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?

#551

Post by tmh79 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

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 totally works, it quarantines the toxic people/ideas and doesn't allow them to spread further. Its fine if they move to voat or whatever, voat has orders of magnitude less people who use it casually, so there is a much lower opportunity for their message to spread.

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

#552

Post by MadWombat » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

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…

Agreed. As I have said previously in a similar discussion, I don't think censorship works very well beyond a few specific cases (yelling "Fire!" in a theater and things like that). I would rather racists and misogynists and all sorts of other assholes were free to express their opinions and engage in debate with the rest of us that that they were hiding in some dark web, invite only circle jerks. Because however distasteful I find the prior, I find the later outright scary.

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

#553

Post by gotoeleven » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

thebokehwokeh2 wrote: post #535

gotoeleven wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

You listed the 'very fine people' hoax so I don't think your judgement is very well calibrated here. There's a bunch of quotes with no context and some things that not even the most expansive definition of racism would cover. Tweeting about the squad? Leaving andrew jackson on the $20? Are you saying that land seizures and killing of white farmers don't actually happen in south africa? If the only source is 'the new york times reported' then Im sorry I just dont believe it after the russia nonsense.

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

#554

Post by eanzenberg » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #477

djsumdog wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

More and more, as time goes on, people are leaving the MSM including reddit for these off-shoots and it risks creating separate bubbles for every group-think out there. This is what de-platforming and cancel culture does.

It's also not black and white. Sure 99% of us can agree that banning or de-platforming such horrendous stuff like NAMBLA is good. But MSM starts to push out and group non-extremists into the same bucket and ban them all, and you get where we are today, with a good chunk of society that doesn't listen to or trust the MSM.

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

#555

Post by AcerbicZero » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #462

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…

> 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…

When they ban the "extremists" the "moderates" thrive making youtube/reddit/etc posts about the obvious double standards, and the impossible to pass purity tests created to ban those "extremists". The logical inconsistency of both sides of the current "culture" war parties in the US create a near unending supply of "gotcha" moments, which are just fuel for the fire.

If anything, banning extremists makes these ideologies more palatable to a larger group of people by creating a more gradual on-ramp at the entry level. I believe this is becoming more obvious as we see the middle ground position in the current "culture" conflict (which would still probably get you banned from facebook) rapidly becoming acceptable. The pendulum keeps swinging, and not many people involved seem very interested in stopping the broken cycle and finding a more sustainable solution.

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

#556

Post by kerkeslager » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

Sorry_Rum_Ham wrote: post #496

gotoeleven wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you're asking this question after everything over the past four years, you are either: a.) Not asking the question in good faith b.) Weapons-grade stupid

Please keep the discussion civil.

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

#557

Post by wisty » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:52 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…

A lot of people are skeptics of "anti-racism" and "feminism". Not everyone thinks that racism is causing black people to be poor (IMO a lot of current anti-racists are like people who see a snake-bite victim, and start screaming out that we have to kill the snake - the snake might have caused the problem but treating a snake bite is not just chasing after snakes), and not everyone thinks that essentially every difference between men and women is part of some vast conspiracy to keep women down (this is reductionist - both because it tries to make everything a stupid "on balance, stuff is worse for women" argument, and because it's reductionist to say biology is not a factor).

If relatively mild critics of these things are shut out of the mainstream media, then they get fans on mainstream social media platforms. If they're banned from mainstream social media, they'll find some other place. These fans haven't all been bitten by reactionary zombies, they often come up with their own doubts about the mainstream left, and look for people discussing the questions they have.

Here's an article suggesting that 'alt lite' speakers or skeptics of social justice aren't necessarily creating some 'rabbit hole' effect, but may actually sap views away from hardline extremists - https://www.wired.com/story/not-youtubes-algorithm-radicaliz...

Even if you think that critics of social justice are wrong, they exist (in large numbers). If you don't want the moderates on mainstream platforms, a number will go to darker corners of the internet where there is a genuine danger they will be radicalised.

I guess maybe that's OK? Extreme right-wing radicals might tend to hurt the right. Maybe the goal is to drive away moderate anti-feminists or moderate anti-social justice types (e.g. Milo who seems to me to be a bit of a jerk, but is hardly radical), and if a few end up becoming alt-right then maybe that's OK (and "it's their fault" anyway).

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

#558

Post by zzo38computer » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

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.

I really dislike that. But, I have put in CSS so that bad posts don't fade away, and enabled show dead so that all messages can be seen. But at least we have the choice!

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

#559

Post by eanzenberg » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

potatoz2 wrote: post #533

djsumdog wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 impl…

Yes, and for truly horrendous viewpoints it's ok to ban them outright. But society isn't black and white, and when you start lumping non-extremists into the same bucket and banning them all you end up where we are today: distrust of MSM but a big chunk of society.

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

#560

Post by hughpeters » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

You don't. Instead you teach to identify trolls / toxic commenters and ignore them.

Just like bullies, they're a fact of life, and the key to dealing with them is to not take them seriously. A bully's goal is to get a reaction out of you so to win - don't react.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me - this applies online and offline.