3 ms·

Hyperpartisanship is a phenomenon we can see in societies far predating the invention of movable type, and it has had a class trigger (the Gracchi revolts in Ro

Hyperpartisanship is a phenomenon we can see in societies far predating the invention of movable type, and it has had a class trigger (the Gracchi revolts in Rome), a religious trigger (Arian/Orthodox in late antiquity -Iconoclasm/Iconophile in Byzantium), a sports trigger (the Blue/Green civil riots in Constantinople) or traditionally an intra-elite trigger (Guelf/Ghibbeline or White/Black Guelf in medieval italy.) Niall Ferguson is not a rigorous historian and, like Malcolm Gladwell, should be considered an entertainer not a thinker.

tlholaday 8y ago
Your post is a gift. Thank you.
losteric 8y ago
Communication friction, price and latency, has always shaped the structure and reach of our communities. Historically, friction that meant most people primarily interacted with "nearby" humans with differing perspectives... moderating new ideas through socialization. What's changed is that social media, and the internet at large, has finally brought the cost of global peer-to-peer communication to (effectively) zero. That's huge! Our tribal boundaries are now fully decoupled from distance. We can define our community with complete freedom and precision while our phones grant near ubiquitous access to those we have selected. On one hand, I know this revolution helped some LGBT friends find themselves and stay strong growing up in "traditional" communities... but the same tools also enable bigotry and conspiracies to fester in our backyards. Hyperpartisanship is not new, but the degree of tribalization enabled by the internet feels new. Differences are being reinforced along every axis of opinion, with a much weaker socialization factor. It's not just team A vs B... the various groups of A are fighting themselves, all the variations of B through Z, and hordes of bots. It's an unending unwavering battle royale. How do we compromise or reach consensus in a system like that? How can we turn this diverse melting pot into progress, mass adoption and acceptance of new ideas? And how, if at all, can we self-regulate things like bigotry without oppressing progress?

tlholaday 8y ago

Your post is a gift. Thank you.

losteric 8y ago

Communication friction, price and latency, has always shaped the structure and reach of our communities. Historically, friction that meant most people primarily interacted with "nearby" humans with differing perspectives... moderating new ideas through socialization. What's changed is that social media, and the internet at large, has finally brought the cost of global peer-to-peer communication to (effectively) zero. That's huge! Our tribal boundaries are now fully decoupled from distance. We can define our community with complete freedom and precision while our phones grant near ubiquitous access to those we have selected. On one hand, I know this revolution helped some LGBT friends find themselves and stay strong growing up in "traditional" communities... but the same tools also enable bigotry and conspiracies to fester in our backyards. Hyperpartisanship is not new, but the degree of tribalization enabled by the internet feels new. Differences are being reinforced along every axis of opinion, with a much weaker socialization factor. It's not just team A vs B... the various groups of A are fighting themselves, all the variations of B through Z, and hordes of bots. It's an unending unwavering battle royale. How do we compromise or reach consensus in a system like that? How can we turn this diverse melting pot into progress, mass adoption and acceptance of new ideas? And how, if at all, can we self-regulate things like bigotry without oppressing progress?