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

Why we crave internet justice

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#41

Post by tomjen3 »

noduerme wrote: post #31
Ambolia wrote: post #7

Consensus building doesn't work without centralized mass media. People just have to get used to have different groups with different values inside the same country and be ok with that. Decentralized chains of trust will grow, which was the norm before mass media appeared. Either that, or centralization will reassert itself brutally and force a new consensus.

I don't think democracy can survive if people in a nation can't form a consensus on basic features of shared, objective reality. This type of consensus did exist, and could be reached, in the 1770s, long before centralized mass media. The creation of competing "chains of trust", which see an election as legitimate or illegitimate, a virus as dangerous or fabricated, is actually only possible by the manipulation of ma…

It couldn't be reached then either. Think about how many different versions of Christianity there was then. There was no mass media to speak of then, and yet these versions of the Christian faith disagreed on some extremely fundamental points, including how to, and through whom, you could be saved.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#42

Post by hprotagonist »

noduerme wrote: post #31
Ambolia wrote: post #7

Consensus building doesn't work without centralized mass media. People just have to get used to have different groups with different values inside the same country and be ok with that. Decentralized chains of trust will grow, which was the norm before mass media appeared. Either that, or centralization will reassert itself brutally and force a new consensus.

I don't think democracy can survive if people in a nation can't form a consensus on basic features of shared, objective reality. This type of consensus did exist, and could be reached, in the 1770s, long before centralized mass media. The creation of competing "chains of trust", which see an election as legitimate or illegitimate, a virus as dangerous or fabricated, is actually only possible by the manipulation of ma…

Please read up on the election of 1800.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#44

Post by nradov »

hrh wrote: post #33
noduerme wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think democracy can survive if people in a nation can't form a consensus on basic features of shared, objective reality. This type of consensus did exist, and could be reached, in the 1770s, long before centralized mass media. The creation of competing "chains of trust", which see an election as legitimate or illegitimate, a virus as dangerous or fabricated, is actually only possible by the manipulation of ma…

We can with a shift towards the Switzerland model, but practically, that's very difficult to do.

Well people are already sorting themselves by moving between states based on political affiliation. If we strengthen States' rights and limit Federal government power in line with the original intent of the Constitution then I think we can all mostly get along. Americans get all worked up about who wins the Presidential election because the executive branch has gained so much power over every aspect of our lives but it doesn't have to be that way. We don't need to have all the same laws in Massachusetts and Montana.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#46

Post by davidw »

watwut wrote: post #19
davidw wrote: post #18

"The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol." -- Larry Wall

The social environment of people willing to use violence or aggression tend to be super toxic. You get combination of direct aggression from those who would do straggling and passive behind back aggression of those who would be targets. And a lot of enabling of biggest psychopaths due to fear.

It's humorous, but hints at the truth that the anonymity and physical distance from other people leads some to be jerks. Most people are better behaved when speaking in person, even with people they disagree strongly with.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#47

Post by TechBro8615 »

janeroe wrote: post #38

> Why we crave internet justice We don't. If by "we" you mean yourselves (NY Times) or your buddies, then the answer doesn't have to be that long and convoluted.

I often think about our collective perception of this shared reality, and how arbitrarily it depends on the selection bias in the population of salaried writers on the internet.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#48

Post by theshrike79 »

EarlKing wrote: post #26
theshrike79 wrote: post #15

I present to you the John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (2004): https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Normal person + anonymity + audience = Total Fuckwad. This has always been true and always will be.

Thanks to Facebook we know this theory to be falsified. It's not anonymity that makes people total fuckwads, but rather a lack of consequences for their actions. A Facebook luser who posts political drivel that just happens to agree with the position of its owners will face no repercussions and consequently will be emboldened to act like a fuckwad. A lack of anonymity hasn't changed that there nor will it, but actual…

It's practical anonymity anyway. No one will actually bother to dig up Joe Wilkinson from Adairville, Kentucky.

The Internet was killed by the Eternal September of everyone getting access. We forgot the age-old rule of "don't feed the troll".

Now people will respond to, retweet and amplify every village idiot's voice so that it can be heard around the globe. And The Algorithm loves that, because it's engagement and drives more people to engage and be enraged by the content.

If we would just stop interacting with idiots they would shut up or maybe, just maybe, they might learn some actual discourse.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#49

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

noduerme wrote: post #31
Ambolia wrote: post #7

Consensus building doesn't work without centralized mass media. People just have to get used to have different groups with different values inside the same country and be ok with that. Decentralized chains of trust will grow, which was the norm before mass media appeared. Either that, or centralization will reassert itself brutally and force a new consensus.

I don't think democracy can survive if people in a nation can't form a consensus on basic features of shared, objective reality. This type of consensus did exist, and could be reached, in the 1770s, long before centralized mass media. The creation of competing "chains of trust", which see an election as legitimate or illegitimate, a virus as dangerous or fabricated, is actually only possible by the manipulation of ma…

Did it exist? In the early 1770s, there was a pretty big war on the subject of who's in charge; the late 1770s were subject to the Articles of Confederation, famous for their complete failure to establish political legitimacy for the federal government.

Even in the constitutional era, there were constant questions with foundational implications. Is slavery moral? Should Native Americans be forced to move wherever the government finds convenient? Can states secede if they don't like the election results? These were all active disputes at the time, with competing "chains of trust" on both sides.

Re: Why we crave internet justice

#50

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

> But I have more of a life than I once did. I have a wife, a busy career, aging parents and a large family. I have more physical mobility and, in turn, more interest in being active and out in the world. I now spend most of my time with people who are not Very Online. When I talk to them about some weird or frustrating internet conflagration, they tend to look at me as if I am speaking a foreign language from a distant land. And I suppose, I am.

I’ve noticed a tendency for some people to treat twitter and reddit as representative of real life. They look at some outrage that’s viral and think everyone’s outraged. It seems strongest among twitter users. Unfortunately, a lot of journalists seem to be heavy twitter users. There’s a hive mind that they seem to assume everyone good is part of.

Post reply on HN