Use user-defined kill-files (although if you want to publish them you can, in case someone wants to copy and modify for their own use, or they might decide not to use it at all if that is their preference). Allow anyone to comment and to reply to anyone but remember someone might set up a kill-file to hide messages from someone who does not want to see your messages (whether or not you are an administrator of the service, or police, or whatever). We need more freedom of speech, not less. But, freedom of speech should not mean to force everyone to listen to you if they do not want to listen. (Kill-files could also be based on whatever criteria you want, not necessarily only based on the author of the message, although that would probably be the most common case.)
Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
561–570 of 859 posts
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And Reddit is where all the people are. All the people in your echo chamber, that is.
If what you mean to say is that "the subset of spaces that does not include Voat and Gab is an echo chamber", you are probably saying something about your own views that you might not mean to say.
How so?
To be clear, I definitely don't agree with most of what is said on Voat, and I'm not really familiar with Gab.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#563Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accusing someone who is trying to engage with you in good faith of creating strawmen also does not make a good argument. Not everyone who has an allergic reaction to a vaccination is going to have medical documentation of that. Maybe their parents couldn't afford to take them back to the doctor for confirmation. Maybe they couldn't take the time off work. That happens, especially among the poor. Or was the "strawman"…
> Not everyone who has an allergic reaction to a vaccination is going to have medical documentation of that. Maybe their parents couldn't afford to take them back to the doctor for confirmation. Maybe they couldn't take the time off work. That happens, especially among the poor. This is what allergy testing is for. If you don't have the paperwork, then you can get tested. The fact that people don't have time to get t…
You claim that 1) they won't have to be vaccinated because they can get tested, 2) they don't get tested because of class stratification, but 3) you present no solution to class stratification. And then you claim that it isn't a reasonable point to say that they would be forced to be vaccinated!
You... um... rather failed to put together a coherent argument there. Or if you did, I failed to follow it...
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, but attacking that with anger, outrage, and witch hunts rather than tact is not only ineffective, it may even create a positive feedback loop.
Actually, it is rather effective. Your immune system doesn't rely on tact once a particular foreign body proves to be hostile or dangerous; rather tt initiates inflammation and countermeasures.
We must be careful when using microbiological metaphors to propose solutions for macro social problems; such language has often been used to justify genocide (i.e.: "hygenic cleansing of parasites"). Besides, what we're talking about here is more akin to autoimmune disfunction, and not healthy immune function.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one of the sides has to be right. Sometimes the facts are difficult to ascertain, but so many of the lies spread via social media are easily disproved by consulting primary sources.
But the thing is, while facts are objectively true or false, a policy choice can't be objectively right. What you often see is, policy masquerading as facts. "If you accept X then we need to do Y." "I don't think we should do Y" "Then you reject facts." Something everyone seems to have forgotten is that intelligent, well-informed, people of good will can look at the same facts and come up with different policy prescr…
a policy choice can't be objectively right
A policy choice is the linkage of a fact to a particular goal; while few policy choices are so simple as to admit of a binary choice, you can certainly rank them on a gradient.
Of course, it helps if your goal is clearly definable and you maintain awareness of consistency. Otherwise, a goal of, say, improving life expectancy might be satisfied by a eugenics policy which made unpersons of those with medical conditions that would lower life expectancy.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#567Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is the voting booth not direct enough for you?
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Who do we trust to be the arbiters of extreme positions? I would consider the dismissal of using biological science to define male and female as an extreme position, and yet I could be banned from Twitter by saying as much.
Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The trouble is, not everyone is saying that. A few people here and there are, but what about some mode nuance things? For example, what if someone says they're fine with trans-people and think everyone should live their lives whoever they want, but trans M2F shouldn't participate in professional sports because it's not fair. That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a b…
> That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist."
Great point. A huge part of the problem is language. Subtlety and nuance gets stripped away (especially online), so that everything you disagree with is an unconscionable violation. It's the language of clickbait.
I'm sure the idea is to break through the noise and mobilize people against perceived injustice, but all it does is make the noise that much louder.