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

Myths about Social Media

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: Myths about Social Media

#141

Post by fortuna86 »

fullstackchris wrote: post #102

I disagree harshly with the idea that social media _isn't_ an echo chamber. I mean, look at Reddit over the past few years. They've slowly (and successfully) removed nearly every conservative leaning subreddit on the site. It's clearly a hive mide ultra-lib circle jerk and anyone who doesn't see that has been drinking the blue reddit koolaide too long. The only thing left really is r/conservative which is at best mad…

> They've slowly (and successfully) removed nearly every conservative leaning subreddit on the site.

If the content that came from The_Donald is now what half the US considers to be "conservative leaning", we're in big trouble. White nationalism, anti-vax, pro-authoritarian, pro-civil war content. This isn't a debate about tax policy anymore, it's gotten more visceral.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#142

Post by nathias »

ozim wrote: post #138
nathias wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about toxicity, I don't know what that is and haven't found a clear definition. Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others, its a human emotion like any other it can be expressed as vulgarities, capslock etc. but the expression isn't the problem here. You can clearly define vulgarity, or other types of unwanted behavior but this isn't enough for the self app…

I totaly don't agree with this statement: "Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others". Especially "percieved stupidity", if someone thinks he is smart, he should be smart enough to stop and think that maybe other person is right or try to understand why such person might think differently. I understand mostly it is lack of time, I don't have time to understand point of view of e…

You have trouble understanding what I'm writing. Hate is just an emotion, you can't ban an emotion you can ban some bad expressions of an emotion (threats of violence for example) but to try and make one of the basic human emotions illegal online is idiotic.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#143

Post by AtNightWeCode »

version_five wrote: post #13

I think the echo chamber one misses the point (or maybe the analogy of an echo chamber is bad). It's true that people are exposed to other views, but there is still the echo effect of what their bubble thinks of those other views. Two people discussing their differences is not the same as two (or N) bubbles hurling outrage at one another, which I think is closer to most of twitter - the echo chamber still applies wit…

It is basically incorrect. Most people in these ingroups are hesitant about sharing things in public. They know it is not ok. The most communication is done within closed safe environments. I have several sect-members on FB and the total noise they make in my feed is very low.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#144

Post by ozim »

nathias wrote: post #142
ozim wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totaly don't agree with this statement: "Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others". Especially "percieved stupidity", if someone thinks he is smart, he should be smart enough to stop and think that maybe other person is right or try to understand why such person might think differently. I understand mostly it is lack of time, I don't have time to understand point of view of e…

You have trouble understanding what I'm writing. Hate is just an emotion, you can't ban an emotion you can ban some bad expressions of an emotion (threats of violence for example) but to try and make one of the basic human emotions illegal online is idiotic.

I see you don't understand what I am writing as well.

I don't write anything about banning or making emotions illegal.

It is just that I can't see how someone can get angry about something someone wrote somewhere on the internet.

Other thing I am writing about is that expressing anger or negative emotions online is not productive and is scaring away people who could contribute to the discussion.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#145

Post by majani »

fullstackchris wrote: post #102

I disagree harshly with the idea that social media _isn't_ an echo chamber. I mean, look at Reddit over the past few years. They've slowly (and successfully) removed nearly every conservative leaning subreddit on the site. It's clearly a hive mide ultra-lib circle jerk and anyone who doesn't see that has been drinking the blue reddit koolaide too long. The only thing left really is r/conservative which is at best mad…

It's gone to a new level where some people just want to appear as not being in the echo chamber, so they label themselves uniquely, but when you listen to them, they are just part of the larger groupthink.

For example I have started seeing many people online calling themselves "libertarians," but they are still in favor of big government ideas such as UBI and universal healthcare. Or "libertarians" who want a white ethnostate enforced by the police

Re: Myths about Social Media

#146

Post by pphysch »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #30
pphysch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, these are general features of mass media that predate the internet. Much of the hysteria about social media is signal boosted by the traditional media establishment that it disrupted

I doubt these dare-I-say-conspiracy theories. Among other reasons, just consider that media suffered as much, financially, from monster.com and eBay, which devastated classifieds. For many local papers, that was the single largest change in the last two decades. And I don’t remember any campaigns against those companies. The individual journalist and editor actually writing and deciding on a story also doesn’t hold t…

Why do you assume it is a conspiracy? It's just incentives & other market forces at work.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#147

Post by nathias »

ozim wrote: post #144
nathias wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have trouble understanding what I'm writing. Hate is just an emotion, you can't ban an emotion you can ban some bad expressions of an emotion (threats of violence for example) but to try and make one of the basic human emotions illegal online is idiotic.

I see you don't understand what I am writing as well. I don't write anything about banning or making emotions illegal. It is just that I can't see how someone can get angry about something someone wrote somewhere on the internet. Other thing I am writing about is that expressing anger or negative emotions online is not productive and is scaring away people who could contribute to the discussion.

My OP about demonizing hatred is about baning 'toxicity', 'hate' etc. that serves only as a rationalization of violence or exclusion. There is no rule we have to be productive all the time, but hatred can be a great motivator, there are books, games and music that grew out of some very intense hatred.

>It is just that I can't see how someone can get angry about something someone wrote somewhere on the internet.

Can you see how someone gets angry about something off the internet? It's exactly the same except some non-verbal actions are not possible for expressing that anger.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#148

Post by fleddr »

krsrhe wrote: post #80
fleddr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, the negative part is disproportionately impactful. As an analogy, my g/f and I recently went grocery shopping. As we got out she was fuming at how old people completely ignore COVID rules, whilst society is largely making sacrifices for them. I was part of the whole experience, and two people ignored the rules. One did not have a mask, another did have one but ignored social distancing. There were probably som…

You know what the vast majority of old people are doing? Not going to the store with you. Hello, sampling bias!

Aren't you only confirming my point?

Re: Myths about Social Media

#149

Post by fleddr »

pcmoney wrote: post #67
fleddr wrote: post #31

Can't say I'm impressed. It seems plain as day to me that many people are far more hateful online than in real life, mostly under the disguise of anonymity and/or the physical divide. You can say some truly nasty things online that in the physical world would make you wake up in a hospital. There's no real correction mechanism online. I can't believe the research doesn't address the point that some others here are ma…

Most research shows that anonymous accounts actually facilitate more conciliatory and nuanced discussions. The big issue in social media is that the moderates are attacked by both sides. They are often attacked more viciously by those of their own political persuasion that are even more to the left/right than they are. This especially occurs if they are agreeing at all on any point with “the other”. Obviously this ha…

Indeed. And not just politicians, also traditional media, which are now hard to tell apart from "normal" Twitter accounts. They're all in on fast juicy action for maximum engagement.

So you can't trust your peers, politicians or traditional media. They're all Twitter-like now.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#150

Post by pixl97 »

wobblybubble wrote: post #135
pixl97 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they say, a paper is worth the peer review performed on it.

Then the intuition of random commenters is worth close to nothing.

The reproducibility issue show that your average not peer reviewed paper, is also worth close to nothing.
Post reply on HN