Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online • Hacker News Board

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#11

Post by metalliqaz » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

mariodiana wrote: post #3

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #2

>block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text Blocking people who use emojis seems extreme. In fact, an emoji-based rating system could improve conversation by replacing the urge to comment lightly with a "thoughtful" or "informative" label. They needn't have any weight other than their visibility. Some old-style forums implemented this to cut down on noisy "I agree" posts, and it wor…

I read that totally differently. > We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text. I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus: People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to: * delete inflammatory…

me too. If anything, emojis seem to reduce emotional misunderstanding of intent

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#12

Post by kar5pt » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #5

The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…

Yeah HN down votes seem totally random to me. On reddit I can usually guess why I was down voted (advocating a viewpoint that goes against that subreddit's bias), but on HN I have no idea. I've been upvoted on things I would expect to get downvoted on and vice versa. It's so random I just ignore it as noise.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#13

Post by mypastself » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #5

The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…

I’ve never used it, but the way others do, here and on Reddit, I think of it as the “disagree” button, rather than “downvote”.

It can be frustrating when people use it in lieu of a comment, though. It means that, of all the arguments at their disposal, the person decided to expend only the minimal effort required to produce something that still qualifies as a reply. The communication via binary responses is a great illustration of the decay of modern discourse, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#14

Post by NotSwift » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

Most humans act pretty decently when they encounter other humans in real life.

However, this changes rapidly when they are using technology. Many people who are pretty decent otherwise can say horrible things on the phone or email. I have seen this a lot of times. So it is pretty important to think about ways for people to disagree without descending into some stupid flame-war.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#15

Post by jjk166 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #10

mariodiana wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that totally differently. > We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text. I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus: People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to: * delete inflammatory…

The author could have used a comma if she meant that...

The lack of an "and" between "delete inflammatory content" and "block users" unambiguously makes it a list of three items. The oxford comma, while useful, is not necessary here.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#16

Post by musicale » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

metalliqaz wrote: post #8

doublerabbit wrote: post #5

The freedom to downvote. A downvote should force the downvotee to give a reason why. A reason seperates the signal from the noise. The original poster can dispute the downvote given; which Reddit and HN, slashdot are all prone to. Karma points only encouragesusers to vote negative without thought if the output is already negative. As the same with positive. -- Edit: My current downvote is a good example. I'm at 0. I…

For a long time I thought HN was free of the kinds of bad faith, intellectually dishonest interactions that you find in other popular forums. I was wrong, it's just a different crowd (one that isn't so clearly left or right). There is a vague "orthodoxy" and the downvotes will flow if you speak outside it. Recently, my account has apparently been flagged such that I'm only allowed to post a few comments per hour. I'm…

> It's still better than Ars Technica.

"Disagree" is actually a suggested downvote reason at Ars, with predictable results. Then they published a number of articles that turned out to be perfect bait for flame wars, trolling, and upvote/downvote wars. Comments dripping with twitter-style vitriol and outrage. Engagement up, quality down.

Perhaps they did it on purpose to watch the trash fires burn and the ad impressions roll in, but it really destroyed the comment section SNR and stank the whole place up. I've mostly quit reading Ars except via HN.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#17

Post by musicale » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

I haven't seen many (any?) online systems that seem particularly well-suited to arguments.

Nevertheless I like it when sites try to call out clear statements of position, supporting and opposing arguments, citations for evidence for claims, and rebuttals, while trying to reduce logical fallacies such as ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, etc..

It also seems hard to have a productive discussion of controversial ideas without some degree of third-party oversight and moderation, but moderation usually favors the biases of the moderators and usually generates animosity among those whose comments are suppressed.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#18

Post by ksaj » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

NotSwift wrote: post #14

Most humans act pretty decently when they encounter other humans in real life. However, this changes rapidly when they are using technology. Many people who are pretty decent otherwise can say horrible things on the phone or email. I have seen this a lot of times. So it is pretty important to think about ways for people to disagree without descending into some stupid flame-war.

Some online conversations remind me of a night at a typical pub.

Early in the evening, people are getting along just fine. By full sundown, some people are becoming boisterous. By the end of the night, fists are flying because everyone has offended everyone else.

Basically your typical online comment thread. HN does an amazing job at curtailing this typical behaviour. You could say dang is a good bouncer.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#19

Post by readflaggedcomm » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #15

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author could have used a comma if she meant that...

The lack of an "and" between "delete inflammatory content" and "block users" unambiguously makes it a list of three items. The oxford comma, while useful, is not necessary here.

So you're saying the obvious interpretation of the text is impossible to render because you insert grouping breaks where you please? I reject that.

Re: Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online

#20

Post by jjk166 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #19

jjk166 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of an "and" between "delete inflammatory content" and "block users" unambiguously makes it a list of three items. The oxford comma, while useful, is not necessary here.

So you're saying the obvious interpretation of the text is impossible to render because you insert grouping breaks where you please? I reject that.

According to your "obvious" interpretation, the sentence is:

"We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who do X."

Does that sound like a grammatically correct complete sentence?