De-escalating social media conflict • Hacker News Board

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#91

Post by tomrod » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #89

ssalazar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Engagement" is the "paper clip maximizer"[1] of the modern software industry, or more generally an example of "instrumental convergence." Optimizing engagement without regard for negative externalities is a catastrophic ethical failure of the major players in the software industry, and we are finally seeing a backlash both from mainstream advertisers and widespread public outcry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In…

Why should a for-profit enterprise have any kind of ethical consideration at all? It seems that's your mistake.

Inadvertently, this is a great argument for government as the public needs a coercive force able to require companies to internalize costs.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#92

Post by npunt » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

zuhayeer wrote: post #32

Really like the ideas here, but I think the underlying problem is the mindset behind attacks and cheap dunks. People who are determined will find a way, they'll screenshot and flame you if they can't do anything else. Right now it feels like more of a way for attackers to cheaply drive engagement and get likes. I think we need a broader cultural shift of making it not cool to attack someone without an intent to genui…

One of the most powerful tools in design is friction. The more friction things take, the less they'll be done, and visa versa. Taking screenshots of later deleted tweets is high friction, so it only comes in the most extreme circumstances by the most dedicated people. What about other circumstances?

I'm seeing a lot of acceptance of the status quo in responses here, that things will never get better, that people behave how they behave and that is that. I fundamentally disagree - I think we've gotten ourselves into this situation through designs that unintentionally favor certain outcomes, and if we are more intentional about what outcomes we wish to have, altering those designs can lead us to better outcomes.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#93

Post by npunt » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #25

Slightly off-topic (talking about the psychology and not this UX), but I also feel like people are yelling "You f *ing idiot(s)!" online to feel better about themselves, e.g. if someone wrote "How can you not see [insert politician's name here] is saving the world, you idiot!", they'd feel a bit better about themselves for getting it and being smarter than the person behind the wall of text they just read. We need to…

Agree completely. Negative social media behavior is many times just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger issue of the fabric of society being torn, of our spirits hurting, and of psychological issues surfacing. We must acknowledge this and offer paths for people to find psychological safety again, and one way is to soften and de-escalate the culture of discourse.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#94

Post by softwaredoug » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:20 AM UTC

ssalazar wrote: post #86

noobermin wrote: post #57

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…

"Engagement" is the "paper clip maximizer"[1] of the modern software industry, or more generally an example of "instrumental convergence." Optimizing engagement without regard for negative externalities is a catastrophic ethical failure of the major players in the software industry, and we are finally seeing a backlash both from mainstream advertisers and widespread public outcry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In…

Engagement can also ultimately at odds with retention. We see people leaving Twitter and Facebook all the time due to exhaustion with the toxic conflict. So they become self-reinforcing cess pools of thought that (hopefully) gradually lose relevance.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#95

Post by stjohnswarts » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:22 AM 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.

You are 100% correct. It seems like a majority of the twitter crowds scream for the destruction of a person's reputation, livelihood, and family ties because of stuff that got said 15 years ago. It's pretty sad and why I don't bother at all. It's total swamp in my opinion, beyond salvation.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#96

Post by stjohnswarts » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #17

momokoko wrote: post #11

The only winning move is not to play.

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…

It used to be quaint and fun and of limited damage potential back in the days of MySpace, but now it's just a mess. All I use are the messenger functions of facebook to keep in touch with old friends and a few semi anonymous sites like reddit and hackernews.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#97

Post by stjohnswarts » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

dcow wrote: post #75

adventured wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s the alternative if one is not to use Twitter? How do you publicize your findings or insights to a broad population? If you can, you do it behind the shield of a faceless corporate entity (that you own) doing the promoting, rather than tying statements to your own personal identity. You don't stop using Twitter or Instagram et al., you stop using them to project your personal opinions out into the world. Your…

In other words: self-censor. Sorry not my style. I believe you have good points about keeping your work and personal lives as separate as possible and I believe your advice is very pragmatic. I don't, however, think it should be necessary nor is it realistic. Let's all go into sterile work environments for 8+ hours a day where we have to self-censor based solely on observations of how other people fucked up and anger…

I don't think he was implying that you have to live by what he perceives as an out to the social quagmire to be found in social media. Let the screaming masses have it and they'll eventually destroy themselves or move on to another quagmire.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#98

Post by npunt » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:30 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #66

zozbot234 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about this proposal is precisely how it replaces the problematic "apology" dynamic with a neutral retraction. Apologies may or may not be rejected as insincere, but a retraction is simply a factual statement that the user no longer stands behind what they wrote, while preserving the content itself (unlike tweet deletion, which in practice tends to escalate reposts) for the sake of transparency.

Well, if you have someone determined to go after someone else, the most nuanced approach is not going to get you much. The attacker just rephrases it as they wish. Which is to say, when you have a medium like Twitter, where the entire world can march in and get involved with conversation X, a proposal for de-escalation seems futile and a bit absurd. Among other things, a lot of media personalities have built their en…

Twitter isn't just one thing, it's composed of many communities of various sizes and closeness. Some communities are toxic and enjoy kicking people when they're down, others less so. We tend to recall only the extremes of these big personalities doing bad things.

People model behavior every day on Twitter. If people only see or recall others kicking people when they're down, that's what people will expect is the norm, and this will sway future behavior. If there are tools that offer alternatives, then we can alter those norms, and make change among the many people not at the extremes, swaying them toward more productive and respectful discourse.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#99

Post by kortilla » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:39 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #56

noobermin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironic response :)

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#100

Post by kortilla » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #38

gpm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is "NEVER say "I'm sorry!"" Unless it's followed by "that you're an idiot" ;) Joking aside, I think in American culture it's often more important to say "I did $x badly" than "I'm sorry about $x". I feel like many American's (especially in white collar work) assume a certain cut throat mentality and don't believe that you are actually sorry, but they do agree you fucked up. Generally when talking to people you want…

The same goes for the Japanese. Empty apologies are empty. They need to know that the issue is "owned," regretted, a solution/amend is offered, and it won't happen again. Not a fun time. Americans, in my experience, don't care. They just find satisfaction in being a bit "better than" I am, and their reactions are purely emotion-driven. They usually would try to pile extra transgressions (that I was not responsible fo…

What profession were you in? I’ve worked at ~10 software companies throughout my career and fessing up to causing an issue was seen as much worse than admitting you fucked up.