71–80 of 859 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim wasn't that they're harmless, but that they're easy targets.
The claim was that people were motivated to argue by the ease of the target rather than by the genuine threat of harm. In the case of anti-vax, I don't agree. I think people see a threat to their kids and react accordingly.
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…
That's not remotely a new thing. Ever since bits could be sent over the wire we've had Dale Gribbles trying to spread their weirdass conspiracies using the web. Only difference is that back then it existed in the form of homemade webpages with remarkably bad color theory rather than the poorly punctuated social media posts of today.
What? What's wrong with it? The arrogance behind thinking "how do we fix the way everyone behaves"... jesus holy eff. Vigorous debate is good, even if you get manic israel vs palestine or weirdly spergy tabs vs spaces spats as a side effect. Writing is the tip of the iceberg. I used to run a forum, and the write versus read rates are enormous. 1 to 20+ ratios. Argument brings out the best ideas. That energetic passio…
Nope
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim wasn't that they're harmless, but that they're easy targets.
The claim was that people were motivated to argue by the ease of the target rather than by the genuine threat of harm. In the case of anti-vax, I don't agree. I think people see a threat to their kids and react accordingly.
What? What's wrong with it? The arrogance behind thinking "how do we fix the way everyone behaves"... jesus holy eff. Vigorous debate is good, even if you get manic israel vs palestine or weirdly spergy tabs vs spaces spats as a side effect. Writing is the tip of the iceberg. I used to run a forum, and the write versus read rates are enormous. 1 to 20+ ratios. Argument brings out the best ideas. That energetic passio…
> And people can detect between wisdom and dumbassery. Nope
You're crazy my dude(tte). I've been on the interbutts since 1991 and Usenet days, and it's exactly as it always was. The big difference is we have reporter ding dongs on Twitter thinking Twitter, aka the comments section they removed from their web presence, is the real world. Also old people on Facebook who never learned the lessons of being on Usenet in the early 1990s, aka arguing on the internet is a lame and addictive hobby.
There are minor accelerants for this; youtube really did have some kind of pathological radicalization rabbit hole in its recommendation engine for a while (now it's just boring and useless and shows you "more of the same" on "blue checked" accounts). And of course, the other media encourages polarization and demonization of the other for dumb short term. That's a purely American phenomenon, and nothing's going to change it until the people pushing this swill on MSNBC, Fox and CNN decide to change it.
You might not like to hear this, but you need to grow up a thick filter. People like to post mean/offensive stuff precisely because it is not the real world.
This has a purpose in society and it is deeply rooted in western ones.Romans did this during games in amphitheaters, in the latest centuries we had football, and now the medium shifts again where human speech and thought can be less restricted. Humans need such mediums to "vent" themselves,otherwise they do it through action.When they do this,most of the time,pragmatically speaking, it has not ended too well.
Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. You will realize that Social Media is designed in such a way intentionally to draw toxicity from society. No technology is neutral. Technology gives and technology takes away. Medium is the message. Communication evolved because of the medium. For every evolution, it gives something and it takes away something. From oral communication to the printing press to telegra…
Trump wasn't the first though, and contrast the coverage: Obama's digital strategy was lauded for its tech-savvy genius by the media, whereas Trump's campaign was linked by the same to white supremacists wrt Pepe the Frog etc.