The biggest problem is the like button. The like button is not only a bad metric - it's the worst possible metric. Speaking up used to be something you do to change someone's mind or yours. What's the point in speaking up if nobody does anything with what you said? The like button reprogrammed people. They started getting positive feedback for speaking in an echo chamber, for saying and doing things their audience al…
1) "Speaking up" is just one of many forms of speech. Why is speaking up "the purpose of speech", or even the purpose of social media speech? 2) There are many reasons to speak up. One may be to organize like-minded people into an effective advocacy group. Another may just be to lament something that you can't change. 3) I'm not trying to be snarky, but do you have any examples of changing people's minds on HN or soc…
The internet wants to be fragmented
41–50 of 246 posts
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN's vote count is not public, and negative count is capped at -4 so you can't downvote someone into oblivion.
Most social networks don't have an equivalent to downvotes at all.
We assume that bad takes die out or are overcome by good takes in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, the ‘magnitude’ of a bad take should intuitively be close to 0, and the magnitude of a good take should be positive and nonzero.
Allowing negative scores permits bad takes to become large in magnitude. Allowing or disallowing downvotes is basically just scaling the distribution of magnitude of takes since bad takes will sit closer to zero than good takes in general, even if they cannot be downvoted.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#43Examples:
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#44Everything is so serious now. We couldn't even go back if we wanted to, because ignoring and banning xXWeedLuvurXx for calling you the n-word and moving on is a lot tougher when his name is John Smith and he works in accounting.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#45Now that is definitely the case and backed with data throughout the years.
The internet has always been fragmented. I think the arguments of Facebook or Twitter being some type of global consciousness is short sighted. It has maybe as many users as the population of the USA. The world has an estimated 5 billion people who have regular access to the internet. Is the world consciousness really representative of the most engaged internet users? That’s a huge problem in itself and the thought that journalists are stuck on Twitter makes no sense. If life is all about change and we see behemoths come and go, then surely journalism will evolve outside of a single platform.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#46I have tried in vain to find a written reference. It's buried within some of his often tediously tangential talks - but I would love to know if any former Yugoslavians can attest to the truth or falsity of it.
Zizek said that the former Yugoslavia was a tense but stable amalgam for decades in which good humour and brutally free speech - including "edgy but acceptable" racism - was permitted and even celebrated.
Sometime before the 90s that changed, and a chilling taciturnity overcame the nation. The "politically correct" atmosphere was a lead up to civil war.
It's possible Zizek completely misreads cause and effect. But I always take his point to be - as elementary psychoanalysis - that when people stop talking about how they really feel, it's the start of a road to trouble; jaw jaw jaw being better than war, war, war. The culture of faux "offence" created by Social media had definitely done the same to online discourse.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) "Speaking up" is just one of many forms of speech. Why is speaking up "the purpose of speech", or even the purpose of social media speech? 2) There are many reasons to speak up. One may be to organize like-minded people into an effective advocacy group. Another may just be to lament something that you can't change. 3) I'm not trying to be snarky, but do you have any examples of changing people's minds on HN or soc…
Speaking is meant to exchange information. You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you and knows everything you're saying. An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset. With signaling mindset you have no chance to convince anyone of anything. I'd rather get someone thinking differently a little bit confused than lament something with people who think the same. It…
Speaking has many purposes. Why do you keep trying to "limit speech", so to speak?
> You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you
I disagree. Is there not a difference between facts and opinions? Why do I have to "change my mind" in order to learn a new fact? What if the new fact actually supports my opinion?
> and knows everything you're saying
Confirming that another person knows what you know can be useful.
> An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset.
To the contrary, advocacy groups are most effective when the members agree with each other, and most ineffective when they fight among themselves.
> Few people will admit changing their minds, but sometimes they will agree with you but still offer a weaker counterpoint of the opposing narrative.
This gives the appearance to me that you're telling yourself you've changed other people's mind and that they now agree with you, despite evidence to the contrary.
> You can't flip someone's opinion 180° on the internet, but you can get someone on the other side to acknowledge a counter point.
What does this mean? To me it sounds kind of like debate club, a game with scoring.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#48The entire problem lies with the twisted motives of social media. They don't want to make you happy or feel good, they want money, at all costs which results in you being angry and toxic. I agree with this article in general, and think that its worth it to spend time arguing with people you care about rather some rando on twitter. community run communities will probably have a resurge, the problem is the tech barrier…
Exactly! I myself do not identify with "we take the internet wherever we go, and its little colored icons are always beckoning, telling us to abandon whoever we’re talking to or whatever we’re working on and check the latest posts."
This is due to a few things. First, having long established pattern of using desktop computers / laptops, revealing "smart" phones as frustratingly limited devices. I can tap out maybe 5wpm on a mobile device, perhaps 10-20wpm if it has swipe input. Yet on a familiar keyboard, I can do upwards of 120-140wpm. That's an order of magnitude difference, with the qualitative difference of being able to type at the speed I am thinking.
This means when I'm using a mobile device, I'm only using it begrudgingly because I'm away from a real computer and need to solve a problem. If I'm hanging out with friends and someone else texts me, basically the last thing I want to do is take my phone out of my pocket, focus on a tiny screen, and start plodding along tapping out characters. This behavior descends from having mobile computing devices much earlier than most people (laptop and palm pilot around Y2k), when it was not socially accepted to ignore the people you're with and play with your device.
The second is that for a long time I used a phone running Lineage/microG, with only software from F-droid. Free software is designed with its main goal of helping the user accomplish their own goals, rather than the perverse incentive of proprietary web/apps that treat the user as a subject to be sucked in for as long as possible ("engagement"). If I take my phone out of my pocket to use the calendar or calculator or whatever, it's not like I then want to continue scrolling through my calendar or dividing numbers. If I take my phone out to show someone some photos, that is a real-world social activity. Both are limited stimulation based on tasks that can be finished, rather than the endless drip-drip of social media.
Sadly I stopped using that phone due to the early 4G shutdown in the US, and I have yet to find a good device to replace it. I've been using a throwaway "full take" Android that the carrier sent me for free, but my usage patterns have basically stayed the same. When I'm home, I generally leave that phone near the door since I have no use for it until I go out again.
Of course it's easy for me to say this - the difficult part is how to kick one's own addiction to the always-on proprietary software hellhole. I'd propose a large part of this is segmenting your usage across different physical devices - despite the universality of computation, having one or two devices that encompass all of simple tasks like checking the weather, employment, personal productivity, creativity, active relaxation, and passive relaxation is an anti-pattern. It simply blurs the lines too much.
Get at least one new device, ideally running only Free software, but at the bare minimum you need to not install any of the corporate willpower-destroying apps. You can still keep your "trash" device with all those apps you can't imagine living without, but silence the notifications and leave it on a desk/coffee table/etc. Only check on it occasionally, like daily or when you're relaxing at night or when you need to accomplish a specific task on one of the corporate dopamine apps.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#49The biggest problem is the like button. The like button is not only a bad metric - it's the worst possible metric. Speaking up used to be something you do to change someone's mind or yours. What's the point in speaking up if nobody does anything with what you said? The like button reprogrammed people. They started getting positive feedback for speaking in an echo chamber, for saying and doing things their audience al…
For example, it’s easy to say “fuck cars” when you live in the city and they are only polluting, noisy nuisances that are, at best, optional for living your life. But when you live where I do, not having a car means a significant number of unreasonable changes to your life.
Re: The internet wants to be fragmented
#50Maybe try to venture out of your internet comfort zone. It's not all spam out there, nor is it worthless because it was not recommended by someone cool. Just don't be lazy