6 ms·

I always found it amazing how vastly different internet communities are from real-world communities. Skim through just about any YouTube video and the comments

I always found it amazing how vastly different internet communities are from real-world communities. Skim through just about any YouTube video and the comments are filled with some of the most vile garbage. We'd all be murdering each other had this been the case in real-world communities. But, instead, we think twice about what we tell others we meet face-to-face and we deal with the impact of our actions right then and there. If we get angry, we might say something terrible to someone and quickly see the pain in their eyes before realizing the terrible thing we've done and regret ever doing so. The feedback is immediate and necessary for our personal growth. Social media just amplifies the worst in us without ever seeing the impact of the words that we put online. It pushes people in disagreement further apart who would easily understand each other by simply communicating face-to-face and sharing the emotions surrounding their differences. Instead, everything is lost in endless pile of Twitter or Facebook feeds which regurgitate apologies of "caught" offenders and cries of the offended. All of this, in all likelihood, would've never happened in real, physical world.

indubitable 9y ago
You have to also consider selection bias. YouTube has a lowest common denominator appeal. And the stuff you're talking about primarily appears on things that are even further lowest common denominator appeal. You're not going to find people ranting and raving on the comments to something like a Leonard Susskind lecture on YouTube. Take the other side of the issue. Anonymity means people can discuss controversial views without concern for what other people might think of them for holding such views. So for instance, consider Nazi Germany. The Nazis were never actually particularly popular in Germany [1] but managed to obtain a stranglehold in power largely because they made people afraid to say otherwise. It was difficult for people to speak against the Nazi party when all it took was saying such things to the wrong person to end up getting 'disappeared.' Without the ability to completely suppress free speech, the Nazis likely would not have managed to obtain power - and certainly not to maintain it. And the above is something that is a constantly recurring theme in history. Those that would do bad things enable their actions by making people scared or otherwise unable to speak against said actions. This should sound familiar given recent events. It's increasingly seeming that sexual abuse is something that is completely systemic in Hollywood. But the powers that be were protected by the fact that their victims were unable to speak out. For instance Weinstein managed to kill a New York Times article that was being written about his abuse, 13 years ago. And in the past accusers of people like him would be putting much more than "just" their livelihood in jeopardy. But the internet allows these people to come together, have a much larger voice, and indirectly protect themselves and also substantiate their claims. A few isolated claims can be explained away - dozens, if not hundreds, of claims cannot. I would argue that what we're seeing is an evolution of society, with some growing pains. Ultimately being upset about what somebody says on the internet is pretty pointless. I mean really we all should be seeing things that we disagree with, fundamentally and vehemently. If people were honest in real life - this would also be the case. I do not think that people censoring themselves, or making themselves somebody they are not, for the sake of social conformity is a positive trait. Yes it spares peoples feelings and helps things get along, but a social consensus (which defines our state of society) built on falsehoods and invisible pressure is no consensus at all. The reason the civil rights movement succeeded is because it happened long before the civil rights movement, as we know it, actually happened. The masses had long since changed their views, but social pressures prevented discussion of such. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15841818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15841818
- avenoir 9y ago
  Thank you for your insightful comment. I absolutely agree with you. There is a very bright and positive side to social media, which has been especially apparent in recent months. Yet it's hard to not see the worrying trends in public ridicule and constant outrage on social media over petty things. I would like to believe that these are growing pains and we'll eventually figure out how and where to draw the line. We are definitely evolving. Perhaps this is the time when we evolve out of our primitive and humble beginnings and into a sci-fi-ish society.
b0rsuk 9y ago
I think it's the combination of anonymity and inability to police themselves. Offline communities make it easy to do the latter, even if it's something as crude as punching a person in the face. So people can say anything and they face no consequences.
ace_of_spades 9y ago
I would argue it is not simly a distinction between online and physical. Online doesn‘t exist in a vacuum but is located in our physical world. Something in our physical world drives us to go crazy online. Imagine a perfectly content physical world, would you imagine the people there go crazy online just because it is online? I would argue we simply live in a world where many people are frustrated, scared, unhappy or just bored. To change how they behave online we don‘t just have to police online better but affect social change in our physical realities. Change the dogma for what it means to be successful. Move from for-profit to for-positive-impact. Teach the benefits of cooperation + friendly competition over battle royale. Such change will carry over to the net. Imagine FB moving away from advertising and for-profit motives to a for-positive-impact poly-centric community governed network for communities, I bet people would behave differently there...
- preordained 9y ago
  I think this is very insightful. Agree, that the online experience basically allows an unimpeded vent for frustrations that are always there but are checked in physical social situations. It's kind of a negative feedback loop, though...in the sense that when you are seeing everyone's unfiltered thoughts, you feel even more justified in your own frustrations and prejudices. You're just blowing off steam, but these thoughts are genuine representations of these "other" people. Discontent would be expressed somewhere, but yah, it's definitely encouraged to escape (no friction!) through Internet discussion.
  - ace_of_spades 9y ago
    Thank you! And yeah, I agree. However, the main point I wanted to make is that we won’t really fix this problem until we resolve the root causes in physical reality. Lot’s of discussion don’t seem to touch on this and are seemingly looking for bandaids to cure a broken limb...
zerostar07 9y ago
> are filled with some of the most vile garbage like most graffiti in real life really. words usually don't materialize
matt4077 9y ago
I actually feel that Facebook got it somewhat right, by focussing on networks of people that know each other in real life, and requiring/strongly encouraging real names. By tying the things you say to you, and your reputation among your actual peers, you're more likely to think twice before posting something needlessly hurtful or provocative. The ability to act anonymously online is obviously important in many contexts, such as seeking mental health advise or indulging in strange yet benign hobbies. But for political speech, communities requiring real names would seem preferable.
wolfgke 9y ago
> I always found it amazing how vastly different internet communities are from real-world communities. Skim through just about any YouTube video and the comments are filled with some of the most vile garbage. We'd all be murdering each other had this been the case in real-world communities. But, instead, we think twice about what we tell others we meet face-to-face and we deal with the impact of our actions right then and there. If you come to this conclusion, you are living in a deep filter bubble in your real life. I often say to people (in Germany): Just go to work by tram at a later time (when hardly any people use the tram to go to work) and you will see how large amounts of "ordinary" people really are/look like.
- jononor 9y ago
  How are they like?
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    Let's say it this way: People you would prefer not to have to deal with in your life. If I give a more direct descriptions, the "guards of political corretness" come out their holes...
    - norlys 9y ago
      I'm imagining something like an anti-Klu-Klux-Klan demonstration on the train... Let's not make a political discussion out of this, shall we?
- watwut 9y ago
  I was in late night tram regularly in Germany and no one bothered me, no one talked to me inappropriately etc. There were no fights or other aggressive behavior. I have met some young groups apparently going from party a couple of times, but they mostly laughed noisily which hardly qualifies as some kind of horrible behavior. Overall, it was quite boring experience. So maybe your local culture is somehow worst then the rest of Germany?

indubitable 9y ago

You have to also consider selection bias. YouTube has a lowest common denominator appeal. And the stuff you're talking about primarily appears on things that are even further lowest common denominator appeal. You're not going to find people ranting and raving on the comments to something like a Leonard Susskind lecture on YouTube. Take the other side of the issue. Anonymity means people can discuss controversial views without concern for what other people might think of them for holding such views. So for instance, consider Nazi Germany. The Nazis were never actually particularly popular in Germany [1] but managed to obtain a stranglehold in power largely because they made people afraid to say otherwise. It was difficult for people to speak against the Nazi party when all it took was saying such things to the wrong person to end up getting 'disappeared.' Without the ability to completely suppress free speech, the Nazis likely would not have managed to obtain power - and certainly not to maintain it. And the above is something that is a constantly recurring theme in history. Those that would do bad things enable their actions by making people scared or otherwise unable to speak against said actions. This should sound familiar given recent events. It's increasingly seeming that sexual abuse is something that is completely systemic in Hollywood. But the powers that be were protected by the fact that their victims were unable to speak out. For instance Weinstein managed to kill a New York Times article that was being written about his abuse, 13 years ago. And in the past accusers of people like him would be putting much more than "just" their livelihood in jeopardy. But the internet allows these people to come together, have a much larger voice, and indirectly protect themselves and also substantiate their claims. A few isolated claims can be explained away - dozens, if not hundreds, of claims cannot. I would argue that what we're seeing is an evolution of society, with some growing pains. Ultimately being upset about what somebody says on the internet is pretty pointless. I mean really we all should be seeing things that we disagree with, fundamentally and vehemently. If people were honest in real life - this would also be the case. I do not think that people censoring themselves, or making themselves somebody they are not, for the sake of social conformity is a positive trait. Yes it spares peoples feelings and helps things get along, but a social consensus (which defines our state of society) built on falsehoods and invisible pressure is no consensus at all. The reason the civil rights movement succeeded is because it happened long before the civil rights movement, as we know it, actually happened. The masses had long since changed their views, but social pressures prevented discussion of such. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15841818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15841818

avenoir 9y ago
Thank you for your insightful comment. I absolutely agree with you. There is a very bright and positive side to social media, which has been especially apparent in recent months. Yet it's hard to not see the worrying trends in public ridicule and constant outrage on social media over petty things. I would like to believe that these are growing pains and we'll eventually figure out how and where to draw the line. We are definitely evolving. Perhaps this is the time when we evolve out of our primitive and humble beginnings and into a sci-fi-ish society.

b0rsuk 9y ago

I think it's the combination of anonymity and inability to police themselves. Offline communities make it easy to do the latter, even if it's something as crude as punching a person in the face. So people can say anything and they face no consequences.

ace_of_spades 9y ago

I would argue it is not simly a distinction between online and physical. Online doesn‘t exist in a vacuum but is located in our physical world. Something in our physical world drives us to go crazy online. Imagine a perfectly content physical world, would you imagine the people there go crazy online just because it is online? I would argue we simply live in a world where many people are frustrated, scared, unhappy or just bored. To change how they behave online we don‘t just have to police online better but affect social change in our physical realities. Change the dogma for what it means to be successful. Move from for-profit to for-positive-impact. Teach the benefits of cooperation + friendly competition over battle royale. Such change will carry over to the net. Imagine FB moving away from advertising and for-profit motives to a for-positive-impact poly-centric community governed network for communities, I bet people would behave differently there...

preordained 9y ago
I think this is very insightful. Agree, that the online experience basically allows an unimpeded vent for frustrations that are always there but are checked in physical social situations. It's kind of a negative feedback loop, though...in the sense that when you are seeing everyone's unfiltered thoughts, you feel even more justified in your own frustrations and prejudices. You're just blowing off steam, but these thoughts are genuine representations of these "other" people. Discontent would be expressed somewhere, but yah, it's definitely encouraged to escape (no friction!) through Internet discussion.
- ace_of_spades 9y ago
  Thank you! And yeah, I agree. However, the main point I wanted to make is that we won’t really fix this problem until we resolve the root causes in physical reality. Lot’s of discussion don’t seem to touch on this and are seemingly looking for bandaids to cure a broken limb...

zerostar07 9y ago

> are filled with some of the most vile garbage like most graffiti in real life really. words usually don't materialize

matt4077 9y ago

I actually feel that Facebook got it somewhat right, by focussing on networks of people that know each other in real life, and requiring/strongly encouraging real names. By tying the things you say to you, and your reputation among your actual peers, you're more likely to think twice before posting something needlessly hurtful or provocative. The ability to act anonymously online is obviously important in many contexts, such as seeking mental health advise or indulging in strange yet benign hobbies. But for political speech, communities requiring real names would seem preferable.

wolfgke 9y ago

> I always found it amazing how vastly different internet communities are from real-world communities. Skim through just about any YouTube video and the comments are filled with some of the most vile garbage. We'd all be murdering each other had this been the case in real-world communities. But, instead, we think twice about what we tell others we meet face-to-face and we deal with the impact of our actions right then and there. If you come to this conclusion, you are living in a deep filter bubble in your real life. I often say to people (in Germany): Just go to work by tram at a later time (when hardly any people use the tram to go to work) and you will see how large amounts of "ordinary" people really are/look like.

jononor 9y ago
How are they like?
- wolfgke 9y ago
  Let's say it this way: People you would prefer not to have to deal with in your life. If I give a more direct descriptions, the "guards of political corretness" come out their holes...
  - norlys 9y ago
    I'm imagining something like an anti-Klu-Klux-Klan demonstration on the train... Let's not make a political discussion out of this, shall we?
watwut 9y ago
I was in late night tram regularly in Germany and no one bothered me, no one talked to me inappropriately etc. There were no fights or other aggressive behavior. I have met some young groups apparently going from party a couple of times, but they mostly laughed noisily which hardly qualifies as some kind of horrible behavior. Overall, it was quite boring experience. So maybe your local culture is somehow worst then the rest of Germany?