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

The internet wants to be fragmented

noahpinion.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 246 posts

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#171

Post by lapcat »

fleddr wrote: post #147
LinuxBender wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to this, having run small communities I can see platforms like Mastodon growing into Twitter albeit with a different twist of behavior but eventually becoming equally toxic, just a different flavor of toxic. I believe one of the root causes is that the internet basically connected billions of people from many different cultures into one big pool without any arbiter mechanisms which is bound to get ugly fast. I…

I think Mastodon has the tendency to grow into the opposite extreme of toxicity: fragility. People as well as instances are very generously blocked, leading to perfectly peaceful bubbles. Which are not that great. There's almost perfect ideological agreement...but not really. A handful of people dominate conversation by posting frequently whilst the rest barely engages and/or is afraid to speak their mind. As an exam…

> A handful of people dominate conversation by posting frequently whilst the rest barely engages and/or is afraid to speak their mind.

This is true of Twitter too.

> Just getting your post seen at all is a challenge, and building somewhat of a following can takes months if not years of purposeful effort. This means that for the typical user, the feeling that you're screaming into the void will be common, leaving the question: why post at all?

I've also felt this is true of Twitter.

> As an example, on a fairly large Mastodon instance I saw a popular user claiming how we should still wear masks. There were a few dozen replies, all in perfect agreement.

Maybe people aren't there for debate club? I personally joined Twitter, and Mastodon, for tech. In fact I first joined Twitter for a tech conference. I have very little interest in debating political and social issues on social media. I muted/blocked all that stuff on Twitter and will do so if necessary on Mastodon.

There are too many people on Twitter who are just looking for a fight. A lot of us aren't interested at that at all, and would rather just participate congenially in a shared interest. If that's a "bubble", then I'm happy to be a bubble boy.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#172

Post by fleddr »

jacooper wrote: post #164
fleddr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Mastodon has the tendency to grow into the opposite extreme of toxicity: fragility. People as well as instances are very generously blocked, leading to perfectly peaceful bubbles. Which are not that great. There's almost perfect ideological agreement...but not really. A handful of people dominate conversation by posting frequently whilst the rest barely engages and/or is afraid to speak their mind. As an exam…

But is that limited to just Mastodon? That happens on other social media to avoid getting banned. One example is anything showing disagreement with LGBTQ movement from the east, no matter how much you think that is a done thing, it definitely not, especially there.

No, I think the effect of "toxic positivity" is found wherever you create a small community, whether that be Reddit, Mastodon, or anything else.

Toxic positivity isn't necessarily about banning, it's rather "soft silencing" within the bubble. Those most ideologically active dominate the network and discourage any type of dissent.

To stick with my mask example. There's absolutely no consensus within progressive circles that mandatory masking should make a comeback. So there should be significant debate even within the progressive bubble. But there is none. Zero. That likely means that a lot of people in the bubble disagree yet are afraid to express that.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#173

Post by brnaftr361 »

It was the smartphone. Not necessarily the phones themselves, but the wide reaching accessibility. Internet users skyrocketed and if phoneposters we're any indication of the aggregate impact - the quality of conversation deteriorated. And yes, mobile accessible platforms caused a sort of gravity and viola.

Also I'm reasonably sure this is just a truism. "Schismogenesis" in addition to the fact that everybody wants to be on the same page with their community. The nature of the internet in that it's basically just a huge, permanent log of interactions just allows us to observe this shit more easily and remark on it in post.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#174

Post by krapp »

LinuxBender wrote: post #158
fleddr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Mastodon has the tendency to grow into the opposite extreme of toxicity: fragility. People as well as instances are very generously blocked, leading to perfectly peaceful bubbles. Which are not that great. There's almost perfect ideological agreement...but not really. A handful of people dominate conversation by posting frequently whilst the rest barely engages and/or is afraid to speak their mind. As an exam…

toxic positivity Positively toxic echo chambers. I think you summed it up perfectly. I've seen what you described occur in the past on other chat platforms and forums. Mostly forums. People that think alike get some high rank and access to private sub-forums and people that have thoughts not aligned with the tribe start to think the forum is no longer being used. Not sure how that would translate into the Mastodon pl…

Meh. What's wrong with not wanting every online space I inhabit to be embroiled in ceaseless no-holds-barred political and social warfare? If I want that, it's easy to find, it doesn't have to be everywhere.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#175

Post by delecti »

causality0 wrote: post #44

Being the same person online as offline destroyed everything great about the internet. When you were an asshole you got banned from the website, and then you had to trim some of your sharp edges off so you didn't get banned from the next one. These days being an asshole results in either you aurrou ding yourself entirely with other assholes or getting your real life ruined by losing your job or even being arrested in…

There are still plenty of very large websites that make that possible though, and also plenty of large websites. I'd rather not lose my preferred identity on here, reddit, or twitter, but I could easily make another account on any of them if I got banned for being too spicy.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#176

Post by HD103720b »

Nextgrid wrote: post #113
dayvid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem is that you can make money from the internet. The internet was more about self-expression and fun. Then people realized they can sell things or themselves (being a "content-creator", "thought-leader", etc.). As a result the most active people are tailoring their actions towards increasing engagement, getting you to buy something, getting you to think a certain way, etc. and we have a divide betwee…

I would say the biggest problem is advertising. It would be much less harmful if commercial content was upfront about asking for your wallet, and the transaction ended there (the publisher's incentives are directly aligned with the end-customer's). Instead, we have stuff that's technically "free" but actually comes with plenty of strings attached such as mismatched incentives - the content is only there as bait and t…

Not just advertising, its the ad networks that have been silently putting their finger on the scale to coax/trick the major corporate customers to support certain issues.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#177

Post by josephcsible »

borski wrote: post #128
TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all false equivalencies, as you're talking technology and implementation instead of a consumer product or idea. The author is talking about centralization of moderation and audience, not how it's hosted or how that moderation/audience is presented to the user People moved off of IRC because it was inconvenient for less-technical users, it is far easier to just download an app. That doesn't mean they want th…

I agree, but I’d also argue discord or Slack does this, in the same way that IRC did; you essentially spin up separate servers and thus separate communities. Sure, it’s still hosted by a central entity, but the moderation and discourse is all yours to manage.

> the moderation and discourse is all yours to manage.

No it isn't. Look at all the things https://discord.com/guidelines and https://slack.com/acceptable-use-policy say you can't do. For example, Discord bans sharing cheats for even single-player games, and Slack bans discussing ideas for a chat app of your own.

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#178

Post by mikrotikker »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #10
machina_ex_deus wrote: post #4

The biggest problem is the like button. The like button is not only a bad metric - it's the worst possible metric. Speaking up used to be something you do to change someone's mind or yours. What's the point in speaking up if nobody does anything with what you said? The like button reprogrammed people. They started getting positive feedback for speaking in an echo chamber, for saying and doing things their audience al…

Speech is also about comfort and venting where echo chambers shine. And those chambers predate the social media. IME even IRL people tend to congregate mostly with like minded individuals. And if the congregation turns out to have too many views in contrast to ones own then folks tend to leave.

I was so baffled years ago by a man on the street series of interviews where people in a Liberal US City were asked if they had any republican friends or if they would be friends with such. Most said no. I also know a US lady who echo's this. Today my YouTube feed is filled with both conservatives and liberals (most of which voted republican)

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#179

Post by lapcat »

fleddr wrote: post #172
jacooper wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is that limited to just Mastodon? That happens on other social media to avoid getting banned. One example is anything showing disagreement with LGBTQ movement from the east, no matter how much you think that is a done thing, it definitely not, especially there.

No, I think the effect of "toxic positivity" is found wherever you create a small community, whether that be Reddit, Mastodon, or anything else. Toxic positivity isn't necessarily about banning, it's rather "soft silencing" within the bubble. Those most ideologically active dominate the network and discourage any type of dissent. To stick with my mask example. There's absolutely no consensus within progressive circle…

> So there should be significant debate even within the progressive bubble.

Why? There are no new government mandates on the horizon, and it's not one of the biggest issues in the world for progressives.

> That likely means that a lot of people in the bubble disagree yet are afraid to express that.

Or maybe they're just a lot less interested in this debate than the vehement anti-maskers?

Re: The internet wants to be fragmented

#180

Post by delecti »

fleddr wrote: post #172
jacooper wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is that limited to just Mastodon? That happens on other social media to avoid getting banned. One example is anything showing disagreement with LGBTQ movement from the east, no matter how much you think that is a done thing, it definitely not, especially there.

No, I think the effect of "toxic positivity" is found wherever you create a small community, whether that be Reddit, Mastodon, or anything else. Toxic positivity isn't necessarily about banning, it's rather "soft silencing" within the bubble. Those most ideologically active dominate the network and discourage any type of dissent. To stick with my mask example. There's absolutely no consensus within progressive circle…

Earlier you said "claiming how we should still wear masks", and now you're discussing mandates. I don't think it's contradictory to be opposed to mandates of something you support.

As far as my opinion goes, we should still wear masks, but mandates just turn people into petulant children and aren't worth the trouble.

Post reply on HN