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

621–630 of 859 posts

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

#621

Post by banads »

anigbrowl wrote: post #598
banads wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Besides, what we're talking about here is more akin to autoimmune disfunction, and not healthy immune function. No it isn't. Responding to toxicity or an external insult is precisely what the immune system does. An autoimmune disorder would be an activation of the immune system against some other bodily system that is healthy and functioning.

An autoimmune disease is a condition arising from an abnormal immune response to a normal body part. People having different opinions is normal.

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

#622

Post by gotoeleven »

thebokehwokeh2 wrote: post #605
gotoeleven wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whattaboutism is not a good rebuke of any of what I have listed above. The truth that your idol is a racist is very unfortunate as it is uncomfortable for you, isn't it. There are certainly a far greater example of racism exhibited by your emperor, but I can see a bad faith actor when I see one.

There is no whataboutism in my response. Im honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you mean the thing about south africa? The point is: how is it evidence of bigotry to be worried about land seizures in south africa? Thats not whataboutism, that's pointing out a non sequitur. The rest of your post is ad hominem.

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

#623

Post by narag »

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…

Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone?

That is obvious. No idea how to solve it, but the cause? Sure.

There's people determined to make it happen. They're called activists. From both sides. They're determined to make anyone in between to choose sides.

Look no further than this post. See comments attributing the problem to the right, the left, old people, young people...

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

#624

Post by JackFr »

anigbrowl wrote: post #566
JackFr wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But a goal cannot objectively be right or wrong. It could be agreed upon, but it can never be true in the sense that objective facts are true.

To go even further, people may agree on the 'what' of a goal, but disagree on the 'why' of a goal, which very much inform what policy choices they are amenable.

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

#625

Post by jmhnilbog »

djsumdog wrote: post #509
keenmaster wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If InfoWars says Sandy Hook never happened, and they have millions of followers, ban them. That’s a really low bar for banning. Same with Milo. Not only did he repeatedly lie in a very verifiable way, but he did it with the vigor of a bully. These are toxic people and institutions that don’t care about the facts. They’re after your amygdala, and we are, to some extent, slaves to our amygdala. You can get a PhD and st…

Who decides who's lying and who's telling the truth? Who is the arbitrator of an obvious lie. Declaring something an "obvious lie" has historically been used to keep other people down as well. This goes down a very dangerous road. Banning speech is not the right way to deal with this. When you do, you give the speaker more energy. When people in the civil rights movement in the US was slapped down, it gave speakers l…

If you're going to argue that truth is relative, fine. Let each person decide their own truth and broadcast it. Let each person decide what to believe and decide what is good and what is evil and let them constantly fight. Constant misery.

Science was a good idea for civilization to adopt as defining truth.

Hey, I did this, and then THAT happened! You try! Wow, it happened again! Let's see if it always happens! It does! Don't believe me? Try it yourself!

Eventually, yes, you have to trust specialists, because there's too much to try on your own. So you vet the specialists, and the specialist specialists. You don't just throw everything away and listen to the first fat idiot who says everything that happens is a lie and paid actors staged Sandy Hook.

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

#626

Post by duanem »

I'm not sure you were around for the great Gnome vs KDE wars of the 2000's. It was pretty toxic and "win-at-all-costs" back then :-)

When I released my app 8-years ago, I thought support would be my most hated part of releasing a product. To my surprise, it was one of the most rewarding parts, I met some great people via email, some I will visit one day.

But support has its ugly "toxic" side as well. This is particularly prevalent in 1-star reviews for trivial issues. All the reviewer sees is a box to vent their thoughts without considering that there is a real person on the other side. But I'm a real person who cares and some comments do stir bad emotions. This has brought some of my lowest and darkest days of app development.

Sometimes I will make contact with the reviewer and as soon as they get to know me as a real person, they are friendlier and more respectful.

The faceless nature of the internet causes people to treat others poorly. In the real world where we meet people in face-to-face, our initial and natural position is to treat each other with respect.

So here are a few ideas: 1. imagine a person, someones face, not a textbox, website or company - add a persona to him or her. 2. Ask this simple question "Would I treat or talk to someone (my friend) like this in real-life?" 3. Would you be proud of the way you're conversing if people you admire were watching, e.g., respected colleagues, friends, parents.

This will change the way you write.

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

#627

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

koheripbal wrote: post #467
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.

I could find countless examples of why this is completely inaccurate, but i'll submit one: members of Congress.

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

#628

Post by aquabeagle »

scott_paul wrote: post #214

It's worse than the Eternal September. It's definitely more toxic than it's ever been, and people are definitely more polarized. The 2016 election news cycle got a lot of otherwise normal people really radicalized and hostile. Sure most of the old-timers among us remember, often fondly, the constructive insanity of usenet. And the younger generation remembers the torrent of pure id that was 4chan in the early days, a…

Now take that F-ckwad, and remove the Anonymity by requiring them to use their real name. And bingo, now you live in Interesting Times.

https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/ would like to disagree.

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

#629

Post by Multicomp »

luckylion wrote: post #544
deepspace wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in another comment, what happens today is that they already socialize in their own online social networks with people exactly like them. They do not tolerate one iota of dissent or open discussion, and will ban anyone with contrary views or criticism. If we allow them space on our open platforms, without demanding that they tolerate our views, that does not result in any kind of real conversation, it j…

Have you ever actually talked to people who are unlike you, or hold extremely different view points? Because this whole "the do not tolerate one iota of dissent or open discussion" is very far from my experience. It's true, you usually can't engage people when they are pumped up on adrenaline shouting at each other on Twitter, but that's like jumping into the middle of a brawl and saying "those people will never be a…

> I believe a very important part about "open discussion" is to be honest and compassionate. Don't talk down to people, don't mock them, don't tell them they are scum, or evil, or destroying humanity etc and then say "they don't tolerate dissent" when really they just don't react kindly to hostile behavior.

I feel like this is the goal online communities would like to see of their users. Be polite, accept good faith, etc. HN tries to have it in its own guidelines.

The startup that manages to motivate users to, while disagreeing vehemently on a given argument, remain (civil|good faith|each side remembering that the other side IS human) on target without descending into flame wars or otherwise, would stand to make a TON of money.

I feel like perhaps that is an impossible ideal to pursue though.

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

#630

Post by Sorry_Rum_Ham »

kerkeslager wrote: post #556
Sorry_Rum_Ham wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*Please stop pointing out obvious bad faith actors and their bigotry. It makes me feel cognitive dissonance about the fact that I agree with them about a lot of things.

FTFY

Post reply on HN