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

221–226 of 226 posts

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

#221

Post by worthless-trash »

duckmysick wrote: post #88
TillE wrote: post #9

> Even if you are a formal spokesperson for a company, you don't have to engage. This is key! At a lower level, if you're modding a Discord server or whatever, you can ignore people, and if they become a real problem you can just ban them. You don't need to engage with their drama, you don't owe them anything.

In my experience this leads to accusations about "power tripping mods" who "silence different opinions". Ditto on subreddits. Not engaging in those cases means stepping down as a moderator or even quitting the community. It will be worse off - moderating aside, it will lose some institutional knowledge. But in the long run you will feel better. You're right that you don't owe them anything. It's the same in the open…

> You're right that you don't owe them anything. It's the same in the open source projects.

In my limited experience, it seems that people think that developers owe them. It is so very strange how they have come to this conclusion.

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

#222

Post by escapedmoose »

synu wrote: post #219
escapedmoose wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

My experience is nobody from the massive silent population has ever jumped in to introduce themselves and say they were convinced, and I've never met anyone in real life who says they use forums but don't post just to be convinced by arguments on the internet to choose one worldview or another. From that experience I developed the theory that they don't actually exist. But anyway, debating the semantic difference bet…

Not trying to debate semantics. I was hoping you had some data that showed the proportion of lurkers or something. Or maybe some survey where people answered whether they’d been convinced by reading others’ debates online. I’ve personally sought out online debates to help make my own judgments (without commenting), so I’m curious whether that’s really so uncommon.

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

#223

Post by trandan »

skcusgnad wrote: post #187
camdenlock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ov…

Like most tech forum moderators, dang is actually a closeted trans women who is secretly obsessed with My Little Pony. So please don't be bigoted.

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

#224

Post by dTal »

spacemadness wrote: post #195
dTal wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans are perfectly good at recognizing rehashed arguments without the need for AI. The difficulty is that the current crop of social media platforms focus on ephemeral discussion and provide poor tools for "linking" a discussion to an isomorphic one that happened earlier. The incentive structure is such that they would rather you go ahead and rehash the argument. Yay, engagement!

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

#225

Post by ShamelessC »

sockmeistr wrote: post #148
ShamelessC wrote: post #113

Earlier 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?)

I made no such assumptions. Doing this in any workplace, tech or no, is toxic to people who are justifiably upset with their workplace. The vibe I was getting was that rather than admit there could be toxic elements at play, the author chooses to blame those complaining instead.

It's a tale as old as the workplace.

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

#226

Post by jrm4 »

starkd wrote: post #193
jrm4 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, that's part of it. I'm not saying I'm posting then running away in victory. Always appreciate challenges too.
Post reply on HN