5 ms·
I would argue the exact opposite: that the internet may have enabled the freedom of minorities to express their views without fear of repercussion or immediate
by Ivoirians 9y ago
I would argue the exact opposite: that the internet may have enabled the freedom of minorities to express their views without fear of repercussion or immediate ostracism, but that because of the nature of selection bias and the rise of echo chambers/safe spaces/whatever, the internet has made genuine discourse much, much harder. In the US, right now, the degree of polarization is so high that many people get all their news from sources with the same slant, only associate online with people who agree with them, hell, unfriend any high school Facebook friends who post things they find politically unpalatable. In what way is that "having to hear arguments you don't like or agree with"?
Anonymity does remove social ostracism, but I disagree that social coherence is a bad thing.
- ballenf 9y agoFWIW, on the 'un-friend' comment, I think that's really just a backlash from the unabated friending of people that you had forgotten why you fell out of touch with. Then they post stupid shit and you're like, "oh that's right, he's always been an idiot". And unfriend/unfollow. Political discussions were historically off-limits in many social settings and a quick way to end real life friendships. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but hanging out with like-minded people has always been a thing.