongdoing.
The "supposed wrongodoing" is highlighting only women in the home page, which you do. It was not about not having other filters.
> Religion & political ideology were 2 filters I wanted to implement prior to launch but I did not fearing controversy
I wonder why you thought that providing only the categories that appeal only to a minority of people [1] was going to not be controversial.
> the website's core concept is to find diverse users, as in minorities & underprivileged group
That is not stated anywhere. The home page says clearly: "Search for Twitter users who share your interests and come from different backgrounds".
> men don't happen to be one of those groups
That is exactly the ideological bias I was calling out.
Men make the majority of
* homeless people
* suicides
* people in prison (and get longer sentences for the same crimes)
* work related deaths (and the majority of the workforce in dangerous job)
* victims of violence and homicides
* deaths in war
Women are overrepresented in college degrees, and are the majority in fields like medicine, education, psychology, and the humanities.
The "pay gap" is a myth, since the difference in average earning is driven mainly by life choices and not by discrimination. The same is true for the lower percentage of women in tech.
The idea that men are a "privileged" category is just ideology, like anything that prescribes a common characteristic to a broad group. And the idea that "POC" think differently that "white people" is, frankly, racist.
You made your point already. Turning this into your own gender flamewar is a serious abuse of a Show HN thread. I pointed out elsewhere that you were hounding the submitter in a way that breaks the site guidelines, but going full flamewar breaks the site guidelines for different reasons. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this on HN again.
I'm sorry, I find your comment pretty ridiculous in multiple aspects, and I'm honestly surprised you truly feel this way about the platform.
What I understand from it, and the parent comment, is that you're simply stuck in the beliefs of "diversity has ruined men", men have it worse, etc. Unfortunately I might not be able to change your mind, but I hope you understand that the idea of the website was to make groups that were less easy to be found on Twitter (I'll ask, how many women, people of colour, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities and many other groups do you follow? Going to take the risk and say that not as many as men, by a big margin...).
If that upsets you that's unfortunate, I am grateful for the people who were happy with the platform and sent me awesome positive comments. If you want to have a men-centric platform, you may make it yourself, go ahead. It's ironic how you seem to be the kind of person who would have benefited from such a website, getting you out of an echo chamber and seeing multiple perspectives.
People are allowed to build communities around minorities. I don't get why there's white male backlash about being "left out" every time this happens.
What's the point of quoting male suicide statistics at a person trying to build out access to minority voices? Nobody is challenging men's ability to form their own communities. This is one app, privately developed, with a specific purpose.
You already made your point at length and with considerable energy, I would even say aggression, elsewhere in the thread. Now you're hounding someone. That's not cool. Please stop now.
I just think you misunderstood the purpose of the platform entirely, and tried to connect it to some completely different issues. I do know that men go through issues, I believe in equality, and I am aware of the areas where they have it worse. That said, it is factual that most Twitter user's following lists are made up by a majority of white men, and I believe that if they had more variety, we could see and understand the world from multiple perspectives. That is the only issue I tackled in the platform.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle (gender war in this case), which is explicitly against the site guidelines. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and please don't create accounts to do that with.
That's interesting. My wife had our first child this year and hasn't returned to work yet but wants to. We're both concerned there will be discrimination explaining the resume gap is due to a child.
By default the Bio is collapsed. So I am supposed to follow people because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability, in order to have a more diverse Twitter feed?
That is some major virtue signalling right there. If that is how you define diversity for yourself you are mistaken. I can surround myself with 50 POC and 20 LGBTQ+ people and still gain no diversity of thoughts.
IMHO it would be far better if you handpicked people, asked them questions (short interview via Twitter) and then portrayed their profile on your website. Of course you should select users by some algorithm that optimally doesn't adhere to your pretty obvious political bias.
>I can surround myself with 50 POC and 20 LGBTQ+ people and still gain no diversity of thoughts.
If you only ever follow one certain demographic, this tool could be useful to find some other demographics to mix in. You may not get difference of, say, political opinions, but you will absolutely get different perspective on things.
Wanting to have gay people on your Twitter, specifically, doesn't nullify the fact that there's diversity amongst white males. Nobody's community is being threatened by this app. It's just a way to mix it up.
True, the bio being collapsed was critiqued by several people prior to the launch, and I simply kept it this way to be able to show more users at once, and for aesthetic reasons. You may still search by certain users based on the keywords, which you can insert in the search box. Keep in mind once you check out one of the users listed in Twiverse, you can always read their tweets, bio & other to decide for yourself if they are worth following. Appreciate your feedback though!
[+] [-] mckee1|7 years ago|reply
Super cool!
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_jones|7 years ago|reply
Personally I think the conversation on this thread needs to stop thinking this product criminalizes content choice. If my interest is engineering blogs and most engineering blogs are written by men its ok for me to predominantly follow engineering blogs. What this product (to me) is there for is when I want to branch out I have an option for doing that in a powerful new way.
Finally (offtopic) I think we do need to have more civil conversations about virtue signaling. I don't think this product or announcement is virtue signaling. But virtue signaling IS a big problem in Silicon Valley, people shouting from the rooftops how they want to do good before quietly slinking back into a board room to do bad.
Good job OP, I'm not a hardcore twitter user but will definitely follow this projects development and wish it the best.
[+] [-] h43z|7 years ago|reply
To make this easier for the little guy I played with the thought of retweet incentivization. This could start as simple as http://peepmore.43z.one which I put together in an afternoon. Would be interested to hear what others think if this model.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morajabi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elvinyung|7 years ago|reply
One minor question, how much does becoming a patron affect rankings?
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamdave|7 years ago|reply
One suggestion if I might? I noticed some of the imagery didn't seem to immediately 'grok' with their topics. For example "Sports" shows a photo of a bicycle propped against a wall in what looks like someone's flat, while "Arts" shows a photo of a basketball court, "Animation" showed a photography studio and the "Comedy" topic has a group shot of business suit types (albeit in a 'silly' pose).
It was a little odd, definitely nothing that breaks the platform but it may help 'discovery' to make images a bit less...ambiguous given the topic they're related to? I think sports and my mind goes to team sports and not necessarily riding a bike to work (the image looks like an average commuter bicycle versus a racing bike) so maybe that's on me to make the mental adjustment when assuming the connectedness of topics.
Otherwise, neat idea and service!
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
That's a valid suggestion. I pulled the images from Unsplash (free to use), and needless to say, there's not really an endless assortment of pictures there, so I did with what I found, sadly. It is definitely something to improve upon, maybe I will get someone to do the photography for some of the topics, or alternatively go for a design. In reality I am not exactly fond of the execution of the categories - in the end they're sort of a filter, so I could have simply created a "super-page" where you could have those interests listed as filters, and could have found users sharing more than 1 category. On top of that, currently the platform has a fixed amount of categories, and it does not allow users to add themselves to any other interest, which is a bit limiting and unfortunate. Because of that, in the future I might redo this section entirely, which could help fix the issue you raised at the same time.
Thanks for the feedback!
[+] [-] PascLeRasc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
What are my future plans in this regard though? When the site gets past 1K users, I will start brainstorming and developing a new way for users to select their categories. Likely through a textbox vs multiple checkboxes, where people could type the areas they are into and they would autocomplete. I'd like to also let users suggest categories, eventually maybe even let them create their own interests. Could be exciting!
[+] [-] karmakaze|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PascLeRasc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexanderisora|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhampac|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seapunk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morajabi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DeusExMachina|7 years ago|reply
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only sanctioned different background seems to be "POC" (what does that even mean), "LGBTQ+" and "with disability".
The home page sports a "check 1.000 inspiring women" but not a "1.000 inspiring men". I guess only inspiring women are worth following.
But actually they don't even need to be inspiring, since they also have a "random women" section. I thought propping up some people based solely on their gender was sexist. I guess it's not when we do it for women.
Also, a fairly glaring omission in the topics seems to be religion. And I say it as a non believer. It looks like non-religious people won't be allowed to look for someone with a different background.
In the end, the site is yours, and you can of course list, or not list, whomever you please. But the claim of discovering people from "different backgrounds" seems to me disingenuous at best.
More accurate, given the current content, would be "a few, politically-sanctioned backgrounds".
[+] [-] vertis|7 years ago|reply
Get it out there for people to try and give feedback on.
I appreciate the effort and thinking that has gone into a product like this.
Sure there are a whole bunch of features that I would love to see added but I'm sure that will come with time.
The fact that it targets PoC, LGBTQ+ and Women is a fantastic start. I remember an article that went around on HN a while back that analyzed the gender balance of twitter follows, and the results were not good.
Working on diversity in tech and on twitter and highlighting women over men is not sexist, it's pushing the needle back in a direction that it needs to go in.
Men are not default.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
I understand it might feel biased with the current filters, but I could not have endless filters in the platform right on launch, considering the lack of users, so I thought of a few, implemented them, and reached out to as many people I knew with that criteria to try to have a userbase for each.
In terms of your concern in regards to men, truth is I made the category for women after receiving a suggestion from a partner of mine who wanted to have a page displaying women to feature in her newsletter, and I decided to implement it as a bit of an extra. See that I did not add any other category like that around, it was a lot of extra work and it did not feel worth it. Other than that, keep in mind you may search for any of the categories for only men by selecting said filter, so I don't think you are so right to call me out on the supposed wrongdoing.
Religion & political ideology were 2 filters I wanted to implement prior to launch but I did not fearing controversy, specially as a small & young maker trying to get a (good) reputation. Then again, I might implement those in the future, as the website grows. Thanks for the reminder.
Overall, I would say that your comment has a good basis, but you seem to have omitted the fact that the website's core concept is to find diverse users, as in minorities & underprivileged group, and men don't happen to be one of those groups. Nonetheless, if the random women section bothers too many people (I've received a few complaints sadly, in spite of the plenty of positive comments that many people have sent me in regards to it), I might get rid of it and replace it for something a little bit more customizable. I will see. Thank you for the insight.
[+] [-] bemmu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|7 years ago|reply
You might have a point. But trying framing it as useful and constructive instead of bitter and confused.
[+] [-] matte_black|7 years ago|reply
Instead of showing who people are upfront, show their tweets without their identities attached, and let people follow based off of that. Anything else is just a diversity virtue signal.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
There's a couple reasons as to why I believe that it makes sense in the platform. To begin with, the concept that started off this project 6 months ago was simply to make women more present in people's following lists. This was an entirely identity based project from that point, attempting to increase & amplify the voices of a particular group. Needless to say, with a concept set up & validated, I kept going in the same direction.
Secondly, while some of the filters of the platform are identity-based (ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ...) I also implemented multiple based on their background (low-income, migrants, language...) as well as based on their interests. I plan on expanding this group further, as I find it extremely valuable to better diversify our feeds. There is much more other than whether someone is a man or a woman, a person of colour, or a person with disabilities.
There is a third reason, one which I might not be too fond of, but thing is, in order to achieve diversity, people tend to prefer going about it through people, faces, and real identities. As a rather "private" and ambiguous person online, I've noticed how hard it has been for me to have recognition or validity, since all in all people can just judge me by my work and ideas. Had I gone this path with the platform, it would have likely failed, and I could have not contributed to solving this issue.
All in all, your idea is good in an ethical perspective, but when it comes to its implementation, it's absolutely useless, unless you change people's mindsets (very hard, specially because you also have to change some people's mindsets in terms of diversity already...). Then again I will see if I can implement something like this in the future, I think I might be able to figure something out. Thanks for your insight!
[+] [-] komali2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeusExMachina|7 years ago|reply
You are still the one that made the decision to implement a one-sided feature, though, so you considered it worth it.
> so I don't think you are so right to call me out on the supposed wrongdoing.
The "supposed wrongodoing" is highlighting only women in the home page, which you do. It was not about not having other filters.
> Religion & political ideology were 2 filters I wanted to implement prior to launch but I did not fearing controversy
I wonder why you thought that providing only the categories that appeal only to a minority of people [1] was going to not be controversial.
> the website's core concept is to find diverse users, as in minorities & underprivileged group
That is not stated anywhere. The home page says clearly: "Search for Twitter users who share your interests and come from different backgrounds".
> men don't happen to be one of those groups
That is exactly the ideological bias I was calling out.
Men make the majority of
Women are overrepresented in college degrees, and are the majority in fields like medicine, education, psychology, and the humanities.The "pay gap" is a myth, since the difference in average earning is driven mainly by life choices and not by discrimination. The same is true for the lower percentage of women in tech.
The idea that men are a "privileged" category is just ideology, like anything that prescribes a common characteristic to a broad group. And the idea that "POC" think differently that "white people" is, frankly, racist.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18521818 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
What I understand from it, and the parent comment, is that you're simply stuck in the beliefs of "diversity has ruined men", men have it worse, etc. Unfortunately I might not be able to change your mind, but I hope you understand that the idea of the website was to make groups that were less easy to be found on Twitter (I'll ask, how many women, people of colour, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities and many other groups do you follow? Going to take the risk and say that not as many as men, by a big margin...).
If that upsets you that's unfortunate, I am grateful for the people who were happy with the platform and sent me awesome positive comments. If you want to have a men-centric platform, you may make it yourself, go ahead. It's ironic how you seem to be the kind of person who would have benefited from such a website, getting you out of an echo chamber and seeing multiple perspectives.
[+] [-] komali2|7 years ago|reply
What's the point of quoting male suicide statistics at a person trying to build out access to minority voices? Nobody is challenging men's ability to form their own communities. This is one app, privately developed, with a specific purpose.
[+] [-] DeusExMachina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522177 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kjjjzzzz7zg|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18521818 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] leetrout|7 years ago|reply
Do you have a handy source for your stats?
[+] [-] dna_polymerase|7 years ago|reply
That is some major virtue signalling right there. If that is how you define diversity for yourself you are mistaken. I can surround myself with 50 POC and 20 LGBTQ+ people and still gain no diversity of thoughts.
IMHO it would be far better if you handpicked people, asked them questions (short interview via Twitter) and then portrayed their profile on your website. Of course you should select users by some algorithm that optimally doesn't adhere to your pretty obvious political bias.
[+] [-] komali2|7 years ago|reply
If you only ever follow one certain demographic, this tool could be useful to find some other demographics to mix in. You may not get difference of, say, political opinions, but you will absolutely get different perspective on things.
Wanting to have gay people on your Twitter, specifically, doesn't nullify the fact that there's diversity amongst white males. Nobody's community is being threatened by this app. It's just a way to mix it up.
[+] [-] tcodina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]