Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 859 posts

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#41
post #25

I don't think you can fix it, it's just the nature of the Internet. I was talking to some older coworkers who were adults before the Internet became mainstream, and they said that before the Internet, your social circle was neighbors and co-workers, so being an ass would have direct, and sometimes physically painful, ramifications. They said that on the Internet, there's no real ramifications for being a horrible per…

It's not just that, it's the fact that most interaction on the net is text based so you miss out on tone and body language. I feel like some discussions escalate too high on the net due to the text based format.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#42
Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman.

You will realize that Social Media is designed in such a way intentionally to draw toxicity from society.

No technology is neutral. Technology gives and technology takes away. Medium is the message. Communication evolved because of the medium. For every evolution, it gives something and it takes away something. From oral communication to the printing press to telegraph to TV to the internet to social media. Every evolution gives birth to something and destroys something.

For example, TV makes everyone reachable (what it gives), but makes everything into entertainment (what it takes), even important topic such as politics, religion, war, poverty, pestilence, etc science becomes pure entertainment, juxtaposed between endless drama, reality show, and ads, coupled with background music and personas that manipulate the minds. The more "entertainer" you are, the better, regardless whether you are a dumb scientist or a dumb lawmaker that will affect many people's lives using your policy.

Social media such as twitter, for example, everyone now has a voice (what it gives), but with its char limit (what it takes) doesn't give critical thinking and rational debate a highlight, therefore it spirals down into madness. The more outrageous you are, the better, because it will go viral and people will react in such a predictable way.

A good example of a person who knows exactly how TV audience and social media audience will behave in a predictable way, and took advantage of that, is President Trump.

You want to design a medium/platform in such a way so that the pros outweigh the cons. But I think the hard part is knowing how will people use the platform. Those social media giants started out with good intentions, and only later and later down the road, and here we are right now, that we discover its true effects.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#43
post #37

We're essentially feeling negative effects produced by sorting a list of items. Currently they are sorted based on friend interactions and other criterion; mainly popularity. They sort this way because it increases engagement. What we've also found out is that this is also negatively effecting peoples emotional health. My personal feeling is that reverse chronological order with maybe throttling your chronic over-sha…

That's exactly how FriendFeed worked, and it was great.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#44
post #26
post #7

I've been active online since 2000. There was a theory in 2004, known as GIFT: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad Guess what? People without anonymity are total fuckwads too - this happens on Facebook, Instagram and Twitch, in an era where you could probably find someone's personal details if you look hard enough. I think the key is audience . Bullying feels good for a lot of people. Bullies will go…

I also think the lack of consequences makes it very easy for people to post all kinds of shit. On HN this is greatly reduced by the point system and the opacity of bad posts. A bad post fades away so it doesn't look as important as other posts. In real life you can get a punch in the face if you say nasty things to someone. But on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube most trolls wont ever learn because they just can say wha…

Worth considering that this isn't simply mechanical: to make those posts fade away requires humans clicking the downvote button. Which requires some kind of culture that includes clicking the button on "bad" posts, for whatever the definition of "bad" is. If there were downvoting on say, YouTube, I'm not sure that it would produce the same results that it does on HN.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#45
It's a problem IRL, too. I am astonished by how much disinterested people are in each other. I am very good at keeping a conversation going, I become genuinely interested in the person and ask as many follow-up questions as possible. Unless I know what we're talking about falls into my experiences, I'd refrain from talking about myself.

But what I see constantly is that people have gone from a "what about you" mindset to "what about me" mindset. My conversations end as soon as the person is done answering my questions about them. Like, zero reciprocation, which is god awful.

If these people participate online, where they can mainly get away with being a shitty personality, then this toxicity is not that surprising to see.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#46
post #7

I've been active online since 2000. There was a theory in 2004, known as GIFT: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad Guess what? People without anonymity are total fuckwads too - this happens on Facebook, Instagram and Twitch, in an era where you could probably find someone's personal details if you look hard enough. I think the key is audience . Bullying feels good for a lot of people. Bullies will go…

> You see people picking on anti-vax, flat earthers, Justin Bieber, not so much because they do harm, but because they're easy targets to hold down. Your other examples were solid, but anti-vax absolutely does cause harm, and it seems inappropriate to dismiss the possibility that in the case of anti-vax people are motivated by genuine fear for our collective safety and that of our children.

> to dismiss the possibility that in the case of anti-vax people are motivated by genuine fear for our collective safety and that of our children.

People who are genuine in that NEVER bash. For the simple reason that bashing doesn't work. What they do do is respectfully argue with any false data.

But you'll never see someone like that insult people or call them stupid, ignorant, or doubt the love of an anti-vaxxer for their own children.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see people picking on anti-vax, flat earthers, Justin Bieber, not so much because they do harm, but because they're easy targets to hold down. Your other examples were solid, but anti-vax absolutely does cause harm, and it seems inappropriate to dismiss the possibility that in the case of anti-vax people are motivated by genuine fear for our collective safety and that of our children.

The claim wasn't that they're harmless, but that they're easy targets.

The claim was that people were motivated to argue by the ease of the target rather than by the genuine threat of harm. In the case of anti-vax, I don't agree. I think people see a threat to their kids and react accordingly.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#48
While there is definitely an uptick in polarization, I think the more important and insidious trend is the increasing ubiquity of bullshit. We are flooded with information online, most of which is irrelevant or counterproductive to our interests. Needing to constantly wade through that in triage mode (with a judgmental attitude) has the general effect of wearing down people’s psyche and making them feel exhausted, anxious and on the edge. In that mindset, of course small things are going to set them off — but that is just the symptom, not the root cause. This is also a much harder problem to wrangle with because it is less specific. The causes of this problem are deeply embedded inside the incentives we have set up on the web over the last two decades — to challenge those will require answering some hard questions. At some level, people realize this (hence small efforts like the slow tech movement, digital detox, etc), but they are yet to find the right balance of convenience and sanity (for lack of a better word).

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#49
post #45

It's a problem IRL, too. I am astonished by how much disinterested people are in each other. I am very good at keeping a conversation going, I become genuinely interested in the person and ask as many follow-up questions as possible. Unless I know what we're talking about falls into my experiences, I'd refrain from talking about myself. But what I see constantly is that people have gone from a "what about you" mindse…

User experiences are crafted to make the user the center of attention, or gives them the levers to do so (Instagram and Facebook, for example). The result, while depressing (and what you observe), should be of no surprise to anyone.

I have no solution, only a small piece of advice: seek out others with empathy and active interest in others. Avoid narcissists like the plague. Be humble.

Re: Ask HN: How do we stop the polarization/toxicicity filling the web?

#50

Stop responding to it. No seriously, just stop. This isn't a "complex problem that needs nuanced technical and legislative solutions". Back in the old day, there was this saying. "Do not feed the trolls". Sadly, we've forgotten that. Our current approach is, "create rigorous 30 minute point by point take down videos to defeat their point of view". Our urge to debate and correct people who are wrong just fuels them ma…

I think its a fallacy at this point to assume the people pushing toxic or objectively wrong viewpoints are trolls. If it ever was 100% trolls, that time has passed and their target audience is expanding their work in earnest.

We now have people who 100% believe objectively wrong things and have an obsession to spread their belief as fact.

Edit: If there is a solution to this issue, it will depend on the ratio of these people who are willing to change their mind. A real solution might involve a procedure to move people from the more stubborn camp to a more open minded camp.

Post reply on HN