Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 859 posts

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

#351

Post by freehunter »

krick wrote: post #319

There is nothing to fix, except for the attitude of those who think there is something to be fixed, because essentially it's they who demand something unreasonable: censoring of the free speech. It is unreasonable, because that assumes somebody (the person or group, who "fixes" the problem) can and must decide, what is good and bad in regards of what you are saying. And unless this person is you, you always will be d…

There definitely is something to fix, and it has nothing to do with free speech. Something about text communications makes people much more aggressive than they would be face to face. People wouldn’t say half the things they say online if they had to say them out loud.

PM, public forum, real names on Facebook, it doesn’t matter. Something inherent to text communications makes people more toxic than they would be in person. It’s not a free speech issue.

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

#352

Post by amatecha »

kazinator wrote: post #237
scottlocklin wrote: post #77

>I've noticed a huge uptick in the toxicity online in the last 5-7 years. 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…

I've been on dial-up bulletin boards since 1983, Usenet since around the same 1991. Though in some ways it's the same, here is the difference: it has become more diverse. In 1991, the people you might have conversed with on Usenet were a lot similar to you. Of course, if we go to some comp.lang.* newsgroup or whatever, people are similar even today. But I mean that if you went into any newsgroup whatsoever in 1991, o…

Yeah I've been online since ~92 and have been saying approximately the same thing as well. Back then you hop onto IRC and you're generally talking with academics and programmers from around the world. Browse any web directories and it's extremely information-rich.

There was a real technical or situational hurdle to even be present on the net back then, and I think most users had a sense of wonder and perhaps respect for the platform they were privileged to even get a glimpse into and partake in. Maybe? Today the amount of low-effort/low-value thoughtless vitriol makes up a much much larger percentage of the communication and web content than "back in the day". Spend but a few moments and you will encounter some flamebait/sensationalistic noise. It used to be a lot harder to be subjected to such stuff. Tragedy of the internet commons, or something.

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

#353

Post by el_cujo »

CM30 wrote: post #21

Truth be told, the most practical solution is to stop centralising everything and using these giant social networking sites that force people with nothing in common together. The bigger your audience gets and the less focused on any one topic it is, the harder it is to moderate/keep under the control, and the more drama you'll inevitably have when groups clash there. Smaller internet forums, subreddits, Discord/Slack…

Unfortunately, I don't think it's as simple as "just go back to smaller groups". For companies, more users = more revenue, there isn't realy much incentive to not try and pull in as many people as possible. And then for most normal users, if they here about some big site, they're inclined to join that so they don't miss out on the the funny tik tok memes/all of their friends being on instagram/etc. For them, what benefit is there to a smaller site where you can't get as many followers or where your friends/favorite celebrity isn't a member.

I agree with you that size is one of the main contributing factors to the problem, I just don't think smaller sites is a practical solution for the public at large. That being said, if you don't care about "fixing" the public problem, then you're right on the money. If you personally don't want to experience toxicity, get off the big sites, it's that easy. I just don't see that being a fix for the average teenager/college student/boomer

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

#354

Post by wizzwizz4 »

krick wrote: post #319

There is nothing to fix, except for the attitude of those who think there is something to be fixed, because essentially it's they who demand something unreasonable: censoring of the free speech. It is unreasonable, because that assumes somebody (the person or group, who "fixes" the problem) can and must decide, what is good and bad in regards of what you are saying. And unless this person is you, you always will be d…

Alternatively: culture. If people just feel that proving how evil arbitrary strangers are is just not done, they just won't decide to have such arguments in the first place, and if they disagree they'll tend to do so civilly, and so will be more inclined to listen to their opponents.

So long as a community doesn't grow too quickly, culture is mostly conserved. Ideals of tolerance and productive discussion would probably help, too, but ask a sociologist.

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

#355

Post by cjslep »

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…

Some family members that once said "don't believe what you read on the internet" and resistent to the early internet are now some of the biggest sharers of hyperpartisan alarmism online.

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

#356

Post by freeone3000 »

claytongulick wrote: post #198

As an intellectual exercise,since you seem so passionate about the subject of anti-vaxxers... Are all vaccines good? If not, who chooses? The government? What about when Gov. Rick Perry tried to force the HPV vaccine on all teenage girls in TX, even though it was suspected he had financial incentive to do so? Is it ok for the state to force you or your kids to receive a medical treatment? Even when there are multiple…

Yes, vaccines proven effective against the spread of disease are good. The current body that judges this is the FDA, which is part of the government. The corruption of the people administering the vaccine have no bearing on the effectiveness of the vaccine. For HPV in particular, it looks like we're going to eliminate new infections next generation thanks to this, which is unquestionably good. I'd have preferred it to be administered to everyone, not simply who the government deems worthy. (EDIT: Sorry, forgot how medical costs were allocated in the states.)

I don't really think it's inaccurate to label anybody against vaccines as "anti-vaccine", since... that's their position. If I wanted to be vitrolic and hyperbolic, I'd call them "pro-disease", "baby-killers", or "complicit in the largest outbreaks of preventable death of children". "Anti-vaccine" is merely a summary of the position.

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

#357

Post by iron0013 »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #177
rstupek wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really tired of mainstream articles which are essentially a reporting finding 3 people on twitter who are for/against something and saying "internet is in uproar about whatever"

There’s quite a lot of formulaic pieces written in UK media where the news outlet comment section has more outraged commenters than the original issue. If you use dailymail.co.uk and search for “outraged” there’s quite a few examples of this formula being used. I suppose it increases impression time of adverts which means higher price earned for them. I’m not criticising the business accumen.

This pattern happens so often that you’d think people would start to catch on. A story about one person supposedly being “outraged” about something leads to a huge vigorous CJ of folks eager to express their anti-outrage-outrage at the straw man in front of them.

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

#358

Post by kody »

tayo42 wrote: post #308
kody wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is interesting that our anecdotes can be so different. I'm assuming you're older than me (25) since you mention the pre-web internet, so I'd also guess that by the time you were on the web/pre-web internet you would've had a more developed filter than I. My introduction to the web progressed roughly with watching my dad use BBS -> playing Neopets and Runescape -> becoming very involved with Runescape forums…

What video game forums compared at all to 4chans /b/? Every where banned you for gore, child porn, harassment, encouraging suicide. I really don't think you should be trying to normalize 4chan as thats just the way the internet is.

We definitely had different experiences, then! I would say most forums, even a lot of the mainstream ones, tolerated some level of 4channess. Facepunch forums ~2009 was the first time I thought "wait, are these guys actually Nazis or just think it's hilarious to act like they are?" Stickpage.com forums ~2005 taught me an important lesson in not clicking URLs from domains I don't trust -- ESPECIALLY if they end in 'hello.jpg'.

Like I said in my original post, that's the lens through which I viewed the internet. It could be different from yours.

I'm not trying to 'normalize' 4chan but, honestly, I've bounced from plenty of Discord servers that are indistinguishable from 4chan. I think it's OK to recognize that at least some part of the non-4chan web is still very 4channy.

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

#359

Post by kerkeslager »

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 them or politely presents a counterargument, they either move on because they feel they've been heard, or they engage in a polite discussion. Maybe they change their mind, maybe they don't. If they really can't engage in polite discussion, then they come across as making their ideas look worse, so they aren't really doing much harm.

If someone says something awful on the internet, and everyone rails about how awful it is and gets them banned, then that person is angry, and that anger motivates them to keep posting about it everywhere and spreading their idea. Meanwhile, they will integrate that idea into their identity, which makes it far harder to change their mind. And if you actually manage to get them to go away, they will go to cesspools like Voat, where they are even less likely to be exposed to ideas that change their mind, and where in fact they are likely to be exposed to even worse ideas.

Let's get some perspective: what you're complaining about is people saying things you don't like on the internet. Yes, what they are saying spreads ignorance, but the solution to ignorance isn't silencing the ignorant, it's education.

MLK and Harvey Milk both recognized that the source of the bigotry they fought against was fear borne of ignorance. But the average left-leaning person today doesn't see bigots even as people any more. All it takes nowadays is for someone to say one of a list of banned phrases and they're completely written off as even human. If we're going to bridge the gap here, we on the left have got to consider that we might be the toxic ones.

I've found that when I actually talk to so-called "toxic" people politely, they are willing to listen. It's not them that are causing the polarization.

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

#360

Post by ilikepi »

scott_paul wrote: post #214

It's worse than the Eternal September. It's definitely more toxic than it's ever been, and people are definitely more polarized. The 2016 election news cycle got a lot of otherwise normal people really radicalized and hostile. Sure most of the old-timers among us remember, often fondly, the constructive insanity of usenet. And the younger generation remembers the torrent of pure id that was 4chan in the early days, a…

It used to take some knowledge and effort to fill the Audience portion of that equation. The further back in time you go, the more was required of you to find and maintain it. Now the audience is delivered to you and everyone else via a handy little device we all carry around and reflexively stare at whenever there's a pause in our lives.

EDIT: clarity

Post reply on HN