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

#191

Post by magicalhippo » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

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…

> Interaction is mostly with total strangers

My online social interaction is mostly with people I've talked to daily for years, sometimes decades. Most of them I've had close personal talks with. While I haven't met most of them face to face, they're certainly not strangers.

> almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language)

While most of my online social interactions is via text, some is via speech. TeamSpeak was common before but more niche, Discord is making it very convenient so more general these days. That said, I'd say you can express a lot through text, but it's a different art perhaps.

I sorta grew up on newsgroups and IRC. While it's nice meeting people in person, I can certainly fill most of my social quota via Discord or similar these days.

Thinking more about it, I think the key difference is that what I enjoy is the content of the talk, not how it's performed (ie body language etc).

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

#192

Post by starkd » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:01 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…

Things change alot when your main objective is not about convincing other people they are wrong, but just appreciating the ability to participate in a conversation. We all want to influence other people's ideas, but their are severe limits to that. Sometimes simply adding your voice to the conversation is enough of a statement in that it lets everyone know that not everyone agrees, and that there are reasonable alternate takes.

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

#193

Post by starkd » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

jrm4 wrote: post #171

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…

100% I'd say the primary reason to post on a forum is so that other people see it. It's funny when I get spicy somewhere and then the person tries to lecture me on "maybe I should say my point nicer so the person I'm arguing against is more likely to change their mind," as if that were the primary goal.

What if the primary reason is not about your own visibility, but what you can learn from other commentators. Not accusing you of egomania, but expecting your voice to matter in such forums might unnecessarily feed your ego.

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

#194

Post by gruez » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

>and there are already so many people grandstanding to each other all the time that it's just more noise on the noise pile.

This is true to an extent. If you're in a 500 comment thread, and the point you want to make has already been made by a few other people, there's little point in dogpiling in yourself. However, this isn't always true. If you're adding new information/perspectives, I don't see how that's "just more noise on the noise pile".

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

#195

Post by spacemadness » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:26 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #165

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.

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.

Maybe this is a good use of AI for auto moderation. Save everyone time rehashing the same argument path for recognized arguments by providing the conclusion that the discussion is ultimately leading to. Seems like a good fit for a Black Mirror episode.

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

#196

Post by spacemadness » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

ecf wrote: post #176

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…

> 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. Too bad Reddit is an echo chamber these days where you’ll be downvoted into auto-deletion in all but the smallest subreddits.

It’s always been an echo chamber. It’s just a louder one now that it has finally hit mass appeal. That said, HN definitely has its own echo chamber like qualities depending on the topic. I don’t know that you can avoid that on a site using an upvote/downvote system.

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

#197

Post by spacemadness » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #105

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.

And this goes far beyond politics (though it's the obvious one). People say they only can use reddit to find organic recommendations, but the representation is still very narrow. Take podcasts or books for example: if you use reddit to source recommendations, you'll get the same ones coming up over and over. Many of my favorite podcasts I've found have been stumbled across by chance and have rarely even been mentione…

Hobby subreddits in hobbies I’m more versed in are incredibly frustrating as it converges to people trying to fit the same rehashed suggestions onto whatever is being asked without any real thought about the context of the question. I get the feeling its just people trying to fit in by repeating authoritative recommendations while having next to no experience with what they’re suggesting.

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

#198

Post by hnbear » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #98

undersuit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

As original poster I meant more that if you know somewhere like 4Chan is generally a highly negative place, I'd stay away from it, and in bulk (ie, the whole site), cut off that source of noise.

Really applies to somewhere like Facebook too.

I didn't mean to cut off discussion or specific sides in a view point, but more to cut off sources of low-quality discussion. I do realize there's danger in how you categorize low quality too.

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

#199

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

smaudet wrote: post #74

s1artibartfast wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's really depends on what you're trying to learn. If you want to learn about someone's position it may be better to ask them than play Devil's Advocate. If you want to learn about the devil's position, the other person won't be able to help you. As you mentioned, time, place, and consent are important. You see this a lot in forums dedicated to debate. What consent means in general forms like this one is a…

Or, if you just want get practice (internet) arguing, its always a good idea. OFC, the other people need to be interested in arguing. Random debate is a valuable skill, and I don't know that I 100% agree that "consent" is important. There's a difference between harassing someone and letting them know you don't agree (we call that discourse), if they're not interested in continuing the conversation a lot of people wil…

>I don't know that I 100% agree that "consent" is important.

That's why I said it is ambiguous what consent means. Engaging is always discretionary as nobody is forced to respond. That said, I think there is value in people being more clear about their intent, so that people have more information when deciding to engage.

This leads to higher quality debate and discussion than when two people have different notions of what the topic and purpose of the conversation is.

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

#200

Post by 2devnull » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

If you hold things inside, in the long run it erodes your soul. Better to speak your mind and relieve the pressure. Often, by voicing opinions, our opinions change. We think, “oh gosh, cringe at what I said,” and then evolve. As Hemingway put it, “continence is the greatest foe to heresy.”