Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

811–820 of 859 posts

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

#811

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…

It's scary to read the number of people responding to you with "actually, the solution IS to silence everyone who disagrees with me, we should do that as quickly as possible."

Especially the number of them who don't even seem to have read past your first sentence.

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

#812

>I've noticed a huge uptick in the toxicity online in the last 5-7 years. You're crazy my dude(tte). I've been on the interbutts since 1991 and Usenet days, and it's exactly as it always was. The big difference is we have reporter ding dongs on Twitter thinking Twitter, aka the comments section they removed from their web presence, is the real world. Also old people on Facebook who never learned the lessons of being…

Exactly this. On Usenet there were still moderated groups, because there were assholes that were willing to start flame wars. The term "flame war" came from Usenet, as did "trolling". The original meaning of "trolling" was making a post that provoked a huge number of responses, be it good or bad. Now it has morphed to meaning you say something shitty. > That's a purely American phenomenon This is wrong. Europe turned…

The US has been struggling with it since the very start. KKK, segregation, McCarthyism, the list goes on.

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

#813
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…

It's not like the masses aligning with one side or the other is a new invention, it's how politics works and always has worked. So, in a way, what's "causing it" is humanity being stupid and measures against it are attempts at managing stupidity. Nobody wants to hear that. Because everybody is too stupid to drop their ego.

That being said, there's about three articles a week that blame the unchecked spread of stupidity on the internet for the uptick in bizarre fringe ideologies. And they're probably right. One of the best explanations of how this happens I recently found in a comment thread – unfortunately I don't remember where (I assume tildes.net). In short, social media tries to find patterns in what people like and documents/encourages them. Content creators then try to make money from following those trends very quickly, which artificially accelerates and grows them. It used to take a while for some random, weird ideology take over, now it only takes one viral youtube video or tweet, even if people initially just watch it ironically.

It's no different than it always was, it just runs way too fast.

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

#814

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 counterpoint to that is that allowing platforms for toxic views to exist and grow (a) "normalizes" these views and (b) makes it very easy for them to recruit new members, since they have a "legitimate" platform to spread their hate from. Personally I am fine with them isolating themselves in cesspools like Voat. While they are not being exposed to contrary views there, they are also not exposing large amounts of…

I remember when reddit was the cesspool that trolls banned from digg and slashdot went to. Careful with that line of reasoning, because the social platforms rise and fall all the time. And the ones that tend to free speech, engagement and controversy tend to become popular quickly.

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

#815
post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally just explained to you, in a courteous and civilized manner, that many (in my opinion - most) people don't use the term that way. That includes me. The irony of you ignoring my comment/experience, doubling down on your claim, and then going on to preach that "refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. People seem to have lost the a…

It sounds a bit like you might be feeling prosecuted because I said something you disagree with. I'm not even sure what part of my comment upset you since none of it is harmful, malicious, or personally targeted. Emotive language like 'preach' has no place in constructive debate. I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like. Keep your comment as a solid example of what I m…

Again, ignoring the substance of my message in order to continue your attack.

>I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like.

I told you exactly how I see something, you've yet to acknowledge it, and have twice doubled down and claimed I think the opposite. This is the problem. You aren't interested in listening, you're more interested in being "right".

I'm done here.

"...refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins"

-missosoup (while un-ironically refusing to engage in dialogue)

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

#816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the only think causing someone to behave morally is the idea that they are being watched by other people who know who they are, then their parents/religion/society has failed them. what do you think the function of parents, religion and society is if not to observe people and watch them? That's what socialization is. Stake in a community and incentive to adjust to social norms, because the consequence of anti-soc…

That doesn't really explain why many people are not assholes when given anonymity. And whatever those people have, we need to replicate in everyone else. Unless you believe that those people are somehow genetically "nice" and it is impossible to replicate with environmental factors.

To be honest I think that's overstating how many nice people there are on the internet. In purely anonymous communities the discourse is almost always toxic. Even on a small website like HN with people who frequently have their names exposed in their profile discourse is rough.

Look at the amount of moderation the average Reddit community needs. Everybody is meaner on the internet, people are mean even on facebook just because they don't talk face to face. I remember a woman in Germany who posted that someone should set a refugee home on fire under her actual name, several such cases existed. They obviously all lost their jobs but it shows how maladjusted we are if we type into our keyboards.

I think the difference between extreme trolls and regular people is just to what degree you live online. If you have a regular social life you're probably not that bad of a person online, if you spend your entire day online you end up with 4chan. But I think everybody feels the bad consequences of semi-anonymous or virtual communication.

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

#817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Media influence society.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Whatever you say, though.

Think of society as a system, and approach the social sxiences as systems sciences -- psychology, sociology, economics, political science. They have state, observation, processing logic, interaction, and some new state -- a basic control loop or OODA loop.

That's the basic premise of Norbert Wiener (Cybernetics https://www.worldcat.org/title/cybernetics-or-control-and-co... and The Human Use of Human Beings https://www.worldcat.org/title/human-use-of-human-beings-cyb... -- horrible title, great book), Alfed Kuhn, The study of society : a multidisciplinary approach https://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-society-a-multidisci...), Jay Forrester, and others.

Media are the informational element of that loop. Change it, and you change behaviour.

So, no, media don't merely reflect society, any more than a mirror merely reflects a person's image. In the first place, mirrors change behaviour. In the second, media are far more than a mirror -- they adapt, transform, store, play back, transmit (in both space and time), amplify and attenuate, information. They reveal state; they express will, control, and narrative; they create and propogate shared (and novel) models of understanding; any they apply to both human and mechanical systems (as well as, arguably, nonhuman biological systems).

The key point is that if you change the informational component of a system, you change its behaviour fundamentally.

Its range, bandwidth, latency, scale, topology (peer-to-peer, star/broadcast, web/mesh), fidelity, recording and playback capabilities, modalities (symbols, icons, text, pictures, sound, video, data, ...), search, association, fungibility (modifiability / rewritability of content), and more.

That's the basic message of Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Message and Gutenberg's Galaxy), of Elisabeth Eisenstein (The Printing Press as an Agent of Change), and others.

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

#818
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…

Did anyone deliberately create the situation we see out there? Then the assumption that rolling back requires censorship is, well, just an assumption.

We've created an ecosystem of "engagement" rife with perverse incentives for incivility. Does reconfiguring that ecosystem require censorship? I think not.

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

#819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might want to familiarize yourself more with services before making sweeping arguments about what excluding them means for the discourse.

Having complete information before forming any opinion is an impossibly high standard. My opinion is based on what I know, and I've been pretty open about what I don't know. If you feel there's some relevant information I'm missing, I'd be really happy to hear it, but pointing out that I don't know everything is fairly uninformative.

Let's keep the discussion on the topic, not on me.

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

#820
post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's blatantly true that Reddit still holds echo chambers though, and the majority are far-left leaning. r/politics is as much of an echo chamber as r/The_Donald (but one is a default sub, with a deceptive name).

That's why I was particular about what I was taking them to be saying. I'm not looking to litigate whether there are echo chambers on Reddit. There clearly are. The question, now tacitly answered, is whether the person I replied to believes any space that excludes Voat and Gab is definitionally an echo chamber.

> The question, now tacitly answered, is whether the person I replied to believes any space that excludes Voat and Gab is definitionally an echo chamber.

If that's what you think I was saying, let me clarify: no, that's not what I was saying.

Post reply on HN