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

471–480 of 859 posts

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

#471

Post by jklinger410 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #401
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…

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…

>I spend the bulk of my time studying extremist discourse and communities

Do you also study how to reform extremists? Or are you just studying how to identify and silence them?

>planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior

This sounds like de-platforming to me.

>That's a tactic known as 'entryism'

What you are doing here is called "vilifying." Where you identify that someone is disagreeable to you and attribute everything they do to bad faith.

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

#472

Post by djsumdog »

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.

Not everyone leads hard left/right. Most people are centrists. So say you want to be a progressive left, but on issue "x" you don't stand with the left. You can't vocalize this because doing so will have people call you "not really left" or "a bigot" or "not seeing past your privilege."

You can go two ways. You can not want to leave your political home and double down and go harder left ... or you find dissenting voices. If those voices aren't centrists, they're going to be hard right, and people will start to shift their entire political leanings because they want a political home.

People need to be okay with others believing things they don't agree with. Even controversial things. I've noticed people on the left who refuse to be friends with or hand out with people who have different beliefs about certain things .. and that's insane! How do you learn and grow if you cut off everyone with a different opinion than yourself? We're probably all wrong about something.

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

#473

Post by kerkeslager »

pnako wrote: post #443
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…

Would we still have a pro-vax problem if FB banned it across its properties?

Yes, obviously. Do you think there aren't any anti-vaxxers with the ability to build a website?

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

#474

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

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.

That is a wholly reasonable assumption; it's the same one that underlies courts and jury trials.

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

#475

Post by tenebrisalietum »

The toxicity is seeping in from real life, and really popular social networks and media treatment of these is creating a feedback loop.

The real problems are:

A) real life sucks unless you are part of the subset of the rich or have good support structures,

B) toxic behaviors helps you get ahead in certain situations in life and people with low or no resources often resort to them,

C) there's no cost to joining certain social networks so it attracts those with no resources and/or the lowest common denominator, including people who have been damaged by life and only know toxic behavior as a norm,

D) people are interesting and useful when doing something productive or creative, but not otherwise.

It's hard to say if the category of people who fall in C is increasing in absolute number or only due to popularity of certain social networks.

Social networks that aren't dedicated toward doing something productive or creative, or who are open to everyone for free, will be overtaken by toxic behavior as a result. They should be avoided, or new ones developed in their place.

Another factor is the downfall of respect for the news media in the US, this makes discussions of news events attract comments from the type of people in C as they think their opinions are more important than they should be.

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

#476

Post by schnevets »

rayuela wrote: post #51

Encourage people to participate in physical social gatherings that center around non-political issues, like hobbies. We need to start emphasizing what we have in common, help people see that ultimately we're really not all that different from each other. The internet lets people hide behind this isolating veneer that makes it too easy to just shout at each other and behave in extreme ways that would never be socially…

Agreed wholeheartedly. Some hobbies have become more chic because of the analog "in-person" aspect (like tabletop gaming/role-playing and adult sports leagues), but culture is still losing the fight against isolation.

I optimistically think people are appreciating face-to-face time more, and I hope we think of a lot of new excuses to meet up over the next decade.

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

#477

Post by marbletiles »

djsumdog wrote: post #456
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…

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…

Deplatforming doesn't work by silencing people, and the environment that you'd have to create to make it otherwise is not an enticing one. So yes, you can often cause the creation of spaces like Voat as a result of deplatforming.

Sure, something like Voat pops up. But Reddit improves. And Reddit is where all the people are.

There will always be dive bars, there will always be rough online neighbourhoods. But start by cleaning up the civic square.

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

#478

Post by kodablah »

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

Well of course. That's like a prohibitionist using the reduced alcohol consumption overall as justification. Data often suggests that prohibiting means less of .

The question is not whether the goal of the silencing is mostly achieved, the question is whether that goal is worth the precedent. If your goal is to silence at all costs, it will always seem worth it. You'll find the less forceful actions (e.g. ignoring, dissuading, etc), when possible, have less slippery trade offs.

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

#479

Post by marbletiles »

kerkeslager wrote: post #473
pnako wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would we still have a pro-vax problem if FB banned it across its properties?

Yes, obviously. Do you think there aren't any anti-vaxxers with the ability to build a website?

"A website" that can get the reach among parents of FB's newsfeed? Yes, I think there are few anti-vaxxers who can build such a thing.

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

#480

Post by Udik »

cthor wrote: post #386
weaksauce wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I know one thing that isn't the solution: silencing everyone who disagrees with you this assumes that the people on the internet are arguing in good faith. they aren't in a lot of cases. the problem i have is willful ignorance and the associated culture that promotes the people that spread lies.

I don't think this is that important because there are far more people reading than posting. Even if the person you're responding to isn't arguing in good faith, there are people reading the discussion with an inquisitive mind. or, see this comic: https://imgur.com/T8egYQl

Good comic!

But isn't the number of people reading a problem per se? The "deniers", those who keep shifting their arguments until they've gone full circle to the starting point, are not trying to convince you- nor you are trying to convince them. They're competing with you for the attention of the reader, trying to fill the space with the illusion of an argument.

Post reply on HN