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

181–190 of 226 posts

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

#181

Post by synu »

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…

I used to think this, but I am almost certain I was wrong. It really just didn't matter at all what I did or didn't do, and there are already so many people grandstanding to each other all the time that it's just more noise on the noise pile. Now I try to avoid it and focus on more interesting things.

Anyway, I think people who say dumb things on the internet suffer much more for not getting attention than being corrected.

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

#182

Post by vorpalhex »

bryan_w wrote: post #54

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

I usually ask a question or two, or correct some tiny non-combustible fact. Just enough for them to start questioning the pithy response.

What gets me is how much the pithy response is often just.. wrong. Not a matter of opinion or politics, not something hard to research, just wrong.

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

#183

Post by bumby »

goodpoint wrote: post #124
fullmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. Speak for yourself please. On most forums nobody is going to praise another for their knowledge. Additionally most people are anonymous.

There seems to be quite a bit of behavioral and evolutionary psychology that claims all actions are initiated by emotions. So the emotional payoff is the real driver, even when people pretend to be above the non-virtuous fray (which is itself a status signaling mechanism with an emotionally validating payoff)

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

#184

Post by troad »

bryan_w wrote: post #54

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt.

Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage.

Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.

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

#185

Post by Levitz »

neuronic wrote: post #129
SoftTalker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And worth keeping in mind that every sub, every comment section, including this place, is a self-selected narrow group that is very much not representative of public opinion in general.

I have frequented r/de for a long time (German subreddit) and it's very much on the student life / left-leaning site of political opinions as a community. It is fascinating how repeated reality checks with the rest of society regarding political and the social landscape (e.g. national polls, elections) seemingly violate the moralist self-image of this community over and over again which is represented in flabbergaste…

>I really understand moderation is a hard problem but deleting entire comment sections and putting threads into contest mode if the left-leaning political opinion is in danger is painful to watch since the essence of democracy suffers: pluralistic (but respectful) discussions and arguments.

If there is a better term for this someone let me know, otherwise I'm going to coin this kind of moderation "bush sculpture" moderation. That's how subreddit moderation works.

If a person saw a bush sculpture for the first time ever they would probably think how it's really curious the bush has this well defined shape, and happily conclude that the bush is just like that. "Pretty cool how there is a bush with the shape of a dog's face" they'll think.

In the same way, visiting a subreddit you would think that that's just the community and content. But once you see how moderation works you realize that in reality, the community is pulling to all sorts of places at the same time, and by pruning the content here and there with the shears of moderation, using the chainsaw that is automod and by motivating growth with precision via shadowbanning and choosing what becomes popular, you can perfectly shape a subreddit into the content you want.

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

#186

Post by iinnPP »

csydas wrote: post #102
bryan_w wrote: post #54

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

I absolutely understand your strategy and that there is a huge frustration to have such awful pithy ideas continue to spread. One thing I'd like to offer though is a reminder of the quote "living well is the best revenge." I deal with a lot of prima donna managers, technical persons, you name it, and it became a lot easier for me to just let things go when I realized the best thing I can do to counter the pithy/ridic…

That only works if you are in a position that isn't negatively impacted (yet) by the permeation of specific ideas.

The conversation has, unsurprisingly, shifted slightly as inflation puts more people from your position into a position where not caring could eventually be life altering.

It's quite concerning to say the least.

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

#187

Post by skcusgnad »

camdenlock wrote: post #95
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 res…

You should write about this. Clearly you've thought about this a fair bit.

> 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.

This isn't a jab at you; I don't know you at all and don't judge. But what you said would explain why it seems that the overused of furries and anime avatars is overrepresented in the LGBT community.

Side note - yesterday I got my account banned for pointing out something along these lines. Dang sucks.

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

#188

Post by [deleted] »

synu wrote: post #181
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…

I used to think this, but I am almost certain I was wrong. It really just didn't matter at all what I did or didn't do, and there are already so many people grandstanding to each other all the time that it's just more noise on the noise pile. Now I try to avoid it and focus on more interesting things. Anyway, I think people who say dumb things on the internet suffer much more for not getting attention than being corr…

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by Kamq »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #31
Kamq wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

GP seems to say this already. The thrust of their point is that the time spent engaging isn’t worth it for the person debating, not whether it does or doesn’t impact the perspectives on those that view the debate.

> The thrust of their point is that the time spent engaging isn’t worth it for the person debating

Yes, and this is my main point of disagreement with them. My point is that there is plenty of value if you want there to be.

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

#190

Post by Scubabear68 »

I really like to debate issues. This leads to many problems on the modern internet.

I won’t go into all of them, but the biggest by far is when the real world and online world collide, and you encounter stakeholders not willing to work on a good-faith basis.

I live in a small town of around 6,000 people in NJ. Very rural, you have to drive 30+ minutes to get most anywhere. Yet our bucolic town is a hot bed of intrigue because a small but very vocal group of people have come to dominate online conversations. The local Facebook pages have become toxic. A regular stream of lies, false accusations, made up “threats” to the community, false narratives on school referendums, etc are propagated online in an effort to change the actual fiber of our towns.

Attempts to engage in good faith leads to the predictable results - name calling, doxxing, character assassination, fake posters. It escalates into stalking, obscene graffiti spray painted on driveways, etc. Facebook is far and away the biggest problem here.

The end result is many of the saner people have exited all the local Facebook groups. For me it’s sad that I am now less connected with what’s going on. But it is worth it for getting rid of the drama and stress.

Neighbors IRL can disagree (even radically) and still be neighbors. Neighbors on the Internet rapidly devolves into the unhinged and depraved and frankly immoral people (from a golden rule perspective) dominating every conversation.

Moderation would seem to be the answer, but hasn’t worked.

Post reply on HN