4 ms·

It's just human nature, people are awful in general, and the internet allows them to bring it to the masses easily, with very few repercussions.

camillomiller 9y ago
People are generally good, they just tend not to be very vocal about that. Twitter and Facebook, on the other hand, tend to give a megaphone to bad people, allowing them to spread their message wider and louder. That is inherently bad, because thanks to network effect more people would behave in a way they would never allow in real life. My take away is that, after ten years, we can say that Facebook and Twitter have a negative impact on contemporary society.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  I think anyone read decent amount of history book can agree that "people are bad in general". What are the evidences for "People are generally good"?
  - SirFatty 9y ago
    "some people are bad in general". FTFY
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Most of the stuff that isn't selected for inclusion in a history book.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 9y ago
    History books only talk about the extreme actions of the most extreme people of any time period. Beyond "most people follow anyone who is charismatic" history books don't tell you much about humanity at large
  - namelost 9y ago
    People are naive and easy to manipulate. Often (in history) they are manipulated into killing other people against their own interests. Few people are wilfully "good" or "bad".
nemild 9y ago
I hear this argument a lot, and let me just make one point: Human nature is really shapeable — and we (as a former product manager in this space) designed algorithms and product experiences to maximize certain outcomes that benefit social network bottom lines. Regardless of how good or bad human nature is, the algorithms prize engagement however they can get it — I personally believe it surfaces a certain side of humanity, and pushes people in a certain direction. If you're a news editor, you actually have a choice to sensationalize all day because it maximizes short-term profits. After bad things happened (see yellow journalism, the newspaper circulation wars) — newspapers did cut back a fair bit. (We can debate whether that was the risk of regulation, or their own respect for the role they had) This clearly isn't the social networks' fault alone, but their product choices do partially influence on how we all behave. On HN, you hear a lot of anger at journalists for being so click-baity, and the sad part is that every incentive many journalists face encourages this (from user behavior to profit) There are tons of examples how bad incentives can warp how people behave, far beyond "humanity is good" or "humanity is bad". For example, see Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil or the Stanford Prison Experiment. More regularly, see architecture, urban planning, or product management in the Valley, as disciplines that think deeply about the outcomes they want to encourage. A more accurate statement I would say is: humanity has certain predilections, and design choices can influence these dramatically. (And now I will shill my media literacy for engineers guide — contributions welcome: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer )
- rdiddly 9y ago
  True in general, but the only thing I see about how Twitter is designed, that has any significant effect of shaping behavior in a negative direction, is the anonymity, which it inherits from the internet itself. It's no Stanford Prison Experiment though. Maaaayyybe it's the guards' mirrored sunglasses if you want to make the analogy. But since the same feature is available to everyone, including as a protective feature for any would-be "prisoner" or victim, even that analogy breaks down. I'm just not seeing any power-unbalancing features that are inherent. As with most things, its best features are its worst.
domevent 9y ago
It’s probably fairer to say that when there are no consequences for their actions, a statistically significant portion of people are awful, and those people are loud and obsessive.

camillomiller 9y ago

People are generally good, they just tend not to be very vocal about that. Twitter and Facebook, on the other hand, tend to give a megaphone to bad people, allowing them to spread their message wider and louder. That is inherently bad, because thanks to network effect more people would behave in a way they would never allow in real life. My take away is that, after ten years, we can say that Facebook and Twitter have a negative impact on contemporary society.

justicezyx 9y ago
I think anyone read decent amount of history book can agree that "people are bad in general". What are the evidences for "People are generally good"?
- SirFatty 9y ago
  "some people are bad in general". FTFY
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Most of the stuff that isn't selected for inclusion in a history book.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wongarsu 9y ago
  History books only talk about the extreme actions of the most extreme people of any time period. Beyond "most people follow anyone who is charismatic" history books don't tell you much about humanity at large
- namelost 9y ago
  People are naive and easy to manipulate. Often (in history) they are manipulated into killing other people against their own interests. Few people are wilfully "good" or "bad".

nemild 9y ago

I hear this argument a lot, and let me just make one point: Human nature is really shapeable — and we (as a former product manager in this space) designed algorithms and product experiences to maximize certain outcomes that benefit social network bottom lines. Regardless of how good or bad human nature is, the algorithms prize engagement however they can get it — I personally believe it surfaces a certain side of humanity, and pushes people in a certain direction. If you're a news editor, you actually have a choice to sensationalize all day because it maximizes short-term profits. After bad things happened (see yellow journalism, the newspaper circulation wars) — newspapers did cut back a fair bit. (We can debate whether that was the risk of regulation, or their own respect for the role they had) This clearly isn't the social networks' fault alone, but their product choices do partially influence on how we all behave. On HN, you hear a lot of anger at journalists for being so click-baity, and the sad part is that every incentive many journalists face encourages this (from user behavior to profit) There are tons of examples how bad incentives can warp how people behave, far beyond "humanity is good" or "humanity is bad". For example, see Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil or the Stanford Prison Experiment. More regularly, see architecture, urban planning, or product management in the Valley, as disciplines that think deeply about the outcomes they want to encourage. A more accurate statement I would say is: humanity has certain predilections, and design choices can influence these dramatically. (And now I will shill my media literacy for engineers guide — contributions welcome: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer )

rdiddly 9y ago
True in general, but the only thing I see about how Twitter is designed, that has any significant effect of shaping behavior in a negative direction, is the anonymity, which it inherits from the internet itself. It's no Stanford Prison Experiment though. Maaaayyybe it's the guards' mirrored sunglasses if you want to make the analogy. But since the same feature is available to everyone, including as a protective feature for any would-be "prisoner" or victim, even that analogy breaks down. I'm just not seeing any power-unbalancing features that are inherent. As with most things, its best features are its worst.

domevent 9y ago

It’s probably fairer to say that when there are no consequences for their actions, a statistically significant portion of people are awful, and those people are loud and obsessive.