3 ms·

This was a big cause of the death of CampusNetwork, which in 2004-5 was a credible competitor to Facebook. Because it encouraged for campus-wide conversation --

by dgant 9y ago

This was a big cause of the death of CampusNetwork, which in 2004-5 was a credible competitor to Facebook. Because it encouraged for campus-wide conversation -- rather than just conversation with your immediate contacts -- it gravitated towards politically extreme conversation that dissuaded mainstream participation. Which is a shame, because it did act as a good way to meet new people, which isn't Facebook's forte.

Apocryphon 9y ago
Hasn't Facebook been gravitating towards politically extreme conversation ever since people started posting ideological memes on Newsfeeds and writing comments?
cookiecaper 9y ago
Yeah, the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say they want to be part of a brave new forum where interesting ideas are discussed and there is a lot of intellectual stimulation. This is a complete and utter lie. People routinely tell it to themselves without realizing its blatant falsity. Most people find conflict unsettling and can handle it only in the smallest doses. People identify their ideas with themselves and take attacks or criticisms of them as personal slights. In written media like online discussion, these responses are amplified because there is little room for tone or other dampening/mitigating signals from the speaker, and the written form makes the harsh words seem more final and official. A slighted person will often feel the need to respond on the record, whereas in person they may have been more likely to dismiss the remark. Cognitive dissonance creates a powerful feeling of unease. When that signal is received, the common interpretation is to make some passing attempt to rebut, like "You know, it's not even worth the time", so that you feel like you won, and then to never return to the place that caused bad feelings. The reason that reddit has always been a big echo chamber and unable to really get mainstream adoption is because it has a fixed front page. This doesn't account for the differing mainstream tastes. reddit has a steady supply of atheistic young men because that's the audience that they appeal to when you load up reddit.com. Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked. If confronted with an idea that seems contradictory to something important to their self-conception, they will immediately become defensive; this is true even among friends when it can sometimes be recovered, but strangers online have zero social capital to deploy to absorb this hit. For most, taking a position in a discussion is nothing more than a way to signal allegiance to a tribe. If your users do not have a way to ensure their experiences aligns with their tribal values and preferences, they will leave. This is important for tech entrepreneurs and people seeking to "bridge the gap". It's bigger than many people realize, and much bigger than people will willingly admit. Efforts in this direction must be baby steps, and no one should expect to perform a great reconciliation.
- posterboy 9y ago
  > the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say ... > ... a complete and utter lie I'd say that's an overly broad generalization, if it wasn' for "IMO" and the following > People identify their ideas with themselves Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. But then comes the offensive attack: > Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked. This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. See, I can write an informal accusation all the same, but I don't expect you to like it. I can't really write a formal argument about it, because I lack training in formal rhethorics.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    >Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. I don't think it's [just] me. Identity politics is based on attempting to program this impulse. >This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. I think the evidence is abundant. It upsets people because it trivializes their behaviors and makes them feel unimportant and predictable (that is, it fails to stroke their egos). People like things that make them feel in control and important. Commentary around psychological realities rarely does this because psychology itself is about analyzing and generalizing human behavior.

by dgant 9y ago

Apocryphon 9y ago

Hasn't Facebook been gravitating towards politically extreme conversation ever since people started posting ideological memes on Newsfeeds and writing comments?

cookiecaper 9y ago

Yeah, the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say they want to be part of a brave new forum where interesting ideas are discussed and there is a lot of intellectual stimulation. This is a complete and utter lie. People routinely tell it to themselves without realizing its blatant falsity. Most people find conflict unsettling and can handle it only in the smallest doses. People identify their ideas with themselves and take attacks or criticisms of them as personal slights. In written media like online discussion, these responses are amplified because there is little room for tone or other dampening/mitigating signals from the speaker, and the written form makes the harsh words seem more final and official. A slighted person will often feel the need to respond on the record, whereas in person they may have been more likely to dismiss the remark. Cognitive dissonance creates a powerful feeling of unease. When that signal is received, the common interpretation is to make some passing attempt to rebut, like "You know, it's not even worth the time", so that you feel like you won, and then to never return to the place that caused bad feelings. The reason that reddit has always been a big echo chamber and unable to really get mainstream adoption is because it has a fixed front page. This doesn't account for the differing mainstream tastes. reddit has a steady supply of atheistic young men because that's the audience that they appeal to when you load up reddit.com. Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked. If confronted with an idea that seems contradictory to something important to their self-conception, they will immediately become defensive; this is true even among friends when it can sometimes be recovered, but strangers online have zero social capital to deploy to absorb this hit. For most, taking a position in a discussion is nothing more than a way to signal allegiance to a tribe. If your users do not have a way to ensure their experiences aligns with their tribal values and preferences, they will leave. This is important for tech entrepreneurs and people seeking to "bridge the gap". It's bigger than many people realize, and much bigger than people will willingly admit. Efforts in this direction must be baby steps, and no one should expect to perform a great reconciliation.

posterboy 9y ago
> the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say ... > ... a complete and utter lie I'd say that's an overly broad generalization, if it wasn' for "IMO" and the following > People identify their ideas with themselves Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. But then comes the offensive attack: > Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked. This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. See, I can write an informal accusation all the same, but I don't expect you to like it. I can't really write a formal argument about it, because I lack training in formal rhethorics.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  >Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. I don't think it's [just] me. Identity politics is based on attempting to program this impulse. >This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. I think the evidence is abundant. It upsets people because it trivializes their behaviors and makes them feel unimportant and predictable (that is, it fails to stroke their egos). People like things that make them feel in control and important. Commentary around psychological realities rarely does this because psychology itself is about analyzing and generalizing human behavior.