Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of an internet argument

defenderofthebasic.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 125 posts

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#41

Post by randomdata »

marc_abonce wrote: post #22
photochemsyn wrote: post #7

This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human). If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of th…

This is a legit concern, even if the propagandists are human rather than bots. To be fair, though, online debates may have value for the readers even if they never convince the original poster. Since most users in a forum are lurkers[1] it's very hard to measure how effective is an argument and what extent is a particular debate even worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule

How do you even measure the effectiveness towards the original poster? Logically, you are going to spend more time 'arguing' for what you don't believe in as a validation that you truly understand what you do believe in, so what onlookers read is not even a reflection of reality.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#42

Post by komali2 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #7

This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human). If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of th…

I think a lot about, maybe it was "Fall, or Dodge in Hell," or some other Stephenson book, but a plot point was someone open-sourcing a method of releasing millions of low-resource-consumption high-efficacy bots that could take a topic and disseminate several gigabytes of misinformation about that topic across every platform. The system was effective enough to make it virtually impossible to know whether some random town in iirc Ohio got nuked, creating a q-anon cult around that. Then once the bots were released en mass by whoever wants to use them, the internet became indecipherable.

Regarding this topic of people believing wrong and harmful things on the internet and spreading it around (mixed in with the 999 bots is 1 person's great aunt exposing her brain to unfiltered bot noise), I wonder, would the better solution be like the one from the novel, to completely annihilate the trustworthiness of the unfiltered internet, or, perhaps there's some other solution that counters the Oil and Gas bots, perhaps even following a strategy like in the OP article, politely Dale Carnegieing every single point with boundless energy, enthusiasm, politeness, and good faith?

I'm personally motivated by this because my belief system rests on a belief that power and knowledge should be freely distributed among humans equally, alongside responsibility, but for this to work we'd need a method for individuals to resist a much easier to produce tide of bullshit.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#44

Post by niemandhier »

I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason.

The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers.

I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#45

Post by randomdata »

lynx23 wrote: post #36
vundercind wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there’s a point to Internet arguments, convincing the person you’re arguing with isn’t it.

People in general don't really want to be convinced. The default is to communicate your POV, and maybe listen to the story the other person is telling. But thats about it. The case where you end up thinking "This guy is right, I was always wrong these many years, I need to rethink my approach" is the exception, not the norm. Nobody wants to realize they have been deceived, either by themselves or by others. Given tha…

Nah. Those who have settled on some kind of final truth stop talking about it. Topics become boring once you are sure there is nothing left to be convinced of. If someone is wanting to talk about a subject, they are in a state of being unsure and are looking to be convinced of something other than what they are currently thinking.

But rarely is a topic so simple that "X is Y"; "no X is Z" provides enough information to move someone forward towards establishing a final truth. Even if "X is Z" is a true statement, it almost always lacks necessary context to fully satisfy what the other is in need of. It is hard for us to understand where the other person is coming from.

Furthermore, if you do end up truly convincing someone of something, the topic then becomes boring and they'll just stop engaging, so how do you even know whether the argument was 'productive' or if the other just ran out of free time? Of course, it doesn't actually matter, so...

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#46

Post by derekbreden »

xscott wrote: post #15
alex_young wrote: post #12

Why does winning matter? Isn’t it emotionally more work and less gratifying than insulting? I think that’s why things are the way they are. People know this stuff, they just choose to press the insult button.

Your honesty is refreshing, but the result is depressing. It sure would be nice to have a place where you could discuss ideas without it being an argument, or to offer helpful suggestions to people without them treating it like you insulted their intelligence.

> It sure would be nice to have a place where you could discuss ideas without it being an argument

100%

Arguments result in walking away, the relationship ends before hardly any information is exchanged. If either side wants an argument, it can be difficult to avoid. If both sides are seeking understanding, it becomes very easy to exchange a lot of information and for all to learn a great deal, even as they still disagree.

I would very much like to find (or create) forum(s) for discussions seeking understanding instead of arguments seeking to “win” wars or battles.

My own attempts have shown the potential audience is small to non existent, at least with the combinations of words I’ve tried.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#48

Post by amadeuspagel »

raincole wrote: post #33

The first example is basically saying you have to insult yourself first to prevent the other side from insulting you further. I won't call this good faith, let alone a productive discussion. The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Of course I might be wrong. Perhaps I'm just not as good at argumenti…

I see the first example as self-deprecating humor.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#49

Post by lynx23 »

randomdata wrote: post #45
lynx23 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in general don't really want to be convinced. The default is to communicate your POV, and maybe listen to the story the other person is telling. But thats about it. The case where you end up thinking "This guy is right, I was always wrong these many years, I need to rethink my approach" is the exception, not the norm. Nobody wants to realize they have been deceived, either by themselves or by others. Given tha…

Nah. Those who have settled on some kind of final truth stop talking about it. Topics become boring once you are sure there is nothing left to be convinced of. If someone is wanting to talk about a subject, they are in a state of being unsure and are looking to be convinced of something other than what they are currently thinking. But rarely is a topic so simple that "X is Y"; "no X is Z" provides enough information…

I clearly perceive the world differently from you. Sure, once an argument is over, its boring to continue, thats pretty much a no-brainer. But to my experience, people discuss topics not because they are unsure, but because they basically do virtue-signalling by stating their position on the topic. But almost nobody is interested to actually change their position or, heaven forbid, learn something.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#50

Post by TZubiri »

niemandhier wrote: post #44

I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.

Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible.

My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession.

Consider A:

-Earth is flat

- it is not, earth is round

- ya it is, john doe proved it

- ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john doe said?

Or B:

- earth is flat

- yo momma's butt is flat

Yes B, loses the battle for the one mind, but when you consider the readers, you are simply avoiding platforming an idiot and playing a dumb strawman to boot.

I guess it all comes down to whether you view the internet as the greek agora or the roman circus.

All of this rational debate and usage of latin phrases for fallacies brings back memories of teenage years of online debating. I get that it's election time at the homeland and some people are campaigning, but you get more votes making a strawman of your opponent and making a thread viral than going one by one changing minds. Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? Ha!

Post reply on HN