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

291–300 of 350 posts

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#291

Post by icebraining »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #138

Years ago I had a rule that I would not post anything after 8pm. I had discovered after some reflection that that was when my "witching hour" for toxic internet posting was most likely to begin. I don't follow the rule anymore as I've slowly disengaged from social media and am less likely to get riled up by that nonsense, but it was a good rule when I did follow it. Commenting platforms should have "circuit breakers"…

HN has a circuit breaker too; as a thread gets deeper, the "reply" link takes longer to appear, to force a cooldown.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#292

Post by cs02rm0 »

My first instinct was that I like the approach.

I certainly agree there's an issue here.

But I would worry about the creep of this as a feature. Some could argue the mistake was only the timing, or that the mistake was that it was posted where the mob could read it. It seems a natural continuation to move to more specific language. This post was unacceptable. This post was insufficiently researched. This post was bullying. This post was racist.

An analogy is probably a bad idea, but in the same way F1 drivers who don't speak out in favour of BLM as a political movement, rather than just a sentiment, are being criticised I wonder if people who don't use this feature would be further targeted. Whether mobs would feel further validated by it.

We could certainly do with something. I fear the answer isn't technical.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#293

Post by dmje »

It's a really interesting post but the net thought I have coming out of it isn't "let's fix this" but "f* it, the whole social media experiment is so conceptually broken, we should all just stop and try something else.."

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#294

Post by Balgair »

caffeine wrote: post #289

It's important not to apologize if you don't honestly believe you have done something wrong. When faced with a mob claiming victimhood or hurt feelings, apologies can confer legitimacy to complaints that don't deserve it. The forced submission and contrition gives the mob its payoff, and thus feeds it further. This appeasement encourages the runaway social media mobs which have now spilled into the real world, murder…

The point I got from the article wasn't this one.

Forgiveness is a two way street. The sinner and the rest of the community have to come together to heal the wounds.

Looking at the community antagonistically and suspiciously isn't the way forward. Each side has to take a leap, knowing full well that they can end up in the mud. That's an essential part of this, the risk. Saying that one side is incapable of understanding and kindness isn't what the article was rousing us to do.

I felt the article was saying to both sides: take the risk, it's worth it.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#295

Post by rnestler »

asjw wrote: post #232
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…

> 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.

In the proposed solution of the article one would only forgive if the offending person did apologize. Probably after getting challenged or called out for what they posted.

So the comparison would be more that someone yelled at the kids, was called out for it and then apologized for their bad behaviour. Then they get forgiveness from the person calling them out.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#296

Post by [deleted] »

caffeine wrote: post #289

It's important not to apologize if you don't honestly believe you have done something wrong. When faced with a mob claiming victimhood or hurt feelings, apologies can confer legitimacy to complaints that don't deserve it. The forced submission and contrition gives the mob its payoff, and thus feeds it further. This appeasement encourages the runaway social media mobs which have now spilled into the real world, murder…

[deleted]

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#297

Post by pjc50 »

Balgair wrote: post #294
caffeine wrote: post #289

It's important not to apologize if you don't honestly believe you have done something wrong. When faced with a mob claiming victimhood or hurt feelings, apologies can confer legitimacy to complaints that don't deserve it. The forced submission and contrition gives the mob its payoff, and thus feeds it further. This appeasement encourages the runaway social media mobs which have now spilled into the real world, murder…

The point I got from the article wasn't this one. Forgiveness is a two way street. The sinner and the rest of the community have to come together to heal the wounds. Looking at the community antagonistically and suspiciously isn't the way forward. Each side has to take a leap, knowing full well that they can end up in the mud. That's an essential part of this, the risk. Saying that one side is incapable of understand…

The world (or the totality of Twitter) is not a community.

You can do this among people who know one another, but among the broader internet? No, too many full time trolls, factionalists, bot farms, advertisers and lunatics.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#299

Post by orangecat »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #290
antepodius wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the point is that if people who want you to lose your job are screaming about you on twitter, it's bad advice to apologise in an attempt to appease them- because the twitter mob won't be happy till you're in the ground. Whether you would be in the mob if the circumstances were turned around is a striking, but secondary, question. Yes, my preferences may include that some people should lose their jobs. But i…

"Sure, but the point is that if people who want you to lose your job are screaming about you on twitter, it's bad advice to apologise in an attempt to appease them- because the twitter mob won't be happy till you're in the ground." I haven't personally observed this nor have I witnessed studies about it. Could you link to me anything like that? I've seen people who have credibly discussed their abuses on twitter and…

Why are we concerned about the careers of people who do bad things

It turns out that Twitter mobs sometimes do not have the most discerning standards of evidence.

Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have a very different reaction to someone arguing against criminal justice reform on the grounds of "why are we concerned with the welfare of people who do bad things?"

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#300

Post by wolco »

mirimir wrote: post #192
wolco wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You proved that faacists can exist on both the left or the right by your last post. Imposing that point of view is equally unpleasant right or left.

Just how did they "prove" that? And just who is doing the "imposing" here?

Parent poster is the who.

Proof can be found in the aggressive tone and imposing the opinion that only the right can be this way.

Leave a little room for discussion.

Post reply on HN