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

51–60 of 157 posts

Re: Myths about Social Media

#51

Post by grangerg »

dgb23 wrote: post #49
onionisafruit wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I feel attacked online I stop going to the places where I don’t feel welcome. As you say, some people react by engaging and escalating, but I don’t think most people stick around long in those situations. What this guy is saying seems to be that the people who escalate are likely people who already behave that way offline.

My experience is that people are more socially refined when offline and that anti-social behavior is there but gets corrected and contained. Offline experiences can escalate much more but at tge same time there seems to be more conflict resolution. Everything is more intense. But it’s refreshing to read about a different view on the topic.

My opinion is that it's rooted in the anonymity people feel on the 'Net. There are no, if little consequences to being a jerk online---not nearly like in "real life".

The other problem I see is that a person says what they feel in the moment---and then they move on. But the (emotionally charged) comment from that moment lives on, potentially for years. The "energy" doesn't dissipate with time like it does in "real life".

Re: Myths about Social Media

#53

Post by rhaksw »

irjustin wrote: post #40

What is the lens here? If it's Danish lens, then I'm concerned it doesn't fully capture what's happening in other markets. > Myth 1: A lot of misinfo on social media... No, research suggests there is little, shared by few & having small effects. The U.S. anti-vax group is quite vocal and quite large. At times this includes elected officials, but sometimes elected officials simply resist mandates which emboldens vacci…

> The U.S. anti-vax group is quite vocal and quite large.

Yes, here [1] is an example of a pro-vax comment, made by a flaired user, removed from r/conservative. The user was probably not notified of the removal, and the comment appears to its author as if it was not removed. To me, that is very misleading. I consider such removals a form of misinformation; other users only see a version of the discussion that is wholly anti-vax. Also, since that comment received 400+ upvotes, you can imagine many of those voters might have left the same comment if they hadn't found that one to upvote.

When a moderator removes a highly upvoted comment, they're not just removing one author's point of view, they're removing the opinions of all the people who voted for it.

[1] https://archive.is/yk9QQ

Re: Myths about Social Media

#54

Post by AnonHP »

This thread has several issues, with one of them being that author doesn’t call out tech companies whose algorithms are designed to amplify echo chambers as well as hate. But instead he goes on to claim that social media doesn’t create echo chambers.

He has some valid points on the causes, but this is poorly and seemingly very narrowly researched or narrated.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#55

Post by madrox »

mgraczyk wrote: post #42
madrox wrote: post #25

Unfortunately, his solutions are non-starters. Openness and oversight of data and algorithms won't do anything without clear ethical requirements. All it will really do is slow down iteration. Prioritizing tools to shield against of hateful content is not in the best interest of social media platforms. Sharing is the main mechanism of retention. As for the offline stuff...we've been trying to do that since before the…

> Prioritizing tools to shield against of hateful content is not in the best interest of social media platforms It's well understood that hateful content is harmful to retention. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 3 long term projects at IG that were premised on this. All major social networks prioritize tools to reduce hate because they know that consuming and sharing of hateful content is bad for their…

I'm willing to concede this, but I find it incredible that this is true and yet users have very little control over how their timeline is filtered.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#56

Post by AnonHP »

grangerg wrote: post #51
dgb23 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that people are more socially refined when offline and that anti-social behavior is there but gets corrected and contained. Offline experiences can escalate much more but at tge same time there seems to be more conflict resolution. Everything is more intense. But it’s refreshing to read about a different view on the topic.

My opinion is that it's rooted in the anonymity people feel on the 'Net. There are no, if little consequences to being a jerk online---not nearly like in "real life". The other problem I see is that a person says what they feel in the moment---and then they move on. But the (emotionally charged) comment from that moment lives on, potentially for years. The "energy" doesn't dissipate with time like it does in "real li…

It’s not anonymity but the distance that matters. Plenty of people on Facebook with their real names, locations (through photos and events) don’t seem to care about saying things that they may not say face to face.

Re: Myths about Social Media

#57

Post by h0p3 »

rhaksw wrote: post #43

I'm glad to see more of this conversation happening. I made reveddit [1] to provide oversight for secret removals which happen more often than you may think. For example, [2] is an upvoted comment from a mod-verified contributor that was removed, likely without notifying its author. I wish reddit would indicate to the author when their comment has been removed by a moderator. I don't know if that will ever happen. It…

I use your tool often. Thank you for your service to Humanity!

Re: Myths about Social Media

#58

Post by rhaksw »

h0p3 wrote: post #57
rhaksw wrote: post #43

I'm glad to see more of this conversation happening. I made reveddit [1] to provide oversight for secret removals which happen more often than you may think. For example, [2] is an upvoted comment from a mod-verified contributor that was removed, likely without notifying its author. I wish reddit would indicate to the author when their comment has been removed by a moderator. I don't know if that will ever happen. It…

I use your tool often. Thank you for your service to Humanity!

I enjoyed making it and I also appreciate your thanks. Please share it as you see fit!

Re: Myths about Social Media

#60

Post by eatonphil »

AnonHP wrote: post #54

This thread has several issues, with one of them being that author doesn’t call out tech companies whose algorithms are designed to amplify echo chambers as well as hate. But instead he goes on to claim that social media doesn’t create echo chambers. He has some valid points on the causes, but this is poorly and seemingly very narrowly researched or narrated.

Well he linked to his references/research and you don't have links to references/researchs so I'm so far inclined to give him more credit.
Post reply on HN