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

531–540 of 859 posts

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

#531

Post by kerkeslager »

marbletiles wrote: post #516
kerkeslager wrote: post #462

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. This is simply not an accurate representation of history. Milo Yiannopoulos fell out of popularity because of repeated iss…

Your stat on the reach of InfoWars is based on claims from 2017, before the de-platforming. More recent reports point to considerable slumps, eg: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-inf... Voat is discussed elsewhere here, too. In short, the point was precisely to get the speech off Reddit because it was poisoning Reddit. People said it wasn’t worth them trying because it would move to other subr…

> Your stat on the reach of InfoWars is based on claims from 2017, before the de-platforming. More recent reports point to considerable slumps, eg: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-inf....

Thank you for responding with actual data. I'll have to read the article.

> De-platforming worked for Reddit. OP asked for tech contributions to reducing the amount of polarised speech in online spaces. There is one.

I'm not sure how one can look at Reddit being more consistently liberal, and Voat being... Voat, and see this as "reducing the amount of polarised speech in online spaces".

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

#532

Post by ltbarcly3 »

The problem with trying to 'fix the problem' is that most people seem to think that the solution to polarization is to silence the 'crazies' that disagree with them, and who are 'causing the polarization'.

In a diverse society it is normal to have a wide spectrum of opinions, and a lot of them are going to seem wrong. Wrong ideas are not a threat, so long as we accept that they are just opinions. What is dangerous is giving a small group the power to decide which ideas are valid and which ones are not, because that small group will be taken over by opportunists who will use the power to control speech to further their own agenda.

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

#533

Post by potatoz2 »

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…

This is akin to an argument that you shouldn't fire your nazi-sympathizing coworker when they discuss their support for an ethnonationalist state because they may join neo-nazi groups and "radicalize" as a result.

Yes, they may. But while they do the workplace where most people interact is a livable place for the rest of us. We shouldn't make it easier to be heard if you have despicable views just because of the implied threat it might get worse.

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

#534

Post by kerkeslager »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #511
kerkeslager wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those are also things we should eliminate.

What you're proposing sounds uncomfortably like totalitarianism.

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

#535

Post by thebokehwokeh2 »

gotoeleven wrote: post #450
kerkeslager wrote: post #431

(a) Bigotry is already normalized in the United States. The president is a bigot and almost half the country voted for him. This is another negative effect of deplatforming: if you live in a liberal city and only frequent Reddit/Facebook, you live in an echo chamber where you don't have any visibility into what's normal. (b) The legitimacy of a platform is based on what is said there, not the other way around. You vi…

What did he do to call him a bigot? Enforcing immigration laws? Banning travel from countries where we can't vet people properly? Declining to have the military pay for people's sexual reassignment surgeries? Not letting people on welfare earn citizenship? Restricting a refugee system that was being abused? One of the sources of polarization is that the definition of hate and racism and bigotry seems to be broad and…

[flagged]

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

#536

Post by vonmoltke »

thdrdt wrote: post #26
muzani wrote: post #7

I've been active online since 2000. There was a theory in 2004, known as GIFT: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad Guess what? People without anonymity are total fuckwads too - this happens on Facebook, Instagram and Twitch, in an era where you could probably find someone's personal details if you look hard enough. I think the key is audience . Bullying feels good for a lot of people. Bullies will go…

I also think the lack of consequences makes it very easy for people to post all kinds of shit. On HN this is greatly reduced by the point system and the opacity of bad posts. A bad post fades away so it doesn't look as important as other posts. In real life you can get a punch in the face if you say nasty things to someone. But on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube most trolls wont ever learn because they just can say wha…

> On HN this is greatly reduced by the point system and the opacity of bad posts. A bad post fades away so it doesn't look as important as other posts.

The problem is, this functionality is popularity based. Yes, posts that get downvoted are usually bad posts. However, some are simply disliked by the majority of people who wanted to vote on them and are not actually "bad" by the standards of this discussion. Similarly, I have seen toxic posts (that I have downvoted and flagged) upvoted (at least once) when the target of the toxicity was "acceptable".

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

#537

Post by JulianMorrison »

kerkeslager wrote: post #523
JulianMorrison wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is "that heap of Nazis over there". It doesn't matter if the deplatformed people pop back up in marginal, poorly connected hate-tolerant sites. That actually helps. They have been successfully "sent to Coventry" in a place where their cultural impact is nil.

I don't know on what basis you think that their cultural impact is nil.

Because they're left in a situation where the only people they're able to talk to are already-committed Nazis.

Some of those have indirect diffusion paths back out into the mainstream culture. But the direct ones are blockaded.

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

#538

Post by potatoz2 »

djsumdog wrote: post #472
matthewmacleod wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 voi…

There's no problem with wildly differing views. The problem is dehumanizing speech. Taking reddit as an example, there's a thriving r/Libertarian and r/guns together with Sanders supporting or communist subreddits.

Don't conflate strong disagreements with toxic speech.

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

#539

Post by Nasrudith »

thdrdt wrote: post #26
muzani wrote: post #7

I've been active online since 2000. There was a theory in 2004, known as GIFT: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad Guess what? People without anonymity are total fuckwads too - this happens on Facebook, Instagram and Twitch, in an era where you could probably find someone's personal details if you look hard enough. I think the key is audience . Bullying feels good for a lot of people. Bullies will go…

I also think the lack of consequences makes it very easy for people to post all kinds of shit. On HN this is greatly reduced by the point system and the opacity of bad posts. A bad post fades away so it doesn't look as important as other posts. In real life you can get a punch in the face if you say nasty things to someone. But on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube most trolls wont ever learn because they just can say wha…

I think consequences are an illusory deterrent personally. People thought real name policies would help. Even with people losing jobs over posting the needle didn't move.

In truth consequences can be an incentive for bad actors. To them saying offensive things and getting a burner account banned is boring compared to tricking people into getting banned.

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

#540

Post by kerkeslager »

marbletiles wrote: post #479
kerkeslager wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but it doesn't have to have as large a reach, because it's presenting a more consistent anti-vax opinion.

An anti-vax post on a FB newsfeed is quite likely to have counterarguments. An anti-vax website is unlikely to run into such problems.

And going back to the original post: does "vaxxers on FB, anti-vaxxers elsewhere" sound like more polarisation, or less?

Post reply on HN