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?

#841

Post by muzani » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 12:26 AM 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…

I thought this was the case too.

One of the things that surprised me was how people who are horrible online are even worse offline.

I think there are plenty of online consequences. Post a controversial post and someone will verbally slap, share, shame you. Shaming might be far worse than a physical punch to some people.

I think a lot of people who become trolls don't become trolls for the sake of of trolling. They do it because they're trying to enforce consequences upon someone.

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

#842

Post by etangent » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #130

etangent wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism.

> The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism. Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world.

> Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world.

Literally no authoritarian says "i want to suppress people because I'm evil mwahaha." Every single authoritarian says "i need to suppress this evil disinformation because i care about the future of our shared world---unlike you unworthy people who presumably don't care."

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

#843

Post by etangent » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:43 AM UTC

gbrown wrote: post #159

etangent wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism.

So... would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism? What about fighting against conspiracy theories about the deep state and pizza parlors? There's a tendency to wishfully think that people are rational and should be expected to sort out their own information environment with no governmental influence what…

> would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism?

Yes. I never said authoritarianism is bad. In fact, I probably consider myself an authoritarian.

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

#844

Post by isensible » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 10:49 AM UTC

The current polarization has been caused by political correctness and the inevitable push-back against expansive redefinition of previously well understood terms such as: racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

Take immigration, people who wish to discuss immigration often end up getting called racist or xenophobic, and the response is then: "f*ck you, I'm not a racist". Thus you have polarized the community.

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

#845

Post by rezeroed » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 12:02 PM UTC

grumple wrote: post #668

rezeroed wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What accounts are tied to your real name? I don't use any facebook products so don't know about that, but don't know of any other that are tied to my name. Enforcement of community standards has backfired in the form of weaponised censorship.

Facebook, google, anything tied to your bank accounts, anything you access with your phone or from your home address, if any of those things you access use your email, anything tied to your email - which ends up being just about everything. Even if I might not know your name, there are probably a dozen big data companies that can tie your name to 99% of your web activity. Even where there's some anonymity by using a…

This is all out of context.

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

#846

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #830

kerkeslager wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The standard you're being held to isn't "complete information".

What standard am I being held to? Where am I failing to meet that standard? Do you actually have any disagreement with anything I've said, or are you just going to make snide remarks from the sideline?

You aren't making any concrete statements on where you think I'm wrong, and you are evading any questions I've asked to try to get clarity, so to be honest, I have no idea what you actually think I'm wrong about, or even whether you think I'm wrong.

If it were someone else, I'd just dismiss you as a troll, but I've read and respected your opinions in the past, which makes your current method of arguing a bit disappointing for me. You're well-positioned to change my mind if you ever decide to share what you actually think.

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

#847

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

breuleux wrote: post #832

kerkeslager wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. > They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts. Is it, though? What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it?

> That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. I mean, sure, but I was meaning to make you think about your own tendency to fall into the same trap. Also, the left can scarcely avoid being a mirror of the right in many ways, given that both groups are made out of humans. The influence of ideology on social dynamics is overstated.…

Maybe not in those words, but would you agree that that is what you're saying when you demand someone be deplatformed?

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

#848

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #634

kerkeslager wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong ethnic/religious/political 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. Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group. Surely we can behave better than the bigots? >…

Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group. I'm not talking about deplatforming, I'm talking about the sort of extremist bigots who advocate, organize, or engage in murdering people. You are free to present deplatforming as an equal ill to that if you wish. If we behave like them we are no better than them. We on the left can't claim tolerance if we only toler…

> You are free to present deplatforming as an equal ill to that if you wish.

Sigh. Can we not do the obvious straw man arguments?

> Tolerating disagreement and tolerating murder are not really equivalent.

That's true.

Bigots and murderers are also not really equivalent. Nobody is talking about tolerating murderers, so again, let's try to not toss around straw man arguments.

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

#849

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

thebokehwokeh2 wrote: post #575

kerkeslager wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong ethnic/religious/political 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. Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group. Surely we can behave better than the bigots? >…

> Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group. > Surely we can behave better than the bigots? In a vacuum, I'd agree. As in, in the real world, I would agree. If this were a true human contact based forum, the voice of many regular, busy people will always trump the voice of a few raging bigots. Culturally, we've moved past that; at least in urban centres where…

I think you are right to identify gamification of social media as part of the problem, but I think we need to be careful not to lump in every opinion we disagree with, with people who are using astroturfing/botting/farming/etc. Manipulation of the gamification systems is clearly not in good faith, but there are plenty of real people with odious opinions that they hold due to fear and/or ignorance, but hold in good faith.

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

#850

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #647

jklinger410 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I spend the bulk of my time studying extremist discourse and communities Do you also study how to reform extremists? Or are you just studying how to identify and silence them? >planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior This sounds like de-platforming to me. >That's a tactic known as 'entryism' What you are doing here is called "vilifying." Where you identify that someone is disagree…

Yes, I spend a great deal of time thinking about that. In general, the best antidotes to extremism is getting a girlfriend (most extremists are male and heterosexual), having a kid (more so a daughter), settling down and ageing out. Socioeconomic conditions are a major driver of extremism, which is one reason it tends to flourish in adversity, when there is a large supply of pessimists available for recruitment. Ther…

> Yes, I spend a great deal of time thinking about that. In general, the best antidotes to extremism is getting a girlfriend (most extremists are male and heterosexual), having a kid (more so a daughter), settling down and ageing out. Socioeconomic conditions are a major driver of extremism, which is one reason it tends to flourish in adversity, when there is a large supply of pessimists available for recruitment.

How are you defining extremism?

> When I say 'eliminating' people I specifically mean killing them, and no I don't think that's the same thing as de-platforming people.

This is a motte-and-bailey argument[1]. You're arguing on a topic about bigots talking on the internet. I'm not arguing that we should allow murder or calling for murder, and I'm not aware of anyone who is arguing that, so you're just presenting your opinion as "I'm against murder" which is not controversial. But in the larger argument you're supporting the deplatforming of a pretty large group of people, and very few of those people are actually calling for murder.

If you're anti-letting-people-call-for-murder, great, we're in agreement on that. But that has literally nothing to do with the overall discussion.

> It is not. I haven't identified anyone in particular as being disagreeable or practicing entryism, but rather pointed out the existence of such a rhetorical tactic that can be used in bad faith. You seem to be confusing my suggestion that the person I was responding to is a victim of such a tactic with their being a user of it.

Are you saying that I'm using entryism?

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey