5 ms·

I know this is a joke (although only partly), but blocklists are honestly part of the problem. People got to this ridiculous level of childlike annoyance at th

I know this is a joke (although only partly), but blocklists are honestly part of the problem. People got to this ridiculous level of childlike annoyance at the mere existence of dissent through group effects alone, but compounding it by literally removing any form of conflict seems like the worst solution possible. The solution to people acting terribly on the public square shouldn't be to remove it.

TheIronYuppie 8y ago
There is a fair bit of scholarship that says this is incorrect. Most commonly, people cute the paradox of tolerance as a starting point[1], but there's lots more. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bena 8y ago
  I don't think he's invoking that. That we must be tolerant of intolerance lest we become intolerant ourselves. I think he's saying that that the ease of which we can cut out any information that challenges our beliefs does more harm than good. I'm sure you're a fine, upstanding, rational person who will always consider every viewpoint and come to a reasoned conclusion based on the facts every time and won't let emotions dictate any part of your decision. However, not everyone is so disciplined. Don't consider the rational actor. Consider the irrational. Consider the flat-earther who can personally silence any sources that provide evidence to the contrary. Just stuck in their little bubble of misinformation. Then when something does sneak through their filter, they'll regard it as the anomaly because everything else they see confirms what they already know. Now, there is some benefit to being able to silence certain opinions. I for one don't need flat-earthers constantly pushing their narrative that flies in the face of facts. But, then again, they feel the same way. I believe I've considered their evidence and their viewpoint fairly and have come to a conclusion rationally. But so do they. I believe I'm right, I'm fairly certain of it. But so are they. It comes down to believing that personal abuse should be silenced. If I'm just blatantly attacking you or you're attacking me with no other goal but to be insulting, then being able to block each other seems fine. But to be able to silence information just because you disagree with it seems a bit more dodgy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- IGI-111 8y ago
  People misuse Popper a whole lot. The paradox has more to do with being firm on the application of the rule of law as it pertains to violence than a metapolitical discussion.
mkirklions 8y ago
I can see this too. Reddit fitness mods seem to be sponsoring workouts. Instead of doing the methods that work, they are peddling a few select workouts that have questionable effectiveness. So they ban people for suggesting other plans, which only compounds in resentment. It seems almost daily topics talking about Starting Strength workouts are deleted, but there are too many people that already know about it. Talk about a weird community to be part of..
Gargoyle 8y ago
I get where you're coming from, and the point is valid in many ways. But I'm relentless in cutting consistently negative people from my social media feeds, and its made my personal experience so much better. While appreciate the principles you're discussing, I just don't need the constant negativity.
- dnomad 8y ago
  Yes, the great failure of the internet is that it is lacks of standard mechanisms that exist in polite society to exclude the assholes. Being an asshole is cheap on the web and so you get lots of assholes. IRL being an asshole (at least in some states) has very high consequences and so you get civilization. Fixing the web is just a matter of rediscovering appropriate mechanisms to correct, silence, and ultimately exclude those who have nothing to contribute and no value to add. Google, Facebook and Twitter will inevitably clean up their spaces and new norms will ultimately be enforced. At that point things will mostly return to normal. Of course the great thing about the web is also that it's so big. We don't need to literally silence the assholes. They should feel free to congregate in various Youtube comment threads and on boards like 4chan and voat.
  - bena 8y ago
    I don't think it's the exclusion of assholes that's the problem. It's the inclusion. Before, if you had a really socially unacceptable opinion, you couldn't really voice it without attracting a lot of heat. Now, you can throw your voice into the aether and get back thousands of people across the world who feel the same way you do. Whether if you're into collecting stamps, ancient alien conspiracies, or Nazi furry cosplay. Everything becomes normalized to a degree. The motto "strength in numbers" becomes the issue. However, there are some good things that have come from this. Gay people, transgender people, people with various mental illnesses all have a place to come together without having to face the judgment of the people in their communities. It's the largest alcoholics anonymous meeting you could want.
  - lylecubed 8y ago
    > the great failure of the internet is that it is lacks of standard mechanisms that exist in polite society to exclude the assholes. American society no longer has those mechanisms either. They were dismantled in the 50s and 60s under the opinion that they were too restrictive and stifling.
tptacek 8y ago
A microscopic percentage of social media users have even heard of blocklists, let alone use them, but it's the people who forcefully opt themselves out of pointless Internet arguments that are the problem? That's a ridiculous and telling argument.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  A majority percentage of social media users have their content catered such that it agrees with their sensibilities. Whether they've heard of blocklists or not, things they don't like are effectively blocked from appearing before their eyes.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Once again: it is hard to understand the reasonable argument that says that a big problem with social media is that people disengage from arguments with random people too much.
    - adamrezich 8y ago
      Disengaging from random arguments isn't the problem; the problem is living in a world where nearly every opinion you see more or less aligns with your own views, to the point where we've been conditioned to see dissenting opinions as being hostile to us to the point where we instinctively reach for the unfollow/block/mute button when we see them.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Why does that mean people shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who the talk to on social media?
        adamrezich 8y ago
        It's not about picking and choosing who you engage with, it's about filtering broad-stroke opinions you disagree with out of your life entirely, such that when one sees any trace of an opinion that runs contrary to their own internal narrative, they reach for the block/unfollow button, instead of engaging to find mutual truth, or even just ignoring it and scrolling past it. Just a few years ago, when someone saw an opinion online that they disagreed with, it didn't fill them with the urge to remove that opinion and any chance of seeing similar opinions from their worldview, but that's how we've been conditioned due to social media being used increasingly politically.

TheIronYuppie 8y ago

There is a fair bit of scholarship that says this is incorrect. Most commonly, people cute the paradox of tolerance as a starting point[1], but there's lots more. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bena 8y ago
I don't think he's invoking that. That we must be tolerant of intolerance lest we become intolerant ourselves. I think he's saying that that the ease of which we can cut out any information that challenges our beliefs does more harm than good. I'm sure you're a fine, upstanding, rational person who will always consider every viewpoint and come to a reasoned conclusion based on the facts every time and won't let emotions dictate any part of your decision. However, not everyone is so disciplined. Don't consider the rational actor. Consider the irrational. Consider the flat-earther who can personally silence any sources that provide evidence to the contrary. Just stuck in their little bubble of misinformation. Then when something does sneak through their filter, they'll regard it as the anomaly because everything else they see confirms what they already know. Now, there is some benefit to being able to silence certain opinions. I for one don't need flat-earthers constantly pushing their narrative that flies in the face of facts. But, then again, they feel the same way. I believe I've considered their evidence and their viewpoint fairly and have come to a conclusion rationally. But so do they. I believe I'm right, I'm fairly certain of it. But so are they. It comes down to believing that personal abuse should be silenced. If I'm just blatantly attacking you or you're attacking me with no other goal but to be insulting, then being able to block each other seems fine. But to be able to silence information just because you disagree with it seems a bit more dodgy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
IGI-111 8y ago
People misuse Popper a whole lot. The paradox has more to do with being firm on the application of the rule of law as it pertains to violence than a metapolitical discussion.

mkirklions 8y ago

I can see this too. Reddit fitness mods seem to be sponsoring workouts. Instead of doing the methods that work, they are peddling a few select workouts that have questionable effectiveness. So they ban people for suggesting other plans, which only compounds in resentment. It seems almost daily topics talking about Starting Strength workouts are deleted, but there are too many people that already know about it. Talk about a weird community to be part of..

Gargoyle 8y ago

I get where you're coming from, and the point is valid in many ways. But I'm relentless in cutting consistently negative people from my social media feeds, and its made my personal experience so much better. While appreciate the principles you're discussing, I just don't need the constant negativity.

dnomad 8y ago
Yes, the great failure of the internet is that it is lacks of standard mechanisms that exist in polite society to exclude the assholes. Being an asshole is cheap on the web and so you get lots of assholes. IRL being an asshole (at least in some states) has very high consequences and so you get civilization. Fixing the web is just a matter of rediscovering appropriate mechanisms to correct, silence, and ultimately exclude those who have nothing to contribute and no value to add. Google, Facebook and Twitter will inevitably clean up their spaces and new norms will ultimately be enforced. At that point things will mostly return to normal. Of course the great thing about the web is also that it's so big. We don't need to literally silence the assholes. They should feel free to congregate in various Youtube comment threads and on boards like 4chan and voat.
- bena 8y ago
  I don't think it's the exclusion of assholes that's the problem. It's the inclusion. Before, if you had a really socially unacceptable opinion, you couldn't really voice it without attracting a lot of heat. Now, you can throw your voice into the aether and get back thousands of people across the world who feel the same way you do. Whether if you're into collecting stamps, ancient alien conspiracies, or Nazi furry cosplay. Everything becomes normalized to a degree. The motto "strength in numbers" becomes the issue. However, there are some good things that have come from this. Gay people, transgender people, people with various mental illnesses all have a place to come together without having to face the judgment of the people in their communities. It's the largest alcoholics anonymous meeting you could want.
- lylecubed 8y ago
  > the great failure of the internet is that it is lacks of standard mechanisms that exist in polite society to exclude the assholes. American society no longer has those mechanisms either. They were dismantled in the 50s and 60s under the opinion that they were too restrictive and stifling.

tptacek 8y ago

A microscopic percentage of social media users have even heard of blocklists, let alone use them, but it's the people who forcefully opt themselves out of pointless Internet arguments that are the problem? That's a ridiculous and telling argument.

ilikehurdles 8y ago
A majority percentage of social media users have their content catered such that it agrees with their sensibilities. Whether they've heard of blocklists or not, things they don't like are effectively blocked from appearing before their eyes.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Once again: it is hard to understand the reasonable argument that says that a big problem with social media is that people disengage from arguments with random people too much.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    Disengaging from random arguments isn't the problem; the problem is living in a world where nearly every opinion you see more or less aligns with your own views, to the point where we've been conditioned to see dissenting opinions as being hostile to us to the point where we instinctively reach for the unfollow/block/mute button when we see them.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Why does that mean people shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who the talk to on social media?
      - adamrezich 8y ago
        It's not about picking and choosing who you engage with, it's about filtering broad-stroke opinions you disagree with out of your life entirely, such that when one sees any trace of an opinion that runs contrary to their own internal narrative, they reach for the block/unfollow button, instead of engaging to find mutual truth, or even just ignoring it and scrolling past it. Just a few years ago, when someone saw an opinion online that they disagreed with, it didn't fill them with the urge to remove that opinion and any chance of seeing similar opinions from their worldview, but that's how we've been conditioned due to social media being used increasingly politically.