6 ms·

Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geog

• caust1c 8y ago
  I used to think the same as you, but I realized that I was putting no effort into my local communities. Once I started to start putting more effort into the local community, I began to appreciate geographic proximity much more. That said, as all things, there's a balance. The Internet is a great tool for bringing people virtually close together and spreading ideas. Sharing those ideas is a great way to enhance your local community. > tyranny of geography Haha. We're a long way from being omnipresent so you better get used to having neighbors. ;-)
  • Kalium 8y ago
    Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? You're very right! Sharing ideas to enhance your local community can be incredibly valuable and rewarding! However, some people occasionally find that their local communities do not always uniformly and enthusiastically welcome the ideas they want to share. Some people, faced with such experiences and fears, might consider that analog and digital communities offer different tradeoffs.
    • pathseeker 8y ago
      > Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.
      • Bjartr 8y ago
        This is the balance on enabling people to escape from communities in which they are censored, to allow those ostracized for their beliefs can find those who will respect them despite, or even because of, the beliefs they hold. I believe that our tendency to view unpopular beliefs a stain upon a person's immutable character is a more fundamental (as in, earlier in the causal chain) cause of the damage to society you describe.
      • kbenson 8y ago
        That's always been the case. You can just as easily ignore all the people outside your religion, specific church, household, or even everyone other than yourself, and that's been the case since we've had those communities. This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same. The way to fight isolation is not to restrict choice of community, but to reach out to other communities and individuals and make them feel welcome.
        • Faark 8y ago
          > This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same. That can be said about every development ever. But it being more easy / efficient can bring out existing systems out of balance at some point, once counter-acting forces are overwhelmed... especially if those don't improve (as fast). > reach out to other communities and individuals and make them feel welcome. That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy in current US politics. And the shared consensus seems to be eroding fast. I understand there are a lot of additional problems (like the shitty two party voting system) feeding into that, even strengthening each other. But finding a shared consensus seems absolutely necessary when living with other people in the same city/country/planet at a time were we can dramatically effect each others lives.
• vibrato 8y ago
  Isolated in groupthink.
• jimbokun 8y ago
  "The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me." People who think like you do, who will never challenge you about anything important, or expose you to uncomfortable ideas or opinions, or cause you to question your assumptions about the world.
  • Kalium 8y ago
    You're right. Squishies like self-similar bubbles. And squishies like the idea that their bubble is better than every other bubble, if other squishies could just be forced to adapt to it. This seems to be true of most squishies, no matter how they connect.
• chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies" Have you stopped to consider the unintended consequences of this? Mainly, that you become so comfortable with lack of adversity and diversity (of ideas, etc.) that when the time comes to leave the bubble you're unprepared. You don't have the tools and mindset to adjust to those who are unlike you. Yes. It's nice to find others similar to you. But just the same, there's also value in being an island and still being capable of interacting with strangers.
  • Kalium 8y ago
    You're absolutely right! It's very possible to become so inculcated with the level norms and comfort and lack of diversity of a community that you cannot function outside that bubble. You lack the tools to even consider such a thing. It's a terrifying thing. You've described the experience many have upon moving out of a small town in the Midwest. A good friend is having the same experience now when she looks to move away from the Bay Area.
• coldtea 8y ago
  >Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. I.e. echo chamber.
  • desireco42 8y ago
    To respond to OG comment spirit: I love my echo chamber, thank you very much! :) But I get what you are saying and agree, but also with OG comment as well. I think we want same things, more genuine connection with people who are meaningful to us.
  • watwut 8y ago
    Or maybe someone who was lonely and then found people who he feels somewhat good with. There is zero guarantee his previous social groups were unusually diverse - very likely they were just bubble of different sorts - else there would be likeminded individuals. Not everyone is happy, plenty of people were and are misfits to particular bubbles they were born into.
  • Kalium 8y ago
    Every community is an echo chamber, digital and analog alike.
    • coldtea 8y ago
      Not really. You probably have in mind a "community of interest". But the analog world forces you into many communities of proximity without shared interests as well. There are communities where you pick the people who are associated with, and communities where you don't get to do that (or do it as much). The internet gives you huge control over picking communities that think/have interests exactly like yours (and that's exactly what the parent was mentioning to like about the internet communities). In real life communities that are not e.g. a chess club, but more like neighborhood, school, etc, you are forced to live with, and deal with, all kinds of people, not just the one you chose to. At best, you can move to a different location, but you still don't have the control to pinpoint and seggregate interests the internet gives you.
• qubex 8y ago
  The problem with this “virtual community” interpretation is that it alters both people’s perception of prevailing opinions and skews their perception of how and whether they ‘need’ to find compromises with people they actually share space with. Somebody can find a ‘community’ online with whom to share very unconventional views and come away with the perception that this unconventional view is actually widespread despite being very rare.
  • lsmarigo 8y ago
    this is at the core of why the fabric of our society is unraveling. We're heading deeper in this direction with no signs of slowing down. Algorithms that optimize for engagement metrics amplify this. why would anyone entertain let alone engage opposing viewpoints when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs. Make no mistake Hn is an echo chamber as well.
    • taneq 8y ago
      Especially when 'engagement-optimising' algorithms realise that the best way to get views is to fan a flamewar by tossing pro-Skub and anti-Skub zealots into a virtual ant-jar and shaking it.
    • roenxi 8y ago
      I'm not saying I have any evidence otherwise, but do you have a source for that? I mean, "more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs" is a good theory. But it is hardly the only one I can think of. Off the top of my head I also have: 1) Wealth is being eroded by the response to the '08 crisis leaving known-bad cultures to thrive in the lending industry. Social fabric starts to unravel due to lack of wealth creation. 2) Academics have had a long history of being in tension with democratic ideals. Famously, right when they came up with the idea of 'academies' Socrates was executed by a jury trial. More recently, communism had strong support in academic circles of Europe. We've massively increased the exposure of people to the university culture in the last 1-2 generations. Maybe technocrat leanings are leaking out? Technocrats don't compromise well on social issues, they believe there is a best answer. Basically, the problem might not be algorithms and search bubbles, even though this is a forum that knows a lot about algorithms and search bubbles.
• stareatgoats 8y ago
  This is more a response to most other commenters that vilify this stance. Yeah, it's good to support your local community and engage with your neighbors in matters that unite purely based on geography. But it can definitely be a tyranny, as many who escaped the small 'everybody-knows-everybody' village into the relieving anonymity of the big city will testify. Especially so if you have been bestowed with some personality trait that traditionally has been subject to chastise or outright persecution. The internet is the freedom of the big city squared. You socialize with peers and like minded people, not with those that happen to live in your apartment building. As for 'echo chamber'; there is that, but on balance I'd say it's not like the internet to a larger degree than previously prevents you from seeing other opinions or doesn't confront you with strange views. On the contrary, in my experience.
• bloaf 8y ago
  The issue is that the forced interactions via geographical proximity are a kind of moderating force. Communities built around what they love are usually good, but what if what you love is terrible? https://imgur.com/GripW3M https://imgur.com/GripW3M
  • Kalium 8y ago
    Bang on. Other people are definitely a moderating force towards what they collectively believe to be reasonable. Sometimes that's something like "no murder". Other times its "those with the wrong skin color are subhuman". It's possible that this kind of conformity might be best treated as something other than a universally positive force.
  • taurath 8y ago
    > Communities built around what they love are usually good, but what if what you love is terrible? We have the law to regulate what is acceptable or unacceptable - almost all laws are there to regulate person-to-person interactions. If what you love requires murdering someone, we already call that out. If what you love involves playing "I Will Survive" with a kazoo, we don't call you out unless you have a very loud kazoo and people are trying to sleep. Laws and social pressure are also a moderating force. Forcing 2 people that are very opposed to have a forced interaction about the things they are opposed on probably results in quite a few bar fights - more often than not though they leave. If the lack of general empathy and over-demonization of the "other" is a problem, well, try being a person of color in the 50s or before. If anything interactions have gotten better, except for those who need to have everyone look and act like them in order to function.
    • thousandautumns 8y ago
      > Laws and social pressure are also a moderating force Perhaps this was true in the days prior to the internet, but it certainly isn’t the case now. In fact, social pressures in the online sphere can be the opposite of a moderating force. In the analysis of the online culture wars, many authors have pointed out how the alt right bursting into the mainstream was in many ways a response to the societal pressure to conform to ever increasing (and at times, absurd) rules of a radical “PC culture”. As a disclaimer, this isn’t to justify the alt right movement or to condemn political correctness wholesale. But the point is that societal pressure is not moderating anything. On the contrary, the internet has allowed people to simply retreat from the parts of society that previously may have pressured them into moderation, and instead to enclose themselves in the parts of society that not only accept their radical culture, but encourage it. > If the lack of general empathy and over-demonization of the "other" is a problem, well, try being a person of color in the 50s or before. And yet the rights of racial minorities still made massive strides in absence of the internet. Many of the commenters here have made arguments that along the lines of “a gay person would never have found acceptance without the geographical boundary breaking communities of the internet”, and frankly, I’m not sure that is true. The changing attitudes towards LGBT persons isn’t any more radical than many of the other social revolutions that have taken place without the internet.
• phkahler 8y ago
  One problem with virtual communities is that they can't help you with local real world problems.
• xg15 8y ago
  I will share your opinion when we at some point have an immersive, livable virtual reality in which everyone has control over their own code. Until that, the current virtual "communities" seem like a poor substitute for actual communities, long-term. Yes, you get to meet like-minded people (or more precisely, one aspect of the personalities of some like-minded people), however what you can actually do with them is tightly restricted to the online sphere. No common activities, no parties, no activism outside the internet, no dating. No differing viewpoints. No even knowing who you are talking with. This seems like a poor substitute to (non-coerced) physical communities.
  • Kalium 8y ago
    That some people prefer them, complete with all the incredibly glaring shortcomings you so correctly identify, might be considered by some to be eloquent commentary on the importance of choice.
    • kennyadam 8y ago
      I'd say it's incredibly obvious why people would prefer a restricted environment where they can present themselves as their idealised self. I'm sure it's great for some people, but arguing that it's great for everyone, and not damaging for society as a whole, seems shortsighted.
      • Kalium 8y ago
        You're right! We should consider carefully that there might not be a universally correct answer here. Like most things, I suspect it may be best regarded as a tradeoff. Is presenting as your idealized in a restricted environment more or less harmful to society than being unable to present as anything that vaguely resembles yourself in a less restricted environment? There might not one answer that's right for everyone.
• LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  I think you're applying the words "tyranny" and "coercion" very sloppily here, and seem rather dismissive of community as it's existed prior to "real community". I don't see anything you've stated as mutually exclusive to the previous comment. I point out what I perceive as dismissive because I think there are important aspects of human character that 'tyrannical' circumstances help to shape, enabling us to learn patience and tolerance of opposing views. It's how we ultimately achieve error correction in culture and progress as a society, and it's not clear to me that an option for people to utterly extinguish all of that from one's environment is an upgrade.
  • Kalium 8y ago
    Thank you! You're very right. I've not communicated well. Please allow me to clarify. I should rephrase: this is the first experience I've had of what is commonly described as "community". I hope that clarifies matters. I am not describing a community encountered as an artifact. I am describing the experience of being a member of a community. I hope this helps! Do let me know if I can help clarify more. The comment to which I was responding took a very narrow view of what defines a community. The definition offered is one that would have been obvious to an illiterate serf a thousand years ago - people nearby they have no choice but to cooperate with for basic survival. For the most part, you had two choices: membership or death. And membership meant conforming. Some might consider such a choice coercive. Such a person might even consider the circumstances that require that choice tyrannical. I have offered a much more expansive one, where a person can be a member of multiple communities non-exclusively in a way that allows them to find communities that suit them. This formulation, unfortunately, can be seen as dismissive of the value of the communities of the past. This is a very understandable viewpoint. After all, the expansive definition would seem to do away with the basic tenants of the narrow one. Yet, it's perhaps possible that this view could become even more correct than it already is! There's absolutely value in what even the narrowest of definitions would consider a community. They teach the value of belonging, of collaboration, and of many hands making light work. It just might be worth considering that there could be other lessons to be learned in this world that might not be fully captured there. After all, humans are not TCP/IP. Capital-T Truth is not always easy to come by. There are still people in this world who consider (for example) failing to say the right ritual words at the right ritual time every day to be a grievous error in need of correction. In a world where the obvious truths of the past are today's errors to be progressed beyond, we are presented with the wonderful opportunity to let endless forms of community bloom most beautiful. That we might learn from this glorious array what can be progressed beyond and how. Though I understand if some would prefer not to. Thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart, for the opportunity to engage.
• lists 8y ago
  >Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me. Apologies, but I don't agree that's nearly sufficient enough an "ontology", in the philosophical sense if you will, of community. You are involved in a community the moment you hear someone screaming out for help nearby; you are involved in a community when you're one of those scmucks stuck communicating to work in a packed trainer in the morning, you're involved in a community when you respond to the presence of minorities or certain of other races in a manner which may make them uncomfortable (100% not alleging a thing btw, most certainly not the point right now); you clearly join a community when you join the military, but you have, for better or for worse, shockingly few rights and freedoms therein. My point is that, for human beings, we are by definition, as social animals, involved in a community some way, some how, because we inherently respond to one another's presence, even when that response is indifference (perhaps in the face of someone screaming out for help nearby). This is almost, for myself, the entire lesson of watching Mister Rogers (if you're an America, I don't know if you are). Choosing a community for yourself, therefore, shouldn't be a reprieve, relief, or, worse case, a retreat from those other communities you're involved in, like your neighborhood or family. We all may have run into that person who appeared to us to be way too chatty and friendly in some public space that we were constrained to, say, the train; they're just answering to their involvement in a different way.