Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#571

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

Jaygles wrote: post #50

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #32

Stop responding to it. No seriously, just stop. This isn't a "complex problem that needs nuanced technical and legislative solutions". Back in the old day, there was this saying. "Do not feed the trolls". Sadly, we've forgotten that. Our current approach is, "create rigorous 30 minute point by point take down videos to defeat their point of view". Our urge to debate and correct people who are wrong just fuels them ma…

I think its a fallacy at this point to assume the people pushing toxic or objectively wrong viewpoints are trolls. If it ever was 100% trolls, that time has passed and their target audience is expanding their work in earnest. We now have people who 100% believe objectively wrong things and have an obsession to spread their belief as fact. Edit: If there is a solution to this issue, it will depend on the ratio of thes…

I think it's worth expanding your definitions, eg

trolls: people who say absurd or mean things for lulz fools: people who truly believe absurd or mean things because they are naive or gullible scammers: people who say absurd or mean things for profit, and may present as fools or absurdist trolls when challenged

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#572

Post by yoz-y » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #359

I 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…

> I don't know if I know the solution, but I know one thing that isn't the solution: silencing everyone who disagrees with you.

I found that ignoring people on IRC who would sprinkle any conversation with racist or misplaced remarks helped me quite a bit. Of course it only affects me, but even after polite attempts to steer the conversation it never changed. Same on Twitter, at some point there is one of me and many of them, the cost to engage is just too high.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#573

Post by tptacek » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #562

tptacek wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you mean to say is that "the subset of spaces that does not include Voat and Gab is an echo chamber", you are probably saying something about your own views that you might not mean to say.

How so? To be clear, I definitely don't agree with most of what is said on Voat, and I'm not really familiar with Gab.

You might want to familiarize yourself more with services before making sweeping arguments about what excluding them means for the discourse.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#574

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #427

kerkeslager wrote: post #359

I 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…

On the one hand it is a reality that leftist ideologies gained a comfortable ascendancy in the major cultural engines of America and that is going to be leveraged as political power. Particularly education, the tech industry and Hollywood.

On the other hand, there is the ongoing background corruption of power afoot. Taking power, utilising it and branding anyone who disagrees as 'toxic' is going to cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering, as it has in the past every time a group uses power in an unchecked fashion.

Revolutions are often started by people who were deplatformed, it doesn't help when the situation is serious. If I recall correctly; Hitler, Stalin, Galileo and Gandhi are all people who were deplatformed and imprisoned. Jesus was deplatformed rather violently. Deplatforming is not a tool with a particularly proud history of success and prudent implementation; and its failures tend to be spectacular. Two sides sticking to reasoned debate, explanation, moderation and compromise has a much better track record of not-so-bad outcomes.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#575

Post by thebokehwokeh2 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #485

anigbrowl wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the average left-leaning person today doesn't see bigots even as people any more. I spend the bulk of my time studying extremist discourse and communities. Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong ethnic/religious/political group are either not people or at best inferior people, and direct their efforts to promoting those views, planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that b…

> Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong ethnic/religious/political group are either not people or at best inferior people, and direct their efforts to promoting those views, planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior. Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group. Surely we can behave better than the bigots? >…

> Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.

> Surely we can behave better than the bigots?

In a vacuum, I'd agree. As in, in the real world, I would agree. If this were a true human contact based forum, the voice of many regular, busy people will always trump the voice of a few raging bigots. Culturally, we've moved past that; at least in urban centres where this sort of discussion could actually happen.

On the internet, it is different. Posting on the internet is gamified. The rules are simple. To get more influence, you need to be upvoted/favorited/hearted. If your opinion sucks, you are downvoated/blocked/etc.

It's simple, right? But it's also very easily gamed via astroturfing/botting/upvote-downvote farming/influence manipulation. Case in point, any political subreddit prior to the general election in 2016.

Because of this fact, any attempt at good faith discussions in popular forums simply do not exist anymore. Just take a look at how many garbage posts are at the top of any popular subreddit vs actually insightful posts.

Politicians who use these to gain grassroots support have learned to game the system. And enterprising individuals from all over the world are flocking to them. There is big business in upvote/downvote farms, botnets, and influence manipulation via social engineering. Clearly none of these is done in good faith.

Places that have been deplatformed are not always simply people who harbor alternative opinions from the norm. They are places or groups of people who wilfully try debase discussion via the aforementioned methods.

There are bad actors on all sides of any discussion, but it seems to me like organized bad faith is always at the core of the most toxic, polarized places on the internet.

To fix polarization, we must fix the gaming mechanics of these places. More moderation for cheaters is priority number 1.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#576

Post by watwut » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

creato wrote: post #549

anigbrowl wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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. I think an equally large problem is reasonable-seeming left…

Maybe the part of problem is blaming left wing for right wing actions and opinions, bit never blaming right wing for left wing opinions.

Some peoples actions are excused and excused and explained, others are not.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#577

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

nkkollaw wrote: post #245

The web mirrors people. How do you stop people from behaving like they do..? And why would you want to? Who should decide how people should behave (beyond established laws, of course)? If people don't do something illegal that should be reported, they're being people. You have nice people, assholes, politically correct, politically incorrect, etc.

And mirrors change behaviours. You don't find people preening before blank walls or open spaces. The mirror informs and provides feedback.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#578

Post by panzagl » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

thebokehwokeh2 wrote: post #487

djsumdog wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize Voat exists right? And Gab? I wrote this about how Voat grew: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/voat-what-went-wrong/ Deplatforming was a big part of that. Deplatforming didn't stop Milo. His base dropped him because he started defending hebeaphiles & pedophile / men being attracted to teens/pre-teens/boys (there's actually something sadder here; with Milo not realizing he was himself abused ... there's an e…

I'd argue that in this case, it deplatforming absolutely worked in the way intended. There are 2 factors at play here. People who are willing to argue in good faith, and people who are simply trying to put forth an agenda regardless of what anyone says. Those who likely moved to Gab and Voat and 4/8chan are likely persons that fit the latter description. There is no need to even have discussions with people like thes…

Deplatforming can't work- otherwise the world would now be as white-bread homophobic and misogynistic as it was in the 50's when blacks, gays, and women were deplatformed.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#579

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

crmrc114 wrote: post #57

Jaygles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its a fallacy at this point to assume the people pushing toxic or objectively wrong viewpoints are trolls. If it ever was 100% trolls, that time has passed and their target audience is expanding their work in earnest. We now have people who 100% believe objectively wrong things and have an obsession to spread their belief as fact. Edit: If there is a solution to this issue, it will depend on the ratio of thes…

When someone on the street corner tells you the world is ending you ignore them. You dont need a complex technical or social solution. When someone tells me that xyz plant oil cures cancer or the earth is flat... I ignore them. If I want to be a troll I may play along or challenge them if its fun. That's the internet. There have always been nutters- they just found other nutters to talk with and you get a loud feedba…

'The world as we know it is ending and people like crmrc114 are to blame. There s/he goes right now, messing up the world as we know it!. You know what to do people.'

Added as we know it because it's actually quite easy to persuade people that what they like about the world is under dire threat, as opposed to the objective existence of the planet or life thereon. People's individual worlds tend to be quite small and it's easy and socially/politically profitable to market to them with threats rather than inducements to expansion with all the unpredictability that entails.

Now, imagine that you've been identified to or by an angry group as the cause of their dissatisfaction. This is a very different dynamic from 'someone on a street corner' that you can usually safely ignore, and against whom you probably feel you could defend yourself if necessary. I don't think you'd be so dismissive of nutters in groups if you were negatively impacted.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#580

Post by randcraw » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

eqdw wrote: post #274

Discussions 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…

> Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone?

I think it's because online, each of us is disembodied and anonymous. We're a nobody. And nobody wants that. So the quickest way to become somebody is to join a group -- ideally a group that seems to be a winner, that offers easy compelling answers to hard problems... especially answers that somehow favor you and others like you. That's populism. Populists are fearless and decisive and sure they know what's true and right. They also know that everybody who's not on their team doesn't get it. So the quicker you join them, the sooner you become a somebody, a player. And if everyone else like you joins that team and you don't, you could degenerate into something worse than a nobody... an enemy.

Combine that with where fame (and leadership?) seems to have evolved in our culture -- where becoming famous is the result of doing whatever it takes to attract attention. Even if if you lack any substance at all, if you somehow stand out, now you're no longer a nobody. You can't be ignored any more. And in the echo chambers of today's hollowed-out media and bored internet, that seems to be enough for most folks-who'd-rather-not-think to see you as outstanding, and an opinion leader.

Those two phenomena don't sound like much, but they do help explain how an empty angry bombastic boob could become President of the United States of America and split the country like nothing has since slavery.