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?

#461

Post by TuringNYC » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

tnel77 wrote: post #449

I won’t act like I have the answer, but I do have a complaint about the state of our news sources (specifically focused on the USA). A lot of people like to throw around the term “fake news” when they see an article from the news source that is opposite their side of the aisle. While fake news does exist, CNN and Fox News are not fake news. They produce heavily biased news. There is a major difference. While both new…

I totally agree with your premise. I'd agree the term "fake news" is not an exact term, but I'll say that everything from Fox News (on the right), to the NYTimes (on the left), and everything in between lie by omission (lack of coverage) and by framing (e.g., "disturbed man" vs "terrorist"; "hungry" vs "looter"; etc). There may not be a term for it, but the phenomenon is real and has caused people to want to drain the system all-together and look for alternate public squares, ones where they have a voice.

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

#462

Post by kerkeslager » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:07 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…

> 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.

This is simply not an accurate representation of history.

Milo Yiannopoulos fell out of popularity because of repeated issues with pedophilia, which even the right doesn't condone.

Katie Hopkins was financially ruined Monroe v. Hopkins[1].

InfoWars still has a larger readership than The Economist or Newsweek[2], so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they have lost influence. It sounds like you might be inside of an echo chamber.

You may be looking at a different study, but the only study[3] I know of on the banning of hate sub-Reddits showed that content didn't pop up elsewhere on Reddit. It doesn't show that the hate didn't just move over to Voat, which is my theory as to what happened. Yes, the study was publicized as "deplatforming works", but only because people didn't know where the people who were deplatformed went.

The rest of your post follows suit with claims that aren't based in reality.

[1] by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars (top section)

[3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-contro...

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

#463

Post by iagovar » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:07 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…

I'd like to see that data.

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

#464

Post by awb » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

oneplane wrote: post #414

Disruptive_Dave wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world does not operate on definitions.

Communication and language works on shared concepts and wording, which can be collected as a set of definitions. If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. Or at least, that is what I have seen and experienced so far.

> If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse.

You're right, but we misunderstand each other and disagree all the time because language can be subjective.

Take your definition of toxicity: "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves". All of those words are subjective.

Abusive is in the dictionary as "harsh or insulting". Harsh is defined as "excessively critical". Excessive means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit". Now define "usual". Language is a circular logic that at some point you just have to know for yourself what you mean.

When someone labels someone else as "toxic", they're using their own subjective interpretation of "normal", "harsh" and "abusive". And in these situations language doesn't work very well like you mention.

What can help is something less subjective like "I felt angry when you did X". It's more vulnerable and takes more responsibility, but it is less subjective than calling someone "toxic" and can't really be argued, which leads to better understanding and better discussions.

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

#465

Post by krainboltgreene » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

mpalmer wrote: post #447

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…

Why is this suddenly a discussion about extremism? Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the case. > Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong [...] 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. Funny,…

> Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the case.

How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position?

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

#466

Post by cr0sh » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

tnel77 wrote: post #449

I won’t act like I have the answer, but I do have a complaint about the state of our news sources (specifically focused on the USA). A lot of people like to throw around the term “fake news” when they see an article from the news source that is opposite their side of the aisle. While fake news does exist, CNN and Fox News are not fake news. They produce heavily biased news. There is a major difference. While both new…

What you may or may not know is that at one time, there was a doctrine by the FCC known as the "Fairness Doctrine":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

"The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters."

This doctrine was eliminated in 1987, after a series of lawsuits about it.

Arguably, it's part of what started this whole mess we now find ourselves a part of.

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

#467

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:08 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…

If we're talking about online conversations only, then I personally believe that the reduction in AGE of participants online has had a massive influence.

Teenagers simply do not have the maturity to have mature conversations.

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

#468

Post by kerkeslager » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #452

chrisseaton wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you de-platform people they still think the way that they think, you just don't see what they're thinking and have no ability to challenge it. Then they turn up and vote...

However, what they don’t do is convert loads of other people to their way of thinking.

What makes you think this?

Do you think that Voat, Fox News, InfoWars, etc are somehow less effective platforms?

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

#469

Post by brlewis » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:09 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…

> Milo; Katie Hopkins; InfoWars et al have all lost their former agenda-setting influence following deplatforming

When did they ever have agenda-setting influence? I need more specific citations for these claims than "the data" and "studies".

> Banning disruptive speakers works. Every pub landlord knows it.

I'm no expert on pubs, but my understanding is that "disruptive speakers" in that context are ones who make it hard for others to speak.

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

#470

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

kabouseng wrote: post #433

marbletiles wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And then something like Trump or Brexit happens, and the left had no idea it was coming because a lot of people's viewpoints were silenced / deplatformed....

[deleted]