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

You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 226 posts

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#91

Post by sph »

undersuit wrote: post #68
hnbear wrote: post #22

I have the "hide comments section" turned on my ad blocker. Makes the internet a much nicer place in general on a lot of general news/info type sites that aren't explicitly for discussion (eg. HN, Reddit). I was pretty excited a couple of years back when some bigger news sites explicitly turned off their comments saying they only generated distracting noise and added no value. Then, after that I can rigorously filter…

>I think there's huge value in going out of you way to block negative noise in bulk. I'll go on a tweet made by a Twitter user with a large follower count and just start blocking people. AOC and Ilhan Omar are great because I can very easily pick out the crap comments being made just to try and troll them, I've started reading George Takei's tweets recently to block the trolling homophobes that respond to him.

How many monthly active users does Twitter have? I mean, blocking trolls individually is certainly a way to keep busy, but ultimately useless as there are too many, and the craftier and more dangerous trolls (i.e. government sponsored) might have a blue checkmark next to their name and already in your follows list.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#92

Post by paganel »

fullmoon wrote: post #72
julianeon wrote: post #16

I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romantically." It's really, really true: you don't. No one will blame you for keeping to yourself. In many settings it may even be better (example: a club, where the club organizers find the drama caused by romantic entanglements annoying). But there's a problem behind th…

I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : B…

It's mostly because on the Internet you can self-select (sort of) your topic of discussion and your "social" circles.

In real life it would be difficult to have a "fight" and a discussion over public transportation or some random history subject, because, presumably, your friends from real life are not that interested in those subjects. But if you are interested in those subjects you most probably frequent places on the internet that discuss them, hence the fights and the discussions.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#93

Post by guerrilla »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

Improving the world is getting something out of it. That's in one's own interest by itself.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#94

Post by lisper »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

Or, somewhat less pejoratively, you want to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to public scrutiny.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#95

Post by camdenlock »

josteink wrote: post #80

[flagged]

Many HN posters have been pointing this out, yes. It’s getting a bit tiring, but I will once again repeat my multi-decade observational summary:

This aesthetic is the norm for the tiny (but rapidly growing) sliver of humanity who, like the author, favors their constructed Internet identities instead of the less-mutable shared reality that we all inhabit together.

Such persons tend to be impressively talented with respect to the tiniest minutiae of information systems, somewhat emotionally volatile, obnoxiously socialist in political alignment, and somewhere on the autism spectrum.

(Source: am a trans woman who is perfectly content with her identity and form here in our shared reality as a human male. There are more of us than you might think, because it really isn’t a difficult thing to reconcile.)

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#97

Post by ETH_start »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

[flagged]

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#98

Post by ETH_start »

undersuit wrote: post #68
hnbear wrote: post #22

I have the "hide comments section" turned on my ad blocker. Makes the internet a much nicer place in general on a lot of general news/info type sites that aren't explicitly for discussion (eg. HN, Reddit). I was pretty excited a couple of years back when some bigger news sites explicitly turned off their comments saying they only generated distracting noise and added no value. Then, after that I can rigorously filter…

>I think there's huge value in going out of you way to block negative noise in bulk. I'll go on a tweet made by a Twitter user with a large follower count and just start blocking people. AOC and Ilhan Omar are great because I can very easily pick out the crap comments being made just to try and troll them, I've started reading George Takei's tweets recently to block the trolling homophobes that respond to him.

Creating an echo chamber where you assume any criticism of members of a certain political faction are motivated by bigotry and are seeking to troll and deceive, and block the critics accordingly, is going to leave you woefully under-informed.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#99

Post by rjbwork »

charles_f wrote: post #36

I like answering because it helps me clarify my thoughts. I also like the comments on HN at least as much as the articles, and I like to contribute.

Absolutely. It's like a journal I can get feedback on in a low stakes environment. It lets me practice my writing and formulate my thoughts on the outside of my head. I find that simply expressing some thoughts in writing and getting feedback on them helps with developing clarity and even changing my own mind. One does not necessarily have to believe every thought that they've ever written out on the internet. In fact, I'd argue it's a sign of a dull and stagnant intellect if it is the case.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#100

Post by Eisenstein »

robomartin wrote: post #83
oddity wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong. You can think of internet arguments as a method of developing a thought and collecting counterarguments in a real environment to refine it. The choice of forum affects the quality of the counterargument though, and developing a thought can be done with a crowd more likely to give constructive feedback. If some random website works for you, that's fine. My statement is more that if you're interested…

> I've gotten a lot of value out of reading the different sides of other people's arguments, but I know I personally wouldn't have wanted to spend time being part of it. The problem with discussions on the internet is that there's a lot of ignorance and ideology out there and a lack of interest in applying a modicum of thought, research and critical thinking. People know what they know because they know what they kno…

How is this any different from arguing in person? You state 'on the internet' as if it is some kind of exception and makes "People know what they know because they know what they know" a fact that exists only there.

What you neglect totally are these:

1. this can be fact of arguments anywhere, and the key to having a decent one is for all members to act in good faith

2. the internet affords the ability to find sources quickly and quote them, unlike non-internet (especially before smart phones) where it is 'who can say things most convincingly or plead to already existing biases' (which of course does happen, but at least opposition has a chance)

3. on the internet you are not arguing with one person, you are holding a public debate which is forever etched into history for anyone to read

Post reply on HN