Ask HN: Why does cynicism rule the internet?

And if you want to be upvoted/agreed with a lot you should post a cynical view.

It seems that cynicism is seen as intelligence and optimism is seen as naivity.

Yet there is no concept of naive cynicism

Why is this?

In your description the individuals appear cynical "to seek public validation and importance" and as "social signaling and the appearance of social importance".

I believe most do not fall into what you are describing. But, it is anecdotal, my personal opinion.

I am cynical because I am jaded and in general distrust the internet and distrust of the integrity or professed motives of those on the internet. [paraphrased from the American Heritage Dictionary]

Alas, I am cynical because I truly am jaded. I am distrustful because of my experience online, not because I need validation. I am aware I need social interaction, but I do not need anything from anyone. To ingeminate "honey badger Don't give a 5h!7". :D

Often it comes from your vision becoming distorted due to the news cycle (which churns out depressing hopelessness like sausage because it keeps you glued to their channels). Don't lose your morale; turn that shit off. There's plenty to be hopeful and grateful for. I honestly think we're living in some of the best times ever.

Being a bit skeptical is good. Paralyzing cynicism is not.

First, communicating over the internet skips many contextual steps that might give you hints about someone’s true intentions and the underlying/hidden meanings of what people say and how they express their ideas. The people I usually communicate with outside the internet have gone through some quite extensive filtering that gives them credibility for me: they are either my friends, colleagues, or family, or friends/colleagues/family of friends/colleague/family, etc. This means I can read them beyond only the specific words they are saying. They and I have “skin on the game”; we know each other, we are part of a circle that involves respect and trust, at some level, and that means I don’t expect them to just randomly blurt out some stupid thing that makes no sense. It happens, sure, but it is less likely and easier to deal with (because there are other people in the “circle” that might support you).

If, on the other hand, I just met someone, then I can still use all kinds of other senses and extra information to “read” the person and decide whether I can trust them or not. In-person dialogues are much more agile and dynamic, you can react to things faster, there is body language, etc. All of this is missing over the internet which makes it much harder to judge someone’s true intention (and anyway if all that fails I’ll be cynical in-person too, but a joke and a smile sometimes solves everything).

Over the internet all that goes out the window. Most of the time there’s no skin in the game, and people are just as likely to say any random bullshit that comes to their mind as they are to say something honest. The lack of dynamism in the conversation means that words can be planned more carefully, you can think as much about what you’re not saying as about what you are saying, etc. So I don’t feel like there is any special reason why I should be optimistic/willing to trust anything I read in any special way. For me it’s more or less the same as if some stranger knocked on my door and offered me some deal or something like that. Why should I trust them?

All in all I believe that this apparent “symmetry” between being cynical vs. being naive/optimistic is not real. I believe it’s more natural to be cynical in a situation where there is no special reason to believe something is honest, simply because there is no skin in the game and there is more to be gained by the other party to cheat you than there is to be honest.