Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#81

Post by wwweston » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

rolha-capoeira wrote: post #44

rabidrat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…

> Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. [That's not the kind of gatekeeping I meant, but to your statement...] According to whom? That's one social philosophy, I suppose, but I'd call it more anti-social. From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts. Outcasts aside, the idea th…

Cooperation is the right general default. But:

* You have to negotiate what cooperation means. And this essentially defines the boundaries of a community.

* It's disastrous if "cooperate" is your only approach, because even a fraction of defectors choosing a predatory approach can become a significant problem.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#82

Post by meddlepal » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

rolha-capoeira wrote: post #16

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I hear you. But this teeters dangerously close to gatekeeping, elitism, or something along those lines. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I think how others feel after reading our comments does matter. Better put, because everyone is on the internet now, the real world's problems are now the internet's problems. It used to serve as an escape, true. It has made the world a smaller place, where problems from a…

There is nothing inherently wrong with gatekeeping so long as you're not violating human rights in the process.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#83

Post by squish78 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

dalore wrote: post #80

rabidrat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…

I don't like where this thought experiment goes. Replace internet with earth. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Earth, without ever being able to remove them? What you speak about is tribalism and is a genetic trait that used to help us survive. But we can rise above our animal instincts and be better.

We've risen above our animal instincts and produced a culture with chronic anxiety, depression, and mental illness

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#84

Post by Tempest1981 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

lithos wrote: post #72

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

Well a while ago there was a link posted here of before and after of banning ads in a downtown area. The entire place looked several times nicer and cared for afterwards. It's probably much the same online. Those ads blaring someone else's name, even in what is "kinda" your own personal lawn/profile/whatever, does a lot to remove a sense of ownership. Likewise in hope of getting more engagement, what would be a small…

São Paulo, Brazil did it in 2007: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#85

Post by bobsil1 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

gabcoh wrote: post #17

iamsb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India has many problems with media. Fake news media, crypto fake media, deep fake media. Fake media is easy to identify. Crypto media and deep fake is more difficult. Recently google sponsored data journalism award was given to one of the most partisan website. And new think tanks which are sponsored by unknown forces come up all the time. One of the recent ones which I am investigating is called equality labs which…

What is crypto fake media?

Unidentified fakes

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#86

Post by aswanson » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #59

braythwayt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fundamental difference between "Everyone should be allowed on the Internet," and, "Everyone should be allowed onto every social media site." Or, "Everyone on a social media site should be encouraged to interact with everyone else." For example, maybe everybody should be able to read the President's tweets. But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? At this po…

>But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? The ability to directly and freely communicate with leaders (and for them to communicate with one another) is incredibly revolutionary. It is unfortunate that Twitter, of all places, a site whose entire purpose is top-of-mind contextless microblogging, is where this revolution is taking place, and that the President in questio…

Hilarious thing is, this inanity is preserved for eternity. A century from now, kids will be able to look back at perfectly preserved absurdity of this age.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#87

Post by dhhdhdsbdb » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

dalore wrote: post #80

rabidrat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…

I don't like where this thought experiment goes. Replace internet with earth. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Earth, without ever being able to remove them? What you speak about is tribalism and is a genetic trait that used to help us survive. But we can rise above our animal instincts and be better.

Sure, but it's naive to think everyone will get along if we just wish for it hard enough. There need to be ways of limiting communities to subgroups.

Anecdotally, an example is ladies tea events in social circles. If you ask women who are in to this, there is a different atmosphere by having only women present.

Do guys want to join? Sure, but that's too bad. Not everything has to be for everyone.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#88

Post by aswanson » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #51

rabidrat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…

There is a fundamental difference between "Everyone should be allowed on the Internet," and, "Everyone should be allowed onto every social media site." Or, "Everyone on a social media site should be encouraged to interact with everyone else." For example, maybe everybody should be able to read the President's tweets. But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? At this po…

Imagine if DJT had an HN account. That would be...

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#89

Post by almost_usual » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #73

decasteve wrote: post #50

Avoid the mainstream media, advertising-centric sites, social media, et al, and the Internet is mostly fine. Stick to the niche sites and services that have always been there and it’s a much more pleasant place.

Any particular niche sites that you have in mind and could recommend to others?

I frequent a truck forum that hasn’t changed in years. I’d imagine there are other forums that exist for your special interests. I tend to meet a lot of nice and helpful people there.

I probably spend less than five minutes a day on traditional social media which feels toxic in comparison.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#90

Post by WorldMaker » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #25

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I remember there was a moment back in the late 90ies many who already worked with the Web joked on usenet etc that "the Internet is becoming mainstream" (usually as an eye-roll reaction to trolls or somebody gullible forwarding a hoax email ...) I think we made a big mistake trying to convince everyone that the digital life is like real. E.g. you can have real conversations etc. (they are real but not the same, maybe…

The problem is that "online" still has real consequences: those spitballs that become personal hills to die on bleed back out into the real world as partisanship or, worse, violence.

Things that are written may not just haunt us forever, but things that we read may as well. Mental health is something culturally we don't have strong controls on, and yet evidence backs that our physical health is strongly correlated to our mental health.

I think the thing we haven't yet realized is not just that online != "real life" but that online is worse than real life: it's a Fairy space. Anything we can imagine can become real enough online that it affects our real life (health, wealth, etc). On the surface it is shiny and whimsical, and underneath it is full of monsters (of our own creation, most likely). We exist in a time where nearly everyone has a magic mirror to a fairy space in their pocket, and old fairytales tell us we should be frightened and proceed with huge amounts of caution.