Bah, I recently deleted my 5 year account with nearly 4000 comment karma on Reddit. Reddit is toxic. Saying something benign but mildly disagreeable caused some people to get emotional, and I do mean exceedingly emotional like you just crapped in their car and had sex with their girlfriend. I am not talking about politics, but subreddits like javascript and programming . Worse than being toxic, Reddit is an echo cham…
Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
681–690 of 757 posts
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. In today's age of near-universal literacy, "uneducated" is just a euphemism for views disliked by the the side in control of the education apparatus. While thought-policing media, schools, churches, and any other possible venue of "indoctrination" may "work" to a superficial extent, it mostly just completely destroys the credibility of your authority and leads to stunning implosion and destabilization. See: the…
Education is not indoctrination. Education teaches critical thinking, science, history, numerical literacy, and the general skill and toolset to differentiate fact from falsehood, rhetoric, and manipulation-- regardless of where it is coming from. Education is an immune system for the mind. Generally it is the manipulators who don't like an educated populace, because it decreases their power. They tend to be the ones…
This tends to last until someone realizes that an educational system is a wonderful indoctrination tool to advance their goals. Often enough this is followed by enacting that.
This isn't new. "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man."
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. You seem to be experiencing your own conspiracy theory. Not every popular idea has some puppet master controlling it. It's completely understandable that supporters of a widely ridiculed underdog would gloat about his success. It was just another election, and just another president, not the end of the world. America hasn't collapsed. Nonetheless, I don't want to censor your ideas. Let people make their own mind…
If you don't believe there are massive psychological exercises successfully influencing, and arguably radicalizing people, occurring on the internet, specifically on Reddit, you're being willfully ignorant. Or a Trump supporter, but I repeat myself. I realize that the topic of brainwashing is loaded enough that any rational discussion of it can easily be derailed by someone by simply making the strawman you just made…
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#684Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#685I wonder when being toxic will become illegal.
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#686I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
Allow me to poke holes: - You've just created opportunities for sites who don't participate to attract customers. "No reputation requirements, we don't judge you". Great for curated niches, bad for mass market. - People with diverging but still main stream political views getting their reputation docked by those in the other camp who control the site. It can flow both ways. Reputation starts to get linked to the echo…
So for point 1: I'd say let "no reputation" sites attract customers. If people want to participate in completely anonymous groups they are responsible for the groups they choose and the opinions in them. Good on them.
But for the rest of the people who lack the awareness, knowledge, or motivation to seek out these communities, we have a responsibility to find a way to make non-anonymous communication less toxic.
For point 2: Knowing the reputation of a user for the site you are visiting as well as their global reputation helps the reader make a more informed decision about the worth of this person's comments to them than without. Lets use politics. Assume a user with liberal tendencies argues intelligently with conservatives in Fox News comments where his comments are downvoted because they are diverging. They also comment thoughtfully on r/SandersForPresident where his views are appreciated and upvoted. When I see this persons comments on Fox, I will see his fox new's score is -128 and his overall score is 3. A troll on the other hand may have a -348 on Fox news and -828 overall. From this I can conclude conservatives don't like the first user, but some other people do like the first user. I can also conclude the second user is a troll, or doesn't ever participate in groups that share somewhat similar viewpoint. All of which you can see in their history, where their scores for various sites are listed, perhaps you could even bookmark scores for specific sites you want to see. Of course, this is binary, and can be improved with dimensionality, but is still better than nothing at all.
For point 3: Hell, what is someone hacks your bank account? I think a bigger concern would be someone automating downvoting of your account or upvoting of their own. Which would require more thought.
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#687Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my biggest issues with reddit is post history. Oops this person posted something we don't like 3 weeks ago, dismiss his post and attack him. Oops, this person posted somewhere we don't like, ban them from the 46 subreddits I moderate. Oops this person posted for the first time in a default sub they have been subscribed to for 3 years today, ban him for brigading.
I imagine there are a few trade-offs when flicking the "post-history" switch either way. Post history On: You get to follow a users comment history. If you read an insightful comment by them, and want to read more, then having a history is nice. Users are people Post history partially On: e.g. comments could decay to anon after some period. (Cue the sites that collect all post data and match to users) Slightly increa…
For example you can make multiple identities easier. I make use of that here via firefox containers, it is quite nice.
You can make anonymous the default and track the user under the hood, allowing them to claim a post at a later point if they feel confident enough to attach their name to it.
You could limit who can see the user identity. Or only display something more vague than a specific identity, a profile-lite behind a one-time ID.
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#688I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
Even if you can make that work, that will only lead to the tyranny of the majority. You're filtering for the most common denominator opinions. I wouldn't want to be a part of this kind of sterilized community. And how will you solve brigading? All it takes is two large groups disagreeing on something, and your reputation goes down the drain if you're in the slightly smaller group.
An accounts "history" and "reputation" will be tied to each site. A liberal who posts regularly on echo chambers on both sides of the aisle will have a middle of the road reputation. On Fox news for example you'd see next to their comments:
FoxNews.com Rep: -123 Global Rep: 38
A high global rep is due to the high score posting comments on WashingtonPost articles. Where you would see:
WashPost.com Rep: 161 Global Rep: 38
I'd expect someone with a reputation of 0 to be an honest individual gaining views on both sides of an argument. Someone with a global rep of -1833 is probably a troll or someone who doesn't interact with "like-minded" people, which could of course be seen by looking at the history of where the reputation came from.
You as a consumer, would most likely flag site reps to show on all pages, so maybe you on every site you visit would see a users reputation like so regardless of the site you are on:
Current Site Rep: 3 FoxNews.com Rep: 283 WashPost.com Rep: -87 Global Rep: 221
And you could, of course, dig into their history of reputation, and even Hide/star particular users who you notice are trolls/note-worthy to you personally.
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#689Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There's no words that can make robots out of people" How do you explain cults? How do you explain the effects of advertising? How do you explain the uniform levels of discipline achieved by basic training? How do you explain phone scammers? How do you explain the success of the public relations industry? How do you explain Bernie Madoff? How do you explain cigarette smokers? How do you explain the effects of what we…
> How do you explain cults? People have strong drive to belong to an in-group. There are multiple experiments that assigning random markers to random people and making them participate in certain activities lead to "group cohesion" effects and people start assigning deep meaning to those markers, despite them being completely random. Cult is just when people take it to the extreme - likely because they didn't find sa…
My point is that there are large swaths of conservatives that have been radicalized by the last 25 years of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And now they are being told that mainstream media is lying about everything.
It's so complete in many people, that they don't hear themselves when they lay out their political motivations. The number of people whose primary goal in achieving any particular political end is to anger their political opponents is staggering. Its like a catch all if someone can't be convinced of the traditional conservative stance on an issue, they can fallback to "well, at least liberals will lose their minds".
This radicalization is primarily the cumulative effect of conservative media, and its villification of the left.
Cults can't exist without a confident authority figure dominating the flow of information to the adherents. These things don't just happen out of vacuums, without a leader in on the scam. Just because reading Dianetics is not 100% effective in converting to scientology, that does not mean that the book isn't an effective tool of persuasion, that combined with the other effects like ingroup psychology, can get people to join a cult that will bankrupt them without a second thought.
With regards to advertising, I mean the use of sex, patriotism, or other emotionally charged concepts to trigger positive associations with the subject being marketed. I don't claim that all people are impervious to all instances, I mean that enough people are susceptible to it, and it has persisted over a long enough period of time, that it has produced a significant amount of people with seriously warped views of how government works, how the 20th century played out, and what the powers that be are planning to execute imminently. I think there are literally people out there being primed to support whatever totalitarian aspirations Trump may have, and that they are being convinced of the righteousness of his cause. Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of people are being facetious when they refer to Donald Trump as "God Emperor"?
With regards to basic training, the effectiveness can be attributed directly to the process I describe. Convince people that they are in danger for long enough, reinforce this with threats and screaming. After the people are sufficiently scared, give them a path to escape the danger. Apply the imaginary danger proportionally to the level people stray from your prescribed path. You posit that since the danger is controlled and not as real as the grunts are lead to believe, the effect is somehow negated. It works in the military because you are isolated from any contrarian information by the military themselves. There's no source of information to tell the trainees that its a controlled, safe environment. It works in political echo chambers because the people have isolated themselves willingly. There's no _trusted_ source of information to temper the vitriol from the echo chamber.
Your model of people and how they take in and react to information ascribes a lot more agency and rational decision making than what I posit. Your argument is that since everyone technically has the tools available to them to become educated enough to not fall prey to devious persuasion, devious persuasion is automatically defanged, because all people avail themselves of all education.
Tobacco smoking, specifically nicotine addiction, is not a different mechanism at all. In fact it is a highly illuminating example that shows how insidious constant bombardment with persuasion can be. Nicotene has only the slightest physical withdrawal symptoms. The cravings smokers exhibit are a product of the brainwashing. People don't wake up in the middle of the night from cigarette cravings. They've convinced themselves that smoking a cigarette removes stress, instead of ensuring its perpetuation. When they crave the cigarette, they fantasize about how much they will enjoy it, but when they actually smoke it, addicts are surprised 20 times a day to find out they don't enjoy it at all. But this surprise doesn't free them from their mental prison. They are of the opinion that cigarettes modulate some completely unrelated stress in their life. Think of talking to a smoker, and just telling them how dumb they are, by repeating obvious facts that we all agree upon. How does that work out for you? They immediately put up defense mechanisms and dig in. But in their private moments, they know that everything you said was true. I posit that many Trump supporters are in the same predicament. They are faced with the prospect that their entire world view is wrong, that they aren't the woke genius's they've assured themselves to be, they are just Bernie Madoff investors, tools of Vladimir Putin, the choice to double down on supporting Donald Trump is no choice at all.
Trump supporters are addicted to him like Nicotene, and they will irrationally defend the Nicotene even as they cough and wheeze, because after all, whats more emasculating and cuckold-like than admitting you've been catfished by a charlatan to the very people that have been screaming this fact at you for over a year?
Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet
#690I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
So you're suggesting the Black Mirror Nose dive approach?
Black mirror is same vein, but different concept:
Getting loans, buying cars, via a single reputation score is different than giving people a tool to curate the content they wish to consume.
By having access to a "user's reputational history" across multiple sites, you can see where their reputation is coming from. Then you as a consumer of internet media, can choose what site reputation to put value on. Letting you curate and avoid toxicity, or live in your echo chamber if thats what you want.
Its like asking a couple friends if they'd loan their weed wacker to the new guy down the street, they say he acts kind of shady but has always brought back their garden tools. Same thing. You ask users of a couple sites how this other user has acted. They say he made some jokes, but also had some valid points here and there.
We don't then say, oh they made crude jokes, charge them an extra $1000 for rent.