Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

De-escalating social media conflict

nickpunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 350 posts

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#231

Post by aaron695 »

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.

> apology of the mistake

This is not an apology.

You should not have to apologise for mistakes.

This is part of the problem, it's ok to make mistakes and most mistakes don't need an apology.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#232

Post by asjw »

thinkingemote wrote: post #213

Forgiveness. Rather than encourage better behaviours of those targeted by the mob, it would be better to encourage better behaviours of the mob itself. Forgiveness is absent in every social media or comment section and yet it's one of the crucial ways we get along with people. Having others visibly but perhaps silently forgive another would allow social proof that its okay to forgive this perceived offender. Forgiven…

There is no way that something that is not enforceable will succeed though.

Plus forgiveness works only on then forgiver side, nothing stop others to keep doing what they are doing after you forgave them.

I would argue that the main reason we get along is laws, not forgiveness.

Any society has written (laws) and unwritten (social rules) norms that regulate the interactions between members.

People don't yell in public, usually, because they've been taught it's wrong and people, generally, tend to respect what they've been taught on certain degrees, especially when it is easy to verify those teachings: nobody yells in public, those who do are reprimanded, it must really be a wrong thing to do.

If you forgive someone yelling at kids because their basketball ended up in their garden you could feel better, but are enabling bad behaviour that should be challenged instead.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#233

Post by asjw »

secondcoming wrote: post #76
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…

If there's anyone out there who wants to earn money from advertising there are two words you need to be aware of: "BRAND SAFETY" No well known advertiser wants their brand associated with something unpopular or toxic. This is why YouTube is demonetising any video that mentions Covid-19. YouTube themselves technically probably don't care, but brand safety conscious advertisers certainly do, and so YouTube must too. Th…

Any brand wants potential customers

And social networks have hundreds of millions of them

Do you think Coca Cola cares if KKK members drink it and bottles of Coke are shown in pictures of their rallies?

Brand awareness is more important to them

Starbucks cups with name spelled wrong are the perfect example: people think they are funny and post the picture of the cup with the Starbucks logo making the brand more popular

So what seem an honest mistake is actually a well thought brand awareness campaign

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#234

Post by RashadSaleh »

What about every individual person being responsible for what they say and do?

There is no scheme where this responsibility can be shifted to someone else.

Would you do it? Would you take up the responsibility to correct and monitor and censor and edit what your neighbor says or does?

Are we so afraid to judge people that we need a "system" to express that for us?

But here you see the results. A very condescending "don't worry your little head about it" article written in "good faith" to redeem the "sins" of "misguided" people on social media to "correct their ways".

Preaching, preaching, preaching, and nothing but preaching. Even the harshest judgement is miles better than that.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#235

Post by chinesempire »

mirimir wrote: post #189
guerrilla wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fascists on both the far-left While I appreciate your comment otherwise, fascism is universally agreed to be a far-right ideology and claiming otherwise at this point in history can't really be taken as anything but inflammatory, which isn't what belongs here in an otherwise insightful comment.

Actually the full quote is: > fascists on both the far-left and far-right of the political debate According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:[0] > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible su…

> the Soviet Union was arguably fascist

No, it wasn't.

Fascism is not simply "what you don't like"

If USSR was arguably fascist, so are the USA then.

Do you think bombing other countries for their oil or to seize control of countries close to the enemy borders (like in Vietnam) looks more democratic or fascist?

USSR has been at war in Afghanistan for 9 years, mainly because USA financed the resistance, creating and arming those mujahideen that years later became "terrorists" simply because they weren't needed anymore...

USA has been at war in Afghanistan for 19 years now (and counting) and the evidence to go to war were falsified.

Fascism is a specific thing, if we broaden the meaning of that word, anything can be called fascist.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#236

Post by darkerside »

thinkingemote wrote: post #213

Forgiveness. Rather than encourage better behaviours of those targeted by the mob, it would be better to encourage better behaviours of the mob itself. Forgiveness is absent in every social media or comment section and yet it's one of the crucial ways we get along with people. Having others visibly but perhaps silently forgive another would allow social proof that its okay to forgive this perceived offender. Forgiven…

There's a special way to interact with systems. If you try to modify then crudely, without employing systems thinking, you will end up worse off than you were at the outset.

And, certain changes are straight up impossible, including directly changing the behavior of the masses.

Looked at through a systems thinking lens, the OP solution is quite good.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#237

Post by darkerside »

Spearchucker wrote: post #230
thinkingemote wrote: post #213

Forgiveness. Rather than encourage better behaviours of those targeted by the mob, it would be better to encourage better behaviours of the mob itself. Forgiveness is absent in every social media or comment section and yet it's one of the crucial ways we get along with people. Having others visibly but perhaps silently forgive another would allow social proof that its okay to forgive this perceived offender. Forgiven…

Agree. Forgiveness is great. It's where I started, which led to me questioning why I do it even. And the conclusion I came to was that the anger I felt was... useless, ineffectual and thus a total, unadulterated and complete waste of my time and energy. And so forgiveness led me to acceptance. Accepting all the things has made me very, very content. And occasionally even happy. Because who cares man. Frivolity aside,…

This is a great concept. It's one I've improved at a lot of my life, and I think many people would be happier if they did as well. Reminiscent of the serenity prayer.

On the topic of things you can do, there's one thing that could actually be very effective. Don't public reply, but directly DM the person and explain how their person hurt or impacted you, not in a judgemental way, but in a way intended to share your personal experience. This often gets the poster to see others as people for long enough to recognize what they have done. And importantly, it gives them the space to retract or apologize without caving to the mob. And also, even if they never respond or acknowledge you, you've just given them a memory that may stay in their brain forever, and there are few things more powerful than that.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#238

Post by wffurr »

thinkingemote wrote: post #213

Forgiveness. Rather than encourage better behaviours of those targeted by the mob, it would be better to encourage better behaviours of the mob itself. Forgiveness is absent in every social media or comment section and yet it's one of the crucial ways we get along with people. Having others visibly but perhaps silently forgive another would allow social proof that its okay to forgive this perceived offender. Forgiven…

The author goes into that in the next section of the article.

Forgiveness starts with an apology.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#239

Post by cnorthwood »

_tw9j wrote: post #206
austhrow743 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is largely populated with the 1%.

I doubt that is true. SV crowd may be loud but they aren't the majority on HN. Here's how I would group HN based on income, what keywords make them click and demography. 1. Old system admins, FOSS lovers , and retired due to age folks. Around median income. Keywords - vim, Emacs, firefox, awk, unions, inequality, privacy, new tech bad, linux, open source projects, go, haiku, history, and against-big-tech. 2. Fresh co…

Median by what bar? Global, Silicon Valley, relative to their local area?

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#240

Post by darepublic »

_tw9j wrote: post #206
austhrow743 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is largely populated with the 1%.

I doubt that is true. SV crowd may be loud but they aren't the majority on HN. Here's how I would group HN based on income, what keywords make them click and demography. 1. Old system admins, FOSS lovers , and retired due to age folks. Around median income. Keywords - vim, Emacs, firefox, awk, unions, inequality, privacy, new tech bad, linux, open source projects, go, haiku, history, and against-big-tech. 2. Fresh co…

I feel like you omitted an obvious category; devs who don't work in SV
Post reply on HN