1000000% this.
Taken me years to learn to turn it off and walk away. Life is much better now.
Also, it often works in real life too
You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
201–210 of 226 posts
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mo…
To me it just seems like everybody talking past each other, that this supposed silent majority of people passively observing and waiting to be convinced by the most reasonable argument simply doesn't exist, or barely does.
Your mileage may vary, but this has been my experience.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We used to have "don't feed the trolls" mantra and the things indeed were more peaceful. The people opposing what trolls said were blamed more then trolls themselves. And what they said was minimized with "he is just edgy". What we got in exchange is that trolls convinced fair amount of people. They opinions were th Those who opposed them were consistently blamed.
I'm pretty sure the reason not to feed the trolls was because the moderators were around the corner and would be inconvenienced by having to moderate a large flamewar rather than ban a single ignored troll.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#204Earlier 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.
You’re leaving lot of noise on the table if you only look with one eye.
If I didn't close one eye I'd be blind when I went from light to dark.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#205Earlier 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.
I don't go on Twitter to be informed, and the informers I block are liars so I'm OK with my actions.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#206When 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.
Do you think most users here post comments for those reasons?
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that part of this felt highly avoidant. It's one thing to engage in nonsense with random strangers - that is likely useless (irony ensues). But to feel attacked by coworkers who are upset about their jobs is probably just toxic. I assume the author's situation has more nuance than that, but they didn't provide that in their writing.
The context is that they work for Tailscale. (I'm guessing you assumed they were FAANG?)
Why do you guess/assume that assumption?
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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" mod…
That is a very good analogy.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#209I was fortunate to learn this from pointless internet flamewars early in my life. Understand why you're in an argument and what you hope to accomplish by being in an argument. 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 think applying this has generally made me more successful outsi…
> Understand why you're in an argument and what you hope to accomplish by being in an argument.
There's a spectrum here, but I've noticed that a lot of people like to debate things online because they're genuinely trying to understand the problem set, or want to play around with ideas. They're not looking to "argue" necessarily. However, on the other end, some people do interpret any disagreement as an argument and will then turn the discussion into one that they will try to "win".
It can be frustrating if you're coming at it from a "discovery" perspective and the other person wants to fight, or you're coming at it from a fight perspective and the other one wants to discover. This happens in real life as well, but it's a little bit easier to communicate what your intent is based on your tone and expression.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 mo…
To me it just seems like everybody talking past each other, that this supposed silent majority of people passively observing and waiting to be convinced by the most reasonable argument simply doesn't exist, or barely does. Your mileage may vary, but this has been my experience.
How would you be able to tell whether the silent population is there or not? I can understand how this could be your “theory,” but not your “experience.”