Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#2>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text
Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility.
Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it worked. Maybe reducing conversation surface area reduces chances for conflict.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#3>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility. Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it wor…
I read that totally differently.
> We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text.
I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus:
People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to:
* delete inflammatory content
* block users who derail conversations
* use emoji to convey emotions in textRe: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#4>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility. Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it wor…
[deleted]
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#5The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why.
A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive.
-- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0.
I have been downvoted. I do not know why. Has some brigade decided to target my post? Downvoted because of my username? Unhappy with the idea? Does someone a personal vendetta agaisn't me?
An explanation to why would provide civil discussion and seperate the bots/power-trippers from those who do want to contrbute civily. The conversation was on point, contributing civily. Nothing unconstructive was within my text, yet it leaves me baffled to why I was downvoted. Was it soley because I clash with someones view and they don't want to challenge it? I like to earn my "internet points" in a solitude fashion but it only takes one bad actor to screw the show.
Forcing the user to give a reason to why, well that would be a different story. Users further down the line could then decide if that downvote was the worth. If that user is a being a bad actor. For now, it's marked as 0 and you can watch the trend.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#6The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…
Before comment karma was a thing, certain forums and usenet newsgroups didn't really contain constructive arguments or disagreements.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#7The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…
Before comment karma was a thing, certain forums and usenet newsgroups didn't really contain constructive arguments or disagreements.
Forums have envolved in to social lands known as Reddit,HN, Twitter and the such. The only element that's shifted is how the way the content is presented.
Twitter is a glorified SMS/MMS message
Reddit is a glorified PHPBB forum
HN is glorified usenet.
Specific forums hold specific coversations which the above platforms are the same. HN is targetted towards the tech edge, reddit is targetted towards the average casual indiviual and Twitter/TikTok for the teenages but you still get the same output on all three.
As reddit to HN, The "downvote/upvote" mechanism is old, broken and blatent. Reddit introduced fuzzing to hide the real numbers and as a method to hide abuse. HN had the upper edge of only allowing selected users to downvote after a threshold but that itself feels bias. How many engineers read HN, and how many colleagues know each other with the power to conspire? They all have a problems of their own. HN for example has an problem that if you comment calling on a "fanboy" group, whether it's Elon, Apple, Google in discussion you end up getting lynched for it.
The karma-idealogy has been done and it worked when the internet was growing, however the internet has grown immaturely and we've never shifted away. We still live in an "upvote/downvote" generation where to the point now that folk are paid to farm for internet points. Controversial opinon, but it's civil.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#8The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…
For a long time I thought HN was free of the kinds of bad faith, intellectually dishonest interactions that you find in other popular forums. I was wrong, it's just a different crowd (one that isn't so clearly left or right). There is a vague "orthodoxy" and the downvotes will flow if you speak outside it. Recently, my account has apparently been flagged such that I'm only allowed to post a few comments per hour. I'm also suspecting that some users employ some kind of black list or tagging system to punish accounts that have demonstrated wrongthink. shrug It's still better than Ars Technica.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#9This article is interesting but they are probably overthinking it. I think it's 80% or more due to the "road rage" effect. That is, people who aren't face-to-face don't humanize the other they are interacting with. There's also the "alcohol" effect, which is to say that someone speaks recklessly when they aren't afraid of getting punched for it.
Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
#10>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility. Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it wor…
I read that totally differently. > We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text. I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus: People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to: * delete inflammatory…
The author could have used a comma if she meant that...