46 ms·

Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

334 points by robbizorg 10y ago

yetanotherjosh 10y ago
This concept is a troll haven. Politically motivated trolls have become a rampant problem online. I think they are the single biggest obstacle to the progress social media (in the broadest definition, which includes this project here) can effect towards non-partisan goals like empathy and factuality. How will you deal with this issue?
robbizorg 10y ago
Hi everyone, Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest, to try and get people who hold different opinions talking to one another. We just have to start doing something to deal with the ever increasing division in the U.S.
- jimnotgym 10y ago
  I actually was having a great reconciling conversation with a guy on here just now. I love the idea. I did get disconnected after a while btw. My messages just didn't post. I came away feeling more like I understood the other side of the debate so well done!
- shireboy 10y ago
  Agree in principle, but one thing that threw me off off the bat- it asked if I was for or against trump. My views are more nuanced than that- to the point I wouldn't feel comfortable selecting either. Not sure how to best express that in the app, but I do think it's one of the things people misunderstand about "the other".
  - smoyer 10y ago
    I was hoping it was a text entry box too!
    - bigtunacan 10y ago
      Agreed. Interesting idea, but limits the discussion too much.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    Maybe 'rate your support of Trump/the outcome of the election on a scale from 1 to 10'?
    - vacri 10y ago
      Even that is not enough. It's still a bipolar scale, and humans are politically multipolar.
      - grzm 10y ago
        You're right. People are "multipolar". There is a way to think of a binary choice being useful here. By looking at a single, big question like this that clearly has a lot of nuance underneath, you can provide the opportunity for people to find common ground even when they are at opposite sides of the overly-simplifed binary decision.
    - shireboy 10y ago
      Thinking about it, I think maybe four groups: For, somewhat for, against, somewhat against. The app could still match up the "for" with the "against", but users wouldn't feel so gross choosing just for or against.
  - patcon 10y ago
    This tool is mind-blowingly effective a warding off the sort of concerns that you raise, of a tool not capturing and reflecting users' many complex viewpoints: https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5#.1pbjuwoqa https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5#.1pbjuwoqa It's mainly geared toward single-issue consultations and discussions, but definitely worth understanding. I know some folks who facilitate municipal consultations in one of the largest Canadian cities, a job for which helping often divided participants to arrive at meaningful consensus is high-priority. Their comment after the demo was "My mind is honestly reeling right now. Never in my life did I think any part of my job could be automated and democratized, because what I do is synthesize fuzzy participant feelings in a very unscalable way. But this tool just might automate away some of what we do."
- austincheney 10y ago
  A two party system is a large part of this problem. One group validates itself by demonizing the only other player in town. It's toxic and it energizes the most self-serving of us.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    Do they actually want different things though? In the UK it seems like all the politicians want the same - and all the people want the opposite.
    - yoz-y 10y ago
      From outside it more seems like all politicians want one thing, and half of the population wants the opposite.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      What policies do the current Conservative government, Labour, SNP government in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and the various parties in NI have in common? Quite a few of those parties want to break away from the UK - which is about is fundamental a disagreement as you can have!
    - renaudg 10y ago
      What ? Interested to know what side you think "the people" is on.
    - austincheney 10y ago
      They want to get elected. So, in that regard they want the same thing. What you say to get elected is largely irrelevant, particularly if you can suggest the opposing party is more evil. The goal isn't to be a good candidate, qualified, or even ethical... its to get elected out of a contest of two people. Who ever uses the media most wins. It doesn't even have to be favorable news coverage or even make sense. Who ever appears on the screen the most or gets their name mentioned the most wins. Again, its only a contest out of two people and the general population is easily energized by emotions.
  - 10y ago
- mavdi 10y ago
  I actually think we're talking too much. Sometimes even when we have nothing constructive to say.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    Listening is an underrated and scarce skill.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  Why is it you think dialectic materialism is worth the effort?
- masondixon 10y ago
  Yo great idea. Its timing out though. Plz fix! Use Firebase!
- beatpanda 10y ago
  This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants." My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What good could that possibly do?
  - ema 10y ago
    Don't you feel at least a little bit curious on why someone could adopt a position that is so obviously wrong to you? Remember, these are people too, not that much unlike you. Some of them might even have the same favorite movies as you.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > So why even have they conversation? What good could that possibly do? To see how the came to that conclusion. It's not like they hate brown people that speak funny, they have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration.
    - mwfunk 10y ago
      Some people do have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration, but there's also no shortage of actual racism among those who really, really seem to care about immigration. It's not like you don't see tons of explicit or implicit racism on Reddit or Twitter or Facebook among Trump supporters. Or at Trump rallys, for that matter, like "Jew S A" chants or people proudly wearing t-shirts that they think are hilarious about lynching journalists (like, actual old-fashioned lynching involving ropes and trees and victims). Hell, the KKK endorsed Trump and he didn't denounce them. So yes, there are at least some people who like Trump for his anti-immigrant views that base their support on racism. Based on what I've seen online and in person, there are quite a few of them. Maybe that's not all of them, and some or most are really just concerned about it as a law and order issue, but Trump made absolutely no effort to distinguish between the two. At no point did he ever make any statement that attempted to disassociate his views on immigration from racism, and he was called upon to do so throughout the campaign (like after the KKK endorsement). Maybe he himself has more enlightened views on immigration, but he clearly couldn't care less if people were on his side because of pure racism. He stoked those fires over and over and over again. Maybe he's just incredibly misunderstood, but he sure as hell didn't make an effort to clarify anything if he was. That speaks volumes about his morals. If you're going to take a hardline stance on illegal immigration and make it a centerpiece of your campaign, it makes it that much more important to be very clear and explicit that racism is not a factor, if for no other reasons than to avoid getting lumped in with racists and to avoid indulging racist tendencies within your own base. Leaders are supposed to lead, and someone who wants to be president has a vastly greater responsibility to be a leader. Also, the fact that the strongest support for Trump's anti-immigrant views came from the parts of the country that have the fewest immigrants doesn't help. I've known plenty of people who've lived their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born, in parts of the country where they may not ever actually see a black person, much less anyone from the Middle East or Mexico. People in these homogenous rural communities form (in terms of numbers at least) the core of anti-immigrant sentiment, and yet they also seem to think that strange brown people sneaking into the country is the #1 issue facing America today. It's very hard to look at those views coming from those demographics and not think that there's at least some racism and xenophobia driving those views.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  First off, fantastic tool and thank you for trying to be a part of the solution. However, this does little to solve the actual problem. People are just more likely to not be civil behind closed doors. For example , I frequently commute in Los Angeles traffic. If Im attempting to merge or change lanes with my blinker on, people wont budge or will even speed up. My normally docile mother and girlfriend will expletive laced insults that they never would. They are nicer to people who may waste 5 minutes of their time in person than someone in a car who wastes maybe .01 seconds of their time. When I make direct eye contact with them and force them to acknowledge my basic humanity, no one has ever been a traffic asshole. Conversely, in online gaming apparently the entire 12 yr old population has had coitus with my mother. I had high hopes that the Internet would drastically reduce ignorance and make telling lies much more difficult. This whole election season would be perfect for an episode of Black Mirror.
Daniel_Marcos 10y ago
Some feedback: It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive. It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of awkward. Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully. I like it a lot, though, awesome job!! :)
d--b 10y ago
Somehow, I think there's not going to be a lot of trump supporters out there.
- ghufran_syed 10y ago
  Well, there's a lower bound of around 50 million trump supporters in the US based on last night's election results...
  - Mickydtron 10y ago
    Yes, but Hacker News is not exactly a random slice of American voters. I would expect to find some, but not many, Trump supporters who are going to find and use a site like this.
    - wayn3 10y ago
      I don't think Peter Thiel is trolling Hackernews for ways he can explain why he's supporting Trump.
    - smoyer 10y ago
      Where's Thiel when you need him?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - d--b 10y ago
    Oh, come on, you know what I meant! As if the readership of HN was not massively biased! I'd love for this website to work, but if you're posting on hacker news, I doubt you'll get with a Trump voter from Montana!
  - matwood 10y ago
    Well there are Trump supporters and people who really dislike Hilary. Based on the exit polling it looks like very few people loved who they voted for, and instead voted against someone else.
utternerd 10y ago
How about other topics to debate?
kaolti 10y ago
Great idea, love it!
kaolti 10y ago
Great idea, love it!
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
I'd be interested in a non-binary option. I am neither for nor against Trump, rather I'm interested in the relative merits or faults inherent in his policy proposals (where possible to investigate) and discourse.
- MarkPNeyer 10y ago
  This tool is still very primitive (i'm still working on it) but it does what you're looking for: http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/ http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/ You construct an argument like a proof, with supporting arguments. People can share their opinions on each step of your argument. It doesn't allow direct back and forth yet; you'd ahve to pass the link around.
sandworm101 10y ago
The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why. Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump is (probably, since I don't know any better than any of the countless other people who got this election totally wrong) precisely from people who feel that the direction of their country is leaving them behind. As we have seen, insisting that they are right, and that the worst of their attitudes should be left behind, doesn't silence them; it makes them feel forced into desperate action, willing to elect anyone who will (appear to) listen to and validate them.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem. I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process. We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.
__BrianDGLS__ 10y ago
Isn't that what the internet is for?
- vinay427 10y ago
  Until most communities naturally dissolve into "subreddit"-esque groups where users share similar views to enjoy validation and avoid being downvoted. Explicitly encouraging opposing viewpoints may help alleviate this problem.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Not really. It just encourages people to fight for their team. You need a place where there are no teams, where it's not A vs. B, but a place where you're tackling smaller problems and talking solutions which can be understood and validated.
maloney 10y ago
Your bundle.js file is 4.4MB and took 30 seconds to load (given several attempts). I would consider getting that under control, at the very least gzip the file.
- endless1234 10y ago
  How can a site like this require that much clientside javascript?
  - andrewmcwatters 10y ago
    it's 2016
    - astrodust 10y ago
      2MB is the ante to get at the big boy's table.
    - nilved 10y ago
      What a horrible place 2016 is. The JavaScript is uncompressed and has 6 columns of comment characters on every line. There's really no excuse. This site did not even need JavaScript.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        > 6 columns of comment characters on every line The reinvention of COBOL?
    - johansch 10y ago
      Spotted the front-end developer.
      - andrewmcwatters 10y ago
        Haha! Yeah, but I don't believe this was necessary at all.
glook 10y ago
Looking for Partner FOR Donald Trump... And looking... and looking... and looking...
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  ...partner found: Whats up man, aer you doing OK?
Joeboy 10y ago
It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment. I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.
stronsay 10y ago
Site is a mess while using Tor Browser. Double Esc doesn't work. Messages aren't going through.
hiven 10y ago
I start conversations but then it just stops working
- escape_plan 10y ago
  I am using IE Edge, it works there
dudul 10y ago
Yeah, I'm sure the racist, xenophobic, sexist deplorables can't wait to chat with those who've been demonizing them for an entire year.
ivm 10y ago
Sorry but humanity needs more self-understanding, empathy towards others and non-political activism. Arguing on the Internet does not help or we would be living in utopia since 90s.
michaeljbishop 10y ago
It's enough of a challenge to communicate effectively through text-only discussions with people I like. I like this idea, but wish it were full video chat so I could get facial expressions and tone.
- astrodust 10y ago
  No, no you really don't. Didn't Chatroulette teach anyone anything?
xenophon 10y ago
Love the concept -- I think it is sorely needed -- but my messages didn't post and I got disconnected after a single exchange.
lucaspottersky 10y ago
its pretty cool. but as for me, i already spend 80% of my interactions talking to people i disagree with, i think i have enough of it already =)
farright 10y ago
This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)
anindha 10y ago
It doesn't seem to be working for me after I match. I enter some text and nothing updates.
- anindha 10y ago
  It seems to be working now Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).
matmann2001 10y ago
What is the origin of the name Mest? I can't help but think of that emo band from the 00's.
- jyriand 10y ago
  It means "revenge" in russian.
  - clishem 10y ago
    It means "manure" in Dutch :)
- ipsin 10y ago
  I had a bad reaction because I thought it was related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEST_(Scientology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEST_(Scientology)
KiDD 10y ago
It crashed in latest Safari pretty much soon as the chat started...
pklausler 10y ago
There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just done with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse. For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying, then defend your guy when he lies. The problem with where we are now is that people's realities are too closely tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts, it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.
  - madamelic 10y ago
    I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently". "Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt anything from it. "Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it. Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect after two years is completely insane. The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to corporations isn't going to fix it.
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      The other thing is that it's the first thing they want to do now that they have both houses of congress and the white house. Problem is, they don't have anything to replace it with yet. I don't think the Republicans want to go back to what it was before. I think they want to keep some of the good things about it like being covered for preexisting conditions. I also know Republicans want to allow insurers to sell across state lines which would increase competition and drive down costs. People on both sides of the aisle have been saying this for years. confirmed: Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform There's actually some other good ideas in there too.
okreallywtf 10y ago
While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best) face to face. Talking to someone over the phone or maybe with video chat could work but anything that separates you from the person you are communicating with creates barriers for that communication (I am convinced). Communicating with people face to face (whether they agree with you or not) is one of the most basic and satisfying parts of being human and we're finding more and more ways to not do that.
- guelo 10y ago
  You're basically saying that there is no hope of fixing the problem since what you're suggesting is never going to happen at any scale. If nothing else this tool, even if imperfect, offers some hope.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrowley 10y ago
    It's not completely impossible to imagine a tool like this using webrtc to have people video chat/discuss issues together. I'm not sure how we incentive users to actually use the tool and remain respectful - but maybe celebrities or cultural shifts would make people feel obligated to talk with those of differing opinion.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    I'm not saying that all, but I think that part of the solution will be finding ways to get people interacting with each other directly in more ways either through direct outreach (going door to door or talking to people in public) or civic engagement. You don't have to be exposed to everyone, I had some really positive conversations when stuck at jury duty last time. A lot of people just go find a corner to hole up in but I ended up sharing a corner of the courthouse with a group of people that preferred to chat and it was a really nice way to while away the time (we had a 2 hour discussion about gun control that was very civil and diverse in ideology which the internet would lead you to believe was impossible). I'm not saying any of this to detract from this tool or any of the other interesting tools linked here, I think its great to try to find as many solutions as possible but its just been my observation recently that humans interact best face to face, hopefully we can find a more scalable solution though.
loorinm 10y ago
Great idea, trying to use it but it seems broken. Chat cuts off after two lines. Have tried it about 10 times. Please fix?
teleclimber 10y ago
Came across this paper this AM regarding the attempts to get non-alike people to mingle: "In this paper, we hypothesize, first, that previous approaches have not worked because they have been direct -- they have tried to explicitly connect people with those having opposing views on sensitive issues." https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481 https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481
alexrigler 10y ago
Really like the idea. Messages wouldn't go through though after a few interactions and couldn't submit a bug. There is clearly a need for dialogue after such a divisive campaign, it would be even better before people cast ballots though. The media clearly don't help facilitate interaction between different elements of society, but rather act as an echo chambers for a lot of people. Whether it is The Guardian, Washington Post or Fox News and Breitbart. I'm British and was surprised by Brexit, however this didn't catch me by surprise. Such a huge disconnect has formed in both the US and UK. Although there are valid concerns as to how we implement dialogue the potential is huge. If we don't take these attempts seriously we risk becoming so polarised that ugly outcomes will be guaranteed.
apathy 10y ago
Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything? Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!? It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.
- didibus 10y ago
  That would require time and effort, and it would force you to actually think and reason, which is a tiring activity and costly to your body. So in other words, ain't nobody got time for that.
- sevilo 10y ago
  exactly, in so many situations, why do we have to make things black or white? this is exactly what creates "us" vs "them".
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely wrong. The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd affiliation. I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or curiosity. HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say "The other side sucks." I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit which satisfies them they've won the argument. The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument. You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit. I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for one.
  - 10y ago
RankingMember 10y ago
If the experience I'm having is any indication (very clunky, conversation works 50% of the time), I think you might want to iron things out a bit more before a Show HN like this.
avitzurel 10y ago
There are two problems I see with this. I had 3 conversations. ME: Hi Other side: Hello That's it. stopped working
trump4564 10y ago
I like this idea, but unfortunately the site is broken. Made a throwaway account - I voted for Trump, want to talk about it?
electic 10y ago
Another app I would like to suggest is Placecot. It allows you to post to neighborhoods and places nearby. So post to your local coffee shop or neighborhood and have a discussion. Better yet, meet those people in person. Part of the problem with society is we are all in filtered bubbles and no one meets and talks anymore. You can find it on the app store here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8 I hope your journey meeting humans is as eye opening as mine has been. P.S. I am the founder. Feedback welcome.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Feedback: Apple only? Not interested in walled gardens.
  - electic 10y ago
    It will come for Android as well but probably next year. Thanks for the feedback.
emmelaich 10y ago
It requests connections on port 8080 as well. This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.
emmelaich 10y ago
It requests connections on port 8080 as well. This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.
stevens32 10y ago
Great idea! We really have to work on not demonizing the 'other side'. I spent some time during the primaries trying to read through subreddits of supporters for the opposite candidate, trying to understand where they were coming from. That didn't work very well. Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't often get a chance to work on.
dschiptsov 10y ago
there is 4chan for that.
- ue_ 10y ago
  4chan is an echo chamber, especially /pol/. The other echo chamber is 8chan's /leftypol/. What's good about them is that if you're a rightwinger you can go to /leftypol/and if you're a leftie you can go to /pol/.
antisthenes 10y ago
It would be nice if it worked for more than 2-3 messages at a time.
kristopolous 10y ago
I've had a far more elaborate idea incubating for at least 8 years... I have many mockups, some pocs and a bunch of notes if someone is interested. There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  I'm interested in at least the elevator pitch. What's your basic idea?
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    I don't know if you'll see this but email me. Use my hn handle @ yahoo and I'll write it up. I'll need to write this document eventually if I want it to be a reality.
JDiculous 10y ago
I like the idea, but the chat doesn't work. The first message will send, but after that it freezes. I press escape twice to disconnect and nothing happens.
- b_bellomo 10y ago
  Same for me. Too bad, the idea is cool.
beatpanda 10y ago
Let me tell you why dialogue doesn't work in this case: Now discussing Donald Trump Now Talking with nigger lyncher nigger lyncher's Description: i love to lynch niggers That conversation is over before it can start. I'd rather fight these idiots in the streets for the next 4 years than make any type of attempt at dialogue.
- yetanotherjosh 10y ago
  You're dealing with a troll there, not an idiot. A troll.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
benmcnelly 10y ago
Gah! I can't get a conversation to stay connected. So many cool people I would love to keep talking to. Is there an alternative that is not getting HN hugged?
ywecur 10y ago
It doesn't work on Firefox
kzisme 10y ago
Neat idea - but messages would not send and hitting escape twice as instructed didn't end the session.
Nick_23847 10y ago
idea: interesting, execution: fail
Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Whipped this up, should be more reliable: https://tesm.sircmpwn.com https://tesm.sircmpwn.com Code here, feel free to use it for mest: https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm
- benkaiser 10y ago
  Knew your name looked familiar, thanks for your awesome work on Sway!
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    No problem, I'm glad you like it!
bArray 10y ago
Feature request: Need to know when somebody is actively speaking to you.
alexbanks 10y ago
I love this idea, but the chat system doesn't appear to work after 1-2 messages.
- Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
  This was also my experience.
agumonkey 10y ago
Couldn't connect to a partner. So far it looks like a topic oriented Omegle.
robbizorg 10y ago
Hey everyone, this has been a pretty crazy day for me, and I'm pretty sure it's been crazy for everyone else as all. Sorry for only just responding to everyone on this thread, I've been super busy and have only just gotten a chance to sit down and get to work. First off, I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback of gotten on the project, both positive and negative. As was revealed by the ton of technical difficulties and ridiculously sized bundle.js file, this was a hashed together project that was more of a proof of concept rather than a final app. Now that I know that there's a lot of interest in at least some sort of app developed along these lines, I'm going to spend a lot of time polishing the site and exactly how one expresses belief "for" or "against" topics or people. I also plan to look into research as posted on how to work against polarization in the country. I pushed a couple changes that should hopefully account for some of the technical problems people were having earlier, but I won't have time until the weekend to dive deep into it. Secondly, I totally agree with okreallywtf that technology like this has the potential to be great, but so far tech's only made the problem worse. As the interest from HN shows, I think that there's a lot of room for developers to actually go out into more bridge-building type projects that work to get people to interact with those on the "other side." To get moralistic, I think that there's not only room for development here, but that we have the duty to explore these options. We have to prevent division from becoming further entrenched in this country. In this vein, I want to especially point out comments that highlight other sites that try to bring people together and become more informed about government like Placecot and pol.is. Maybe there's still ways that social media and technology can change the ways we interact with people. Perhaps we just have to be more aware of the forces that keep us within our own ideological bubbles. We have a lot to work to do in this country to try and bring everyone together after this election. Let's see what can be done.
- vehementi 10y ago
  Is there a way I can get in touch with you, just want to bounce some ideas around
  - robbizorg 10y ago
    Not at the moment, I'm going to set up an email for the site over the weekend
shermozle 10y ago
http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/ http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/
eneifert 10y ago
I would love to see something like this for broader issues and I see two big benefits. 1) I think it could be really helpful to bloggers. If I wrote a post on a divisive topic, I would love to have it reviewed by respected people who are on the other side (not sure exactly how you would work out the respected part). When we write it's too easy for us to build up a scarecrow argument then knock it down to the delight of those who already agree with us. For example imagine a metric that showed how much people who disagree with the article respect it anyways. If I saw something like that on my Facebook feed I would be more likely to read it. 2) A place for us to get experience on how to debate better. There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. For example, when you disagree with someone ask a question you actually want the answer to, then talk about it. It sounds easy but it can only become a habit with deliberate practice. I have seen a number of other TED talks that go over these kinds of things.
- schoen 10y ago
  > There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. One list is http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html I can also recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y although I'm not positive of its educational value. :-) Edit: This version of the sketch has what I find to be kind of pointless violence at the end.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Also - Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 - Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 - Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692
    - schoen 10y ago
      There's also this thing that Eliezer Yudkowsky observed https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers It includes the impulse to suggest that things we favor have no negative consequences (or reasons to doubt them), while things we oppose have no positive consequences (or reasons to believe them). In some forms of high school and college debate, you can lose points if you don't rebut every single argument raised by your opponent (but your rebuttal doesn't necessarily have to be good in the ordinary sense of the word!). In policy debate this can lead to spreading, where people speak absurdly quickly because they want to be counted as having formally responded to everything the other side said, or having introduced points that the other side failed to rebut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delive... This is kind of wacky because it gets into a stylized activity far removed from what most listeners would understand as substantively discussing an issue. And it doesn't seem to admit the possibility that both sides might have some points to which there is no convincing rebuttal (which Eliezer suggests is actually a normal state of affairs for talking about real-world issues).
neo2006 10y ago
I'm not US citizen but I follow US politics closely and from where I stand you guys (democrats) will not be able to do much about the situation now, you lost and you need to wait for the next election to give it a fight. And let me tell you, people who voted for Trump in 4 years from here will feel betrailed again and will flip to the other side (yours). This situation happened before in other countries and it always have the same outcome. at least 50% of Trump promisses are populist and infaisable, if you add on top of that his lack of experience, diplomacy and his bad temper after 4 years no one will want to vote for him or any other republican. So understanding the other side is not critical here, they will understand by them selves.
mirimir 10y ago
Seems to be no "ambivalent" option on Mest :(
juanmacuevas 10y ago
wow! last night I got inspired to create exactly this concept while watching this interview https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...
readhn 10y ago
I think the concept of having a single person - President, being head of the country is outdated. We do not need a President. This ancient concept has to go. We have congress, senate, house of reps, judges, courts. Enough to make decisions and develop policies. There would be less drama without President in America.
obj-g 10y ago
Ah yes, bringing people together by dividing them into two groups.

334 points by robbizorg 10y ago

This concept is a troll haven. Politically motivated trolls have become a rampant problem online. I think they are the single biggest obstacle to the progress social media (in the broadest definition, which includes this project here) can effect towards non-partisan goals like empathy and factuality. How will you deal with this issue?

robbizorg 10y ago

Hi everyone, Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest, to try and get people who hold different opinions talking to one another. We just have to start doing something to deal with the ever increasing division in the U.S.

jimnotgym 10y ago
I actually was having a great reconciling conversation with a guy on here just now. I love the idea. I did get disconnected after a while btw. My messages just didn't post. I came away feeling more like I understood the other side of the debate so well done!
shireboy 10y ago
Agree in principle, but one thing that threw me off off the bat- it asked if I was for or against trump. My views are more nuanced than that- to the point I wouldn't feel comfortable selecting either. Not sure how to best express that in the app, but I do think it's one of the things people misunderstand about "the other".
- smoyer 10y ago
  I was hoping it was a text entry box too!
  - bigtunacan 10y ago
    Agreed. Interesting idea, but limits the discussion too much.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Maybe 'rate your support of Trump/the outcome of the election on a scale from 1 to 10'?
  - vacri 10y ago
    Even that is not enough. It's still a bipolar scale, and humans are politically multipolar.
    - grzm 10y ago
      You're right. People are "multipolar". There is a way to think of a binary choice being useful here. By looking at a single, big question like this that clearly has a lot of nuance underneath, you can provide the opportunity for people to find common ground even when they are at opposite sides of the overly-simplifed binary decision.
  - shireboy 10y ago
    Thinking about it, I think maybe four groups: For, somewhat for, against, somewhat against. The app could still match up the "for" with the "against", but users wouldn't feel so gross choosing just for or against.
- patcon 10y ago
  This tool is mind-blowingly effective a warding off the sort of concerns that you raise, of a tool not capturing and reflecting users' many complex viewpoints: https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5#.1pbjuwoqa https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5#.1pbjuwoqa It's mainly geared toward single-issue consultations and discussions, but definitely worth understanding. I know some folks who facilitate municipal consultations in one of the largest Canadian cities, a job for which helping often divided participants to arrive at meaningful consensus is high-priority. Their comment after the demo was "My mind is honestly reeling right now. Never in my life did I think any part of my job could be automated and democratized, because what I do is synthesize fuzzy participant feelings in a very unscalable way. But this tool just might automate away some of what we do."
austincheney 10y ago
A two party system is a large part of this problem. One group validates itself by demonizing the only other player in town. It's toxic and it energizes the most self-serving of us.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  Do they actually want different things though? In the UK it seems like all the politicians want the same - and all the people want the opposite.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    From outside it more seems like all politicians want one thing, and half of the population wants the opposite.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    What policies do the current Conservative government, Labour, SNP government in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and the various parties in NI have in common? Quite a few of those parties want to break away from the UK - which is about is fundamental a disagreement as you can have!
  - renaudg 10y ago
    What ? Interested to know what side you think "the people" is on.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    They want to get elected. So, in that regard they want the same thing. What you say to get elected is largely irrelevant, particularly if you can suggest the opposing party is more evil. The goal isn't to be a good candidate, qualified, or even ethical... its to get elected out of a contest of two people. Who ever uses the media most wins. It doesn't even have to be favorable news coverage or even make sense. Who ever appears on the screen the most or gets their name mentioned the most wins. Again, its only a contest out of two people and the general population is easily energized by emotions.
- 10y ago
mavdi 10y ago
I actually think we're talking too much. Sometimes even when we have nothing constructive to say.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  Listening is an underrated and scarce skill.
fit2rule 10y ago
Why is it you think dialectic materialism is worth the effort?
masondixon 10y ago
Yo great idea. Its timing out though. Plz fix! Use Firebase!
beatpanda 10y ago
This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants." My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What good could that possibly do?
- ema 10y ago
  Don't you feel at least a little bit curious on why someone could adopt a position that is so obviously wrong to you? Remember, these are people too, not that much unlike you. Some of them might even have the same favorite movies as you.
- flukus 10y ago
  > So why even have they conversation? What good could that possibly do? To see how the came to that conclusion. It's not like they hate brown people that speak funny, they have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration.
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    Some people do have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration, but there's also no shortage of actual racism among those who really, really seem to care about immigration. It's not like you don't see tons of explicit or implicit racism on Reddit or Twitter or Facebook among Trump supporters. Or at Trump rallys, for that matter, like "Jew S A" chants or people proudly wearing t-shirts that they think are hilarious about lynching journalists (like, actual old-fashioned lynching involving ropes and trees and victims). Hell, the KKK endorsed Trump and he didn't denounce them. So yes, there are at least some people who like Trump for his anti-immigrant views that base their support on racism. Based on what I've seen online and in person, there are quite a few of them. Maybe that's not all of them, and some or most are really just concerned about it as a law and order issue, but Trump made absolutely no effort to distinguish between the two. At no point did he ever make any statement that attempted to disassociate his views on immigration from racism, and he was called upon to do so throughout the campaign (like after the KKK endorsement). Maybe he himself has more enlightened views on immigration, but he clearly couldn't care less if people were on his side because of pure racism. He stoked those fires over and over and over again. Maybe he's just incredibly misunderstood, but he sure as hell didn't make an effort to clarify anything if he was. That speaks volumes about his morals. If you're going to take a hardline stance on illegal immigration and make it a centerpiece of your campaign, it makes it that much more important to be very clear and explicit that racism is not a factor, if for no other reasons than to avoid getting lumped in with racists and to avoid indulging racist tendencies within your own base. Leaders are supposed to lead, and someone who wants to be president has a vastly greater responsibility to be a leader. Also, the fact that the strongest support for Trump's anti-immigrant views came from the parts of the country that have the fewest immigrants doesn't help. I've known plenty of people who've lived their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born, in parts of the country where they may not ever actually see a black person, much less anyone from the Middle East or Mexico. People in these homogenous rural communities form (in terms of numbers at least) the core of anti-immigrant sentiment, and yet they also seem to think that strange brown people sneaking into the country is the #1 issue facing America today. It's very hard to look at those views coming from those demographics and not think that there's at least some racism and xenophobia driving those views.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
First off, fantastic tool and thank you for trying to be a part of the solution. However, this does little to solve the actual problem. People are just more likely to not be civil behind closed doors. For example , I frequently commute in Los Angeles traffic. If Im attempting to merge or change lanes with my blinker on, people wont budge or will even speed up. My normally docile mother and girlfriend will expletive laced insults that they never would. They are nicer to people who may waste 5 minutes of their time in person than someone in a car who wastes maybe .01 seconds of their time. When I make direct eye contact with them and force them to acknowledge my basic humanity, no one has ever been a traffic asshole. Conversely, in online gaming apparently the entire 12 yr old population has had coitus with my mother. I had high hopes that the Internet would drastically reduce ignorance and make telling lies much more difficult. This whole election season would be perfect for an episode of Black Mirror.

Daniel_Marcos 10y ago

Some feedback: It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive. It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of awkward. Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully. I like it a lot, though, awesome job!! :)

d--b 10y ago

Somehow, I think there's not going to be a lot of trump supporters out there.

ghufran_syed 10y ago
Well, there's a lower bound of around 50 million trump supporters in the US based on last night's election results...
- Mickydtron 10y ago
  Yes, but Hacker News is not exactly a random slice of American voters. I would expect to find some, but not many, Trump supporters who are going to find and use a site like this.
  - wayn3 10y ago
    I don't think Peter Thiel is trolling Hackernews for ways he can explain why he's supporting Trump.
  - smoyer 10y ago
    Where's Thiel when you need him?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- d--b 10y ago
  Oh, come on, you know what I meant! As if the readership of HN was not massively biased! I'd love for this website to work, but if you're posting on hacker news, I doubt you'll get with a Trump voter from Montana!
- matwood 10y ago
  Well there are Trump supporters and people who really dislike Hilary. Based on the exit polling it looks like very few people loved who they voted for, and instead voted against someone else.

utternerd 10y ago

How about other topics to debate?

kaolti 10y ago

Great idea, love it!

kaolti 10y ago

Great idea, love it!

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

I'd be interested in a non-binary option. I am neither for nor against Trump, rather I'm interested in the relative merits or faults inherent in his policy proposals (where possible to investigate) and discourse.

MarkPNeyer 10y ago
This tool is still very primitive (i'm still working on it) but it does what you're looking for: http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/ http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/ You construct an argument like a proof, with supporting arguments. People can share their opinions on each step of your argument. It doesn't allow direct back and forth yet; you'd ahve to pass the link around.

sandworm101 10y ago

The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why. Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.

JadeNB 10y ago
I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump is (probably, since I don't know any better than any of the countless other people who got this election totally wrong) precisely from people who feel that the direction of their country is leaving them behind. As we have seen, insisting that they are right, and that the worst of their attitudes should be left behind, doesn't silence them; it makes them feel forced into desperate action, willing to elect anyone who will (appear to) listen to and validate them.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem. I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process. We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.

__BrianDGLS__ 10y ago

Isn't that what the internet is for?

vinay427 10y ago
Until most communities naturally dissolve into "subreddit"-esque groups where users share similar views to enjoy validation and avoid being downvoted. Explicitly encouraging opposing viewpoints may help alleviate this problem.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Not really. It just encourages people to fight for their team. You need a place where there are no teams, where it's not A vs. B, but a place where you're tackling smaller problems and talking solutions which can be understood and validated.

maloney 10y ago

Your bundle.js file is 4.4MB and took 30 seconds to load (given several attempts). I would consider getting that under control, at the very least gzip the file.

endless1234 10y ago
How can a site like this require that much clientside javascript?
- andrewmcwatters 10y ago
  it's 2016
  - astrodust 10y ago
    2MB is the ante to get at the big boy's table.
  - nilved 10y ago
    What a horrible place 2016 is. The JavaScript is uncompressed and has 6 columns of comment characters on every line. There's really no excuse. This site did not even need JavaScript.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      > 6 columns of comment characters on every line The reinvention of COBOL?
  - johansch 10y ago
    Spotted the front-end developer.
    - andrewmcwatters 10y ago
      Haha! Yeah, but I don't believe this was necessary at all.

glook 10y ago

Looking for Partner FOR Donald Trump... And looking... and looking... and looking...

benmcnelly 10y ago
...partner found: Whats up man, aer you doing OK?

Joeboy 10y ago

It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment. I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.

stronsay 10y ago

Site is a mess while using Tor Browser. Double Esc doesn't work. Messages aren't going through.

hiven 10y ago

I start conversations but then it just stops working

escape_plan 10y ago
I am using IE Edge, it works there

dudul 10y ago

Yeah, I'm sure the racist, xenophobic, sexist deplorables can't wait to chat with those who've been demonizing them for an entire year.

ivm 10y ago

Sorry but humanity needs more self-understanding, empathy towards others and non-political activism. Arguing on the Internet does not help or we would be living in utopia since 90s.

michaeljbishop 10y ago

It's enough of a challenge to communicate effectively through text-only discussions with people I like. I like this idea, but wish it were full video chat so I could get facial expressions and tone.

astrodust 10y ago
No, no you really don't. Didn't Chatroulette teach anyone anything?

xenophon 10y ago

Love the concept -- I think it is sorely needed -- but my messages didn't post and I got disconnected after a single exchange.

lucaspottersky 10y ago

its pretty cool. but as for me, i already spend 80% of my interactions talking to people i disagree with, i think i have enough of it already =)

farright 10y ago

This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)

anindha 10y ago

It doesn't seem to be working for me after I match. I enter some text and nothing updates.

anindha 10y ago
It seems to be working now Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).

matmann2001 10y ago

What is the origin of the name Mest? I can't help but think of that emo band from the 00's.

jyriand 10y ago
It means "revenge" in russian.
- clishem 10y ago
  It means "manure" in Dutch :)
ipsin 10y ago
I had a bad reaction because I thought it was related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEST_(Scientology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEST_(Scientology)

KiDD 10y ago

It crashed in latest Safari pretty much soon as the chat started...

pklausler 10y ago

There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just done with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.

at-fates-hands 10y ago
Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse. For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying, then defend your guy when he lies. The problem with where we are now is that people's realities are too closely tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts, it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.
- madamelic 10y ago
  I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently". "Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt anything from it. "Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it. Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect after two years is completely insane. The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to corporations isn't going to fix it.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    The other thing is that it's the first thing they want to do now that they have both houses of congress and the white house. Problem is, they don't have anything to replace it with yet. I don't think the Republicans want to go back to what it was before. I think they want to keep some of the good things about it like being covered for preexisting conditions. I also know Republicans want to allow insurers to sell across state lines which would increase competition and drive down costs. People on both sides of the aisle have been saying this for years. confirmed: Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform There's actually some other good ideas in there too.

okreallywtf 10y ago

While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best) face to face. Talking to someone over the phone or maybe with video chat could work but anything that separates you from the person you are communicating with creates barriers for that communication (I am convinced). Communicating with people face to face (whether they agree with you or not) is one of the most basic and satisfying parts of being human and we're finding more and more ways to not do that.

guelo 10y ago
You're basically saying that there is no hope of fixing the problem since what you're suggesting is never going to happen at any scale. If nothing else this tool, even if imperfect, offers some hope.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jrowley 10y ago
  It's not completely impossible to imagine a tool like this using webrtc to have people video chat/discuss issues together. I'm not sure how we incentive users to actually use the tool and remain respectful - but maybe celebrities or cultural shifts would make people feel obligated to talk with those of differing opinion.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  I'm not saying that all, but I think that part of the solution will be finding ways to get people interacting with each other directly in more ways either through direct outreach (going door to door or talking to people in public) or civic engagement. You don't have to be exposed to everyone, I had some really positive conversations when stuck at jury duty last time. A lot of people just go find a corner to hole up in but I ended up sharing a corner of the courthouse with a group of people that preferred to chat and it was a really nice way to while away the time (we had a 2 hour discussion about gun control that was very civil and diverse in ideology which the internet would lead you to believe was impossible). I'm not saying any of this to detract from this tool or any of the other interesting tools linked here, I think its great to try to find as many solutions as possible but its just been my observation recently that humans interact best face to face, hopefully we can find a more scalable solution though.

loorinm 10y ago

Great idea, trying to use it but it seems broken. Chat cuts off after two lines. Have tried it about 10 times. Please fix?

teleclimber 10y ago

Came across this paper this AM regarding the attempts to get non-alike people to mingle: "In this paper, we hypothesize, first, that previous approaches have not worked because they have been direct -- they have tried to explicitly connect people with those having opposing views on sensitive issues." https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481 https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481

alexrigler 10y ago

Really like the idea. Messages wouldn't go through though after a few interactions and couldn't submit a bug. There is clearly a need for dialogue after such a divisive campaign, it would be even better before people cast ballots though. The media clearly don't help facilitate interaction between different elements of society, but rather act as an echo chambers for a lot of people. Whether it is The Guardian, Washington Post or Fox News and Breitbart. I'm British and was surprised by Brexit, however this didn't catch me by surprise. Such a huge disconnect has formed in both the US and UK. Although there are valid concerns as to how we implement dialogue the potential is huge. If we don't take these attempts seriously we risk becoming so polarised that ugly outcomes will be guaranteed.

apathy 10y ago

Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything? Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!? It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.

didibus 10y ago
That would require time and effort, and it would force you to actually think and reason, which is a tiring activity and costly to your body. So in other words, ain't nobody got time for that.
sevilo 10y ago
exactly, in so many situations, why do we have to make things black or white? this is exactly what creates "us" vs "them".
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely wrong. The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd affiliation. I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or curiosity. HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say "The other side sucks." I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit which satisfies them they've won the argument. The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument. You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit. I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for one.
- 10y ago

RankingMember 10y ago

If the experience I'm having is any indication (very clunky, conversation works 50% of the time), I think you might want to iron things out a bit more before a Show HN like this.

avitzurel 10y ago

There are two problems I see with this. I had 3 conversations. ME: Hi Other side: Hello That's it. stopped working

trump4564 10y ago

I like this idea, but unfortunately the site is broken. Made a throwaway account - I voted for Trump, want to talk about it?

electic 10y ago

Another app I would like to suggest is Placecot. It allows you to post to neighborhoods and places nearby. So post to your local coffee shop or neighborhood and have a discussion. Better yet, meet those people in person. Part of the problem with society is we are all in filtered bubbles and no one meets and talks anymore. You can find it on the app store here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8 I hope your journey meeting humans is as eye opening as mine has been. P.S. I am the founder. Feedback welcome.

Neliquat 10y ago
Feedback: Apple only? Not interested in walled gardens.
- electic 10y ago
  It will come for Android as well but probably next year. Thanks for the feedback.

emmelaich 10y ago

It requests connections on port 8080 as well. This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.

emmelaich 10y ago

It requests connections on port 8080 as well. This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.

stevens32 10y ago

Great idea! We really have to work on not demonizing the 'other side'. I spent some time during the primaries trying to read through subreddits of supporters for the opposite candidate, trying to understand where they were coming from. That didn't work very well. Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't often get a chance to work on.

dschiptsov 10y ago

there is 4chan for that.

ue_ 10y ago
4chan is an echo chamber, especially /pol/. The other echo chamber is 8chan's /leftypol/. What's good about them is that if you're a rightwinger you can go to /leftypol/and if you're a leftie you can go to /pol/.

antisthenes 10y ago

It would be nice if it worked for more than 2-3 messages at a time.

kristopolous 10y ago

I've had a far more elaborate idea incubating for at least 8 years... I have many mockups, some pocs and a bunch of notes if someone is interested. There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...

jnicholasp 10y ago
I'm interested in at least the elevator pitch. What's your basic idea?
- kristopolous 10y ago
  I don't know if you'll see this but email me. Use my hn handle @ yahoo and I'll write it up. I'll need to write this document eventually if I want it to be a reality.

JDiculous 10y ago

I like the idea, but the chat doesn't work. The first message will send, but after that it freezes. I press escape twice to disconnect and nothing happens.

b_bellomo 10y ago
Same for me. Too bad, the idea is cool.

beatpanda 10y ago

Let me tell you why dialogue doesn't work in this case: Now discussing Donald Trump Now Talking with nigger lyncher nigger lyncher's Description: i love to lynch niggers That conversation is over before it can start. I'd rather fight these idiots in the streets for the next 4 years than make any type of attempt at dialogue.

yetanotherjosh 10y ago
You're dealing with a troll there, not an idiot. A troll.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

benmcnelly 10y ago

Gah! I can't get a conversation to stay connected. So many cool people I would love to keep talking to. Is there an alternative that is not getting HN hugged?

ywecur 10y ago

It doesn't work on Firefox

kzisme 10y ago

Neat idea - but messages would not send and hitting escape twice as instructed didn't end the session.

Nick_23847 10y ago

idea: interesting, execution: fail

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

Whipped this up, should be more reliable: https://tesm.sircmpwn.com https://tesm.sircmpwn.com Code here, feel free to use it for mest: https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm

benkaiser 10y ago
Knew your name looked familiar, thanks for your awesome work on Sway!
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  No problem, I'm glad you like it!

bArray 10y ago

Feature request: Need to know when somebody is actively speaking to you.

alexbanks 10y ago

I love this idea, but the chat system doesn't appear to work after 1-2 messages.

Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
This was also my experience.

agumonkey 10y ago

Couldn't connect to a partner. So far it looks like a topic oriented Omegle.

robbizorg 10y ago

Hey everyone, this has been a pretty crazy day for me, and I'm pretty sure it's been crazy for everyone else as all. Sorry for only just responding to everyone on this thread, I've been super busy and have only just gotten a chance to sit down and get to work. First off, I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback of gotten on the project, both positive and negative. As was revealed by the ton of technical difficulties and ridiculously sized bundle.js file, this was a hashed together project that was more of a proof of concept rather than a final app. Now that I know that there's a lot of interest in at least some sort of app developed along these lines, I'm going to spend a lot of time polishing the site and exactly how one expresses belief "for" or "against" topics or people. I also plan to look into research as posted on how to work against polarization in the country. I pushed a couple changes that should hopefully account for some of the technical problems people were having earlier, but I won't have time until the weekend to dive deep into it. Secondly, I totally agree with okreallywtf that technology like this has the potential to be great, but so far tech's only made the problem worse. As the interest from HN shows, I think that there's a lot of room for developers to actually go out into more bridge-building type projects that work to get people to interact with those on the "other side." To get moralistic, I think that there's not only room for development here, but that we have the duty to explore these options. We have to prevent division from becoming further entrenched in this country. In this vein, I want to especially point out comments that highlight other sites that try to bring people together and become more informed about government like Placecot and pol.is. Maybe there's still ways that social media and technology can change the ways we interact with people. Perhaps we just have to be more aware of the forces that keep us within our own ideological bubbles. We have a lot to work to do in this country to try and bring everyone together after this election. Let's see what can be done.

vehementi 10y ago
Is there a way I can get in touch with you, just want to bounce some ideas around
- robbizorg 10y ago
  Not at the moment, I'm going to set up an email for the site over the weekend

shermozle 10y ago

http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/ http://hastrumpmadeamericagreatagainyet.com/

eneifert 10y ago

I would love to see something like this for broader issues and I see two big benefits. 1) I think it could be really helpful to bloggers. If I wrote a post on a divisive topic, I would love to have it reviewed by respected people who are on the other side (not sure exactly how you would work out the respected part). When we write it's too easy for us to build up a scarecrow argument then knock it down to the delight of those who already agree with us. For example imagine a metric that showed how much people who disagree with the article respect it anyways. If I saw something like that on my Facebook feed I would be more likely to read it. 2) A place for us to get experience on how to debate better. There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. For example, when you disagree with someone ask a question you actually want the answer to, then talk about it. It sounds easy but it can only become a habit with deliberate practice. I have seen a number of other TED talks that go over these kinds of things.

schoen 10y ago
> There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. One list is http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html I can also recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y although I'm not positive of its educational value. :-) Edit: This version of the sketch has what I find to be kind of pointless violence at the end.
- grzm 10y ago
  Also - Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288 - Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600 - Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692
  - schoen 10y ago
    There's also this thing that Eliezer Yudkowsky observed https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers It includes the impulse to suggest that things we favor have no negative consequences (or reasons to doubt them), while things we oppose have no positive consequences (or reasons to believe them). In some forms of high school and college debate, you can lose points if you don't rebut every single argument raised by your opponent (but your rebuttal doesn't necessarily have to be good in the ordinary sense of the word!). In policy debate this can lead to spreading, where people speak absurdly quickly because they want to be counted as having formally responded to everything the other side said, or having introduced points that the other side failed to rebut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delive... This is kind of wacky because it gets into a stylized activity far removed from what most listeners would understand as substantively discussing an issue. And it doesn't seem to admit the possibility that both sides might have some points to which there is no convincing rebuttal (which Eliezer suggests is actually a normal state of affairs for talking about real-world issues).

neo2006 10y ago

I'm not US citizen but I follow US politics closely and from where I stand you guys (democrats) will not be able to do much about the situation now, you lost and you need to wait for the next election to give it a fight. And let me tell you, people who voted for Trump in 4 years from here will feel betrailed again and will flip to the other side (yours). This situation happened before in other countries and it always have the same outcome. at least 50% of Trump promisses are populist and infaisable, if you add on top of that his lack of experience, diplomacy and his bad temper after 4 years no one will want to vote for him or any other republican. So understanding the other side is not critical here, they will understand by them selves.

mirimir 10y ago

Seems to be no "ambivalent" option on Mest :(

juanmacuevas 10y ago

wow! last night I got inspired to create exactly this concept while watching this interview https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...

readhn 10y ago

I think the concept of having a single person - President, being head of the country is outdated. We do not need a President. This ancient concept has to go. We have congress, senate, house of reps, judges, courts. Enough to make decisions and develop policies. There would be less drama without President in America.

obj-g 10y ago

Ah yes, bringing people together by dividing them into two groups.