De-escalating social media conflict • Hacker News Board

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#51

Post by koluna » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

taborj wrote: post #22

dragontamer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social Media is increasingly becoming a major source of power for political movements and political organization. Both Obama and Trump campaigns were signified by a major online, social-media presence. I'd expect that many future Presidents will be determined by their command of Social Media. Social Media is the new television, the new Radio. Its the new media that is most significantly consumed by the population. By…

I disagree. By not playing, you're protecting yourself from future retribution, deserved or (more commonly) not. And not being on social media - or more precisely, not posting on social media - doesn't mean you're out of touch or lacking in influence. Not by a long shot.

To that, genuinely curious - what is the alternative you see to social media to build influence and visibility? One of the key benefits of Twitter is that you can make your work, be it in the arts, software or literally anything else, visible to a large audience. What’s the alternative if one is not to use Twitter? How do you publicize your findings or insights to a broad population?

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#52

Post by umvi » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #5

Even increasing the content limit will go a long way towards deescalation. I find that, on Twitter, one often has to resort to oversimplified hyperbole and sarcasm because it's very difficult to fit more thoughtful and nuanced messages in the content limit. Yes it's possible to write multiple tweets. But that takes significantly more effort.

Then you'll just get increasingly large walls of text as each person refutes every single sentence + adds a few more zingers of their own

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#53

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #42

rvz wrote: post #9

> By admitting a mistake, the poster stops the runaway train of replies and amplifications of their mistake, and the reputation damage that follows. No matter the apology of the mistake, those who demand them to apologise will still reject it and push further for calls for the accused to be cancelled. The replies and amplifications will divert into real life instead of Twitter.

Exactly. From what I have seen an apology only makes things worse.

A badly-executed apology divorced from change makes things worse.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#54

Post by noobermin » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #33

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #29

I've always had a policy of promptly admitting when I'm wrong. It worked great, when I worked at a Japanese company. The Japanese respected it. The Americans, on the other hand, looked at it as a sign of weakness, and tended to "go for the jugular" (Carpe Jugulum) . I think that explains why so many folks "double down," when asked to correct statements. Also, lawyers. A standard piece of advice at American accident s…

This is precisely what is going on. You can see that dynamic at work here on HN on a daily basis.

I have apologized before on HN and people vote it up, so no I do not see it. It feels much more like people just dig in their heels due to selfish reasons.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#55

Post by adventured » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #42

rvz wrote: post #9

> By admitting a mistake, the poster stops the runaway train of replies and amplifications of their mistake, and the reputation damage that follows. No matter the apology of the mistake, those who demand them to apologise will still reject it and push further for calls for the accused to be cancelled. The replies and amplifications will divert into real life instead of Twitter.

Exactly. From what I have seen an apology only makes things worse.

It always emboldens the mob. They aren't after an apology, they're pursuing harm against the target and typically won't stop until they get it - unless you can show strength to the bully behavior and can stand-off against them (which not everyone can do). If you can, they'll give up and pursue another easier target. The mobs have weaponized job firings, which puts most people in a position of immediate weakness where they're afraid to stand their ground.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#56

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #54

jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely what is going on. You can see that dynamic at work here on HN on a daily basis.

I have apologized before on HN and people vote it up, so no I do not see it. It feels much more like people just dig in their heels due to selfish reasons.

Exceptions, rules and so on.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#57

Post by noobermin » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

I think this work is great and interesting, and I respect it. One of the things I feel like it lacks is a discussion of the broader context: we all sort of suspect that one of the reasons Twitter does not generally allow for de-escalation (like FB not censoring misleading news articles) is that such escalation is in fact part of their revenue stream (escalation=more engagement), so while I think ideas like this would be great if Twitter decided to incorporate it, the issue of course is that Twitter wouldn't want to as they actually love the cancel culture mill, it generates engagement.

I genuinely however like the ability to admit guilt such that replies are disabled because as the author notes, it explicitly ends all engagement. Any following engagement would require more work (subtweeting, screenshotting) but actively put a damp on the first derivative. But that said, reducing engagement is in fact not in Twitter's interest, as I said, so I don't see them doing it without some outside pressure.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#58

Post by noobermin » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #9

> By admitting a mistake, the poster stops the runaway train of replies and amplifications of their mistake, and the reputation damage that follows. No matter the apology of the mistake, those who demand them to apologise will still reject it and push further for calls for the accused to be cancelled. The replies and amplifications will divert into real life instead of Twitter.

Think not in terms of black and white (there exists / for all) and how in aggregate, this would put a hamper on further escalating toxicity.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#59

Post by noobermin » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #11

The only winning move is not to play.

I think that is indeed true on the individual level, but when a large percentage of people are on Twitter such that cancellations lead to actual real world circumstances, it in fact matters that people who are not you do in fact play because it might affect you.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#60

Post by nicoburns » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #41

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #29

I've always had a policy of promptly admitting when I'm wrong. It worked great, when I worked at a Japanese company. The Japanese respected it. The Americans, on the other hand, looked at it as a sign of weakness, and tended to "go for the jugular" (Carpe Jugulum) . I think that explains why so many folks "double down," when asked to correct statements. Also, lawyers. A standard piece of advice at American accident s…

I think the reasoning behind advice for accidents (in the US) is completely separate because after the accident, there are big implications of who is at fault. As the lawyers and insurance on both sides would often battle on technicalities and sometimes appearances, the advice is to let the professionals do it and not give the opponents' side extra ammunition. This has nothing to do with human emotions or reducing pa…

> this is just the nature of the (gov't regulated insurance) beast.

It's cultural for it to even go to lawyers. In the UK, in most cases the person at fault would just admit it and give the other person the contact details for their insurance company.