3 ms·

The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on o

by hugh3 16y ago

The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on our hands in a few decades. I really don't understand what you're getting at there. Can you clarify?

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Social systems run on herd mentality. It's that way here on HN, it's that way everywhere you have some kind of voting system (currently) The problem is very simple: the crowd is often wrong, uniformed, mistaken, prejudiced, emotionally irrational, or misled. Democracies work by giving voice to the minority. The black preacher standing on the corner in 1960 telling the majority whites that Jim Crow laws had to go? He was protected. He was able to work with the majority to promote his opinion and change things. But nobody liked him. At least at first. At least not in the majority. He was considered in the same category as those calling for the immediate liberation of farm animals -- somebody with a strange and odd opinion that would never work in modern society. Perhaps he was a bit of a nut. Minority opinions are frequently wrong, no doubt. And there are lots of weird and crazy people out there. But for a social system to function, people of strange and perhaps offensive opinions must be able to persuade others of their cause. It's the entire basis for change. If this is not replicated on the web, what will happen -- what already is happening -- is that the software will manage to split people into tinier and tinier groups of total conformity. The naive might think this is a good thing: no more trolls to ruin the conversation/group. But actually it's the worst thing imaginable: no more minority/strange opinions persuading others that change is needed. In civic life I can stand on the street corner and talk to passerbys. On the web, if I'm shut out, I'm shut out. There is no voice (or rather, everyone can speak as freely as they like, they are just never heard. Same difference) This change-by-minority-persuasion is a critical part of healthy systems. Without it? I'm not a fortune-teller, but it's not going to be pretty.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I think you're overestimating the importance of the internet in political discussions. Only a tiny minority of the population discuss politics or read political discussions on the internet, and most of these folks are the ones who are already hard set in their opinions. The internet is changing politics in many ways, not all of them good, but I really don't think that getting less exposure to crazy opinions is one of them.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You hvae a fair critique, mostly amounting to "Nothing to see here, please move along" And I'll grant you that we -- this community -- are the leaders in integrating technology into our lives. Most other folks are not as hooked up as we are (although that is quickly changing) But my point was about social systems, not just political ones. Sure, I used the example of Jim Crow laws and politics because it was so easy to understand, but the same argument can be made for any social system, from 3 people to 3 million. I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm trying to make a point about sociology. Take politics out. Change the subject to distributed systems versus hub-and-spoke systems. Same difference. Or the use of SQL-less databases. Or the best patterns for testing. Politics is just used as an example. It's really not the thrust of my comment. Politics is a nice metaphor for describing how groups of people operate. Everybody can agree that Jim Crow laws were bad. We're still fighting some of these other issues, and I didn't think it was useful to bring them up.

by hugh3 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Social systems run on herd mentality. It's that way here on HN, it's that way everywhere you have some kind of voting system (currently) The problem is very simple: the crowd is often wrong, uniformed, mistaken, prejudiced, emotionally irrational, or misled. Democracies work by giving voice to the minority. The black preacher standing on the corner in 1960 telling the majority whites that Jim Crow laws had to go? He was protected. He was able to work with the majority to promote his opinion and change things. But nobody liked him. At least at first. At least not in the majority. He was considered in the same category as those calling for the immediate liberation of farm animals -- somebody with a strange and odd opinion that would never work in modern society. Perhaps he was a bit of a nut. Minority opinions are frequently wrong, no doubt. And there are lots of weird and crazy people out there. But for a social system to function, people of strange and perhaps offensive opinions must be able to persuade others of their cause. It's the entire basis for change. If this is not replicated on the web, what will happen -- what already is happening -- is that the software will manage to split people into tinier and tinier groups of total conformity. The naive might think this is a good thing: no more trolls to ruin the conversation/group. But actually it's the worst thing imaginable: no more minority/strange opinions persuading others that change is needed. In civic life I can stand on the street corner and talk to passerbys. On the web, if I'm shut out, I'm shut out. There is no voice (or rather, everyone can speak as freely as they like, they are just never heard. Same difference) This change-by-minority-persuasion is a critical part of healthy systems. Without it? I'm not a fortune-teller, but it's not going to be pretty.

hugh3 16y ago
I think you're overestimating the importance of the internet in political discussions. Only a tiny minority of the population discuss politics or read political discussions on the internet, and most of these folks are the ones who are already hard set in their opinions. The internet is changing politics in many ways, not all of them good, but I really don't think that getting less exposure to crazy opinions is one of them.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  You hvae a fair critique, mostly amounting to "Nothing to see here, please move along" And I'll grant you that we -- this community -- are the leaders in integrating technology into our lives. Most other folks are not as hooked up as we are (although that is quickly changing) But my point was about social systems, not just political ones. Sure, I used the example of Jim Crow laws and politics because it was so easy to understand, but the same argument can be made for any social system, from 3 people to 3 million. I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm trying to make a point about sociology. Take politics out. Change the subject to distributed systems versus hub-and-spoke systems. Same difference. Or the use of SQL-less databases. Or the best patterns for testing. Politics is just used as an example. It's really not the thrust of my comment. Politics is a nice metaphor for describing how groups of people operate. Everybody can agree that Jim Crow laws were bad. We're still fighting some of these other issues, and I didn't think it was useful to bring them up.