You don't have to engage with people on the Internet • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

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…

Asch's Conformity Study proved the effect of having just one extra voice stand for the truth.

This effect is stronger than most people think, which is why totalitarian governments, and those aspiring to get there, employ botnets and resort to shadowbanning etc.

Keep standing up for the truth, you help others overcome peer pressure!

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

#162

Post by lisper » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

raattgift wrote: post #149

lisper wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the intent to advance a hypothesis for public scrutiny was declared explicitly, indicating the basis for forming the hypothesis (or where it was found, if not originated by the hypothesis-advancer), then I think there would be interactions with experts rather than an avalanche of non-experts repeating slogans (with no indication of how or where they found the adage). That sort of transparency may make the differen…

But the scientific method applies to all aspects of life, not just science-y things. When I wrote "Or... you [might] want to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to public scrutiny" I was actually doing just that: advancing a hypothesis to see if it would stand up to scrutiny, specifically, the hypothesis that one reason one might engage in a discussion on the internet is to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to scrutiny.

(So far, so good.)

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

#163

Post by jmyeet » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

> You can just sit back and let people be wrong. Especially when it's about your employer.

Here's a better rule: don't argue about, comment on, criticize or even defend your employer in public at all. No good can come of it. You're almost never going to convince someone otherwise and the worst case is you find yourself quoted in the New York Times as "employee of X" (yes, I've seen this happen). Your employer isn't your family. You're not invested in how they're perceived. Your relationship is transactional if they're not paying you to represent them, don't. They will pick you rname on a spreadsheet and fire you tomorrow to slightly improve their bottom line.

As for arguing with randoms you generally want to quickly identify which bucket someone falls into:

1. People who reasonably disagree; or

2. The "my feelings matter more than your facts" crowd. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

IME you can quickly separate the two and as soon as someone is clearly in the second camp, just block them (on platforms you can) or stop responding (where you can't). No good can come of it.

Furhter engagement can actually turn someone into a "hater". They will follow you around, comment on everything you say and do and may go as far as mass reporting you. Don't let them get that invested.

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

#164

Post by LastTrain » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:09 PM UTC

bityard wrote: post #150

guerrilla wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would like to hear more about your thesis that arguing with people you don't know on the internet improves the world. :)

Do you think a tight election could be swayed by the actions of people online? Do you not think what people do online influences the decisions of politicians and policymakers? Unfortunately, engaging online is intertwined with the political process at this point.

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

#165

Post by dTal » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

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.

Responding to this cynical take will quickly devolve into an argument about whether altruism is "real", so let's skip to the end where we agree that however this tendency evolved, people do in fact do things with no intrinsic motivation beyond making the world a better place.

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

#166

Post by dTal » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

bityard wrote: post #150

guerrilla wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would like to hear more about your thesis that arguing with people you don't know on the internet improves the world. :)

We already did this bit. From the top of this chain:

>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.

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

#167

Post by _Algernon_ » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #137

ianai wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.

That view gives very little credit to bystanders. If people really are unable to see multiple arguments and choose the smarter, we may as well put a cross over democracy, because elections hinge on them doing exactly that.

Democracy is about making decision making reflect the self-interest of as big of a group as possible, not making smart decisions.

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

#168

Post by JanneVee » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

This is the main excuse for companies when they get flak for their anti-consumer behaviour, that the comments on the internet don't matter. It is somehow rooted in emotions and/or irrational status seeking through imagined Internet points. If people show up in the comments they could have something to say! I know that this is a place of terminally online people and we have seen sooo much bullshit in comments but we can't turn a blind eye to some of the bullshit that big corporations pull and not tell people why we think it is wrong. One of the best examples is that I had to fight Intel fanbois defending software unlocks for CPU performance. It is anti-consumer behaviour where they are artificially segmenting the market to build fewer models. The car manufacturers are doing similar things now where they always put in heated seats in the car and tries to sell the ass heating as a software subscription... when I buy the car I'm paying for the heating coils in the seat and I should be able to turn them on at any time since I bought them.

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

#169

Post by wellanyway » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

miguelgrinberg wrote: post #145

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…

What few people understand is that by responding you are also elevating the engagement score of the ridiculous take and ensuring it gets in front of many more eyes.

Yep. Especially if the reply is a video reaction. Like, congratulations, you are giving platform to the worst things you could find out there.

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

#170

Post by cactusplant7374 » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

JanneVee wrote: post #168

This is the main excuse for companies when they get flak for their anti-consumer behaviour, that the comments on the internet don't matter. It is somehow rooted in emotions and/or irrational status seeking through imagined Internet points. If people show up in the comments they could have something to say! I know that this is a place of terminally online people and we have seen sooo much bullshit in comments but we c…

Reddit is best known for terminally online people. The place where one person leaves a boilerplate comment for another person that they will never interact with again.