“Better” could mean lots of things here. Including: more entertaining; higher quality discussion; more engagement; it’s surpassed a ‘critical mass’ of people to sustain a regular group of posters and a community; better memes; more intellectually diverse; higher frequency of high quality takes; the best takes are higher quality; more welcoming and accessible conversations etc.
The aims of EA Twitter are different to the forum. But I think the most important metrics are the “quantity of discussion” ones.
My impression is that:
Obvs, shit posting is fine if that’s what you want. But I think it’s useful to be clear what you mean when you say “better”. If someone was looking for high quality discussion about important ideas in the world, I would personally not recommend them EA Twitter.
If I was going to spend longer on this post, I'd make it more empirical and talk through evidence for/against the effectiveness of ACT.
As it is, I didn't want to spend significantly longer writing it, so I've gone for a summary of the core ideas -- so that readers can assess the vibe and see if it's something that sounds interesting to them.
This might have been the wrong call though.
Sorry that your experience of this has been rough.
Some quick thoughts I had whilst reading:
Sorry that the tone of the above is harsh -- I'm unsure if it's too harsh or whether this is the appropriate space for this comment.
I've err-ed on the side of posting because it feels relevant and important.
Maybe imperative sentences will always tend read as preachy. I’m not sure.