(b) The legitimacy of a platform is based on what is said there, not the other way around. You view Voat as less legitimate than Reddit because you disagree with what is said on Voat more than you disagree with what is said on Reddit. If someone said something bigoted on Reddit, would you view it as more legitimate? No? Then why do you think anyone else sees it that way?
Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
431–440 of 859 posts
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#432> Before, around 2010-2012, people who disagreed would usually leave it at that and walk away respectfully
I can tell you've never played Call of Duty.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#433I don't know if I know the solution, but I know one thing that isn't the solution: silencing everyone who disagrees with you. A lot of the people complaining about "toxicity" on the internet seem to be under the impression that if we "deplatform" the so-called toxic people, that will fix things. But on the contrary, that makes things worse. If someone says something awful on the internet, and everyone either ignores…
The data suggests that deplatforming works. Milo; Katie Hopkins; InfoWars et al have all lost their former agenda-setting influence following deplatforming. And studies have shown that banning hate sub-Reddits does _not_ cause that content to “pop up elsewhere”, it causes it to decline overall. It’s important to remember too there are incentives for people to argue and behave otherwise: FB, Twitter, hate-speech monge…
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not seen that definition anywhere, or a definition like that for any other specific word.
This might sound mean because it is text, but it isn't, it's just answering your question. But the word (actually term) you're looking for is social justice warrior.
> someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view
But the article does mention:
> they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments
and
> unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing
which does seen to have plenty overlap with the general definition and notion of someone who would exhibit toxic behaviour.
Ironically, it seems to be a term (SJW as well as 'toxic') that was invented (SJW) or re-applied (toxic) just to have one group of people label another group of people. Which is double-ironic because neither the labeling nor the behaviour validates ones own point or invalidates the other's point, yet doesn't further any conversation or discussion. It's practically just inflammatory filler.
(by the way, no, it didn't sound mean and I do like to review the popular labels and circular discussions from time to time -- much healthier for me than to be in the middle of it all the time)
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#435I myself have some opinions that are controversial and not politically correct and for reference I'm a well-educated software engineer. There are people out there with far more extreme opinions than me, and the Internet gives them the opportunity to share them.
And the reward of angering and fighting with people who disagree, with no real consequences.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counterpoint to that is that allowing platforms for toxic views to exist and grow (a) "normalizes" these views and (b) makes it very easy for them to recruit new members, since they have a "legitimate" platform to spread their hate from. Personally I am fine with them isolating themselves in cesspools like Voat. While they are not being exposed to contrary views there, they are also not exposing large amounts of…
Isolation / segregation / echo chamber (whatever you want to call it) is amplifying toxicity. We used to socialize in the streets, in the marketplace, in towns. Maybe the town's butcher was known to be a bit of a racist hick, but he was still a decent shopkeeper and his kids went to the same school as yours, so you tolerated his antics. There was the town slut, the town's drunk, the guy who was a known communist symp…
If we allow them space on our open platforms, without demanding that they tolerate our views, that does not result in any kind of real conversation, it just allows them to spread their toxic views around.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#437I don't know if I know the solution, but I know one thing that isn't the solution: silencing everyone who disagrees with you. A lot of the people complaining about "toxicity" on the internet seem to be under the impression that if we "deplatform" the so-called toxic people, that will fix things. But on the contrary, that makes things worse. If someone says something awful on the internet, and everyone either ignores…
That is not remotely what is being suggested.
Toxicity is when a site devoted to people mourning a synagogue massacre is overwhelmed by spamming neo-nazis.
Toxicity is annihilating a site's function: a site where climate scientists discuss findings needs to be free of an flood of spam from climate change deniers and paid petroleum sock puppets. Such a site exists for people to do their job not waste every day repeating the same basic information available elsewhere easier to people who came intentionally to disrupt.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#438Discussions like this are frustrating to me because they always seem to skip over what feels like a crucial element: Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone? I get the feeling, in general, when people talk about wanting to "Do Something" about this sort of thing, they are always focused on managing the symptom and never focused on addressing the cause. Frequently, when I try to bring this up, the caus…
This made it valuable enough to be worth destroying.
So all kinds of bad actors started creating appealing, emotional, and false or misleading content aimed at this kind of sharing.
Polarisation is deliberate. Some of it from the media, some of it from parties, some of it from random bored channers, some of it from the unemployed and upset, and some from intelligence agencies and their contractors.
(This has had even worse effects in countries where democracy and media are young and fragile.)
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who had a seven year account banned from YC previously for debating against socialism, you're wrong. Regular debate is labeled toxic all the time if you are anywhere to the right of pure Marxism on the political scale.
The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online.…
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#440Discussions like this are frustrating to me because they always seem to skip over what feels like a crucial element: Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone? I get the feeling, in general, when people talk about wanting to "Do Something" about this sort of thing, they are always focused on managing the symptom and never focused on addressing the cause. Frequently, when I try to bring this up, the caus…