4 ms·

I agree, but it's a bit necessary online. Psuedo-anonymity means no one really knows who you are or what you believe. You could be trolling. You could be sarcas

I agree, but it's a bit necessary online. Psuedo-anonymity means no one really knows who you are or what you believe. You could be trolling. You could be sarcastic. You could be serious. There's tons of bad actors who seek to sow discord or steer a conversation through subtle manipulation, and it works. It doesn't even have to be politics: for the longest time here saying something negative about Rails was a death sentence for your comment score. These days suggesting Rails as an answer might have that effect. And it doesn't even have to be an entire group: some threads commenting positively about Android will bring the wrath of the people. Other threads draw a pro-iPhone crowd. If someone mentions they're excited about the new Samsung phone and I say "yeah but isn't Android known for a malware problem?" how does anyone know if I'm seriously asking a question, if I'm trolling, or even more effective: if I'm spreading FUD by just putting the tiniest little bug in someone's ear? Someone who might see that statement enough times to say "I don't know if that's true, but a lot of people are saying it", and then they repeat it and the snowball keeps rolling. The only way to survive in that world is to wear your allegiance on your sleeve. "I use Android, but even I've had a couple of malware issues". But now that's being co-opted too, so you have to go deeper sometimes. "I've used Android since it came out and I hate iPhone and would never use an Apple product but Google should do more about the malware issue". Forums are weaponized now. By nations, by corporations, by interest groups of all shapes and sizes and means and goals. If something is the least bit controversial, you have no way of knowing what the person (if it was a person) actually meant by it. Which leads to people going out of their way to convince you of their sincerity. Rarely will you find this happening in the real world, unless there is a serious threat that the person's comments might be taken out of context and put on the Internet for judgement.

freedomben 8y ago
Brilliant point, thanks for sharing (it's insightful, well-articulated comments like yours that make me love HN btw). Had never thought about it that deeply before reading your comment. I do have one minor disagreement tho, purely based on anecdata: > Rarely will you find this happening in the real world I've been seeing this a ton in the real world lately (mostly at work but also in some social situations among people that don't know each other really well). This is especially true if the person is going to compliment or agree with Trump in some way (but by no means limited to Trump). "I don't like him but <insert thing> is a good idea." I have in a few cases felt like it was clear virtue signalling, but most of the time now I think people view it as required in order to have credibility with what is about to be said.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The key is to distinguish between reasoning and data. If someone argues that, as a matter of logic, housing prices can't continue increase as a linear percentage of wages indefinitely, that's reasoning. It doesn't matter who they are because you don't have to trust them to validate whether it's true. You can evaluate the reasoning yourself. Then if there are holes in it you can identify them and point them out, and if there aren't, it doesn't matter if they're biased or self-interested because what they're saying is nevertheless the truth. Whereas if someone says that Android is terrible because they got malware that one time, it still doesn't matter who they are, because they should be ignored/chastised for providing useless information in any case. At worst it's a complete fabrication, but even at best it's an anecdote with no statistical foundation. Because data needs to come from someone who both has enough of it to draw reasonable conclusions from and is known and trusted enough for you to be willing to accept that they aren't fabricating it, which is almost never the case for a rando on a message board, regardless of what disclaimers they provide.
belorn 8y ago
As a counter weight, communities are built on the assuming of good faith. If we assume a psuedo-anonymous stranger is a bad actor then it is impossible to have functional open community online. Open communities must balance the risk of bad actors with the health of the community, and most does so through a few selected moderators which job it is to screen for bad actors. This only work as long as the remaining members continue to assume good faith in each other, including the moderators. I would say that wearing your allegiance on your sleeve kills open communities. Dissenting views are eliminated and thus we get echo chambers. Anything slightly dissenting is seen as bad actor, and we get a oppressive environment where the perceived risk of weaponized accounts becomes a tool for control.

freedomben 8y ago

Brilliant point, thanks for sharing (it's insightful, well-articulated comments like yours that make me love HN btw). Had never thought about it that deeply before reading your comment. I do have one minor disagreement tho, purely based on anecdata: > Rarely will you find this happening in the real world I've been seeing this a ton in the real world lately (mostly at work but also in some social situations among people that don't know each other really well). This is especially true if the person is going to compliment or agree with Trump in some way (but by no means limited to Trump). "I don't like him but <insert thing> is a good idea." I have in a few cases felt like it was clear virtue signalling, but most of the time now I think people view it as required in order to have credibility with what is about to be said.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

The key is to distinguish between reasoning and data. If someone argues that, as a matter of logic, housing prices can't continue increase as a linear percentage of wages indefinitely, that's reasoning. It doesn't matter who they are because you don't have to trust them to validate whether it's true. You can evaluate the reasoning yourself. Then if there are holes in it you can identify them and point them out, and if there aren't, it doesn't matter if they're biased or self-interested because what they're saying is nevertheless the truth. Whereas if someone says that Android is terrible because they got malware that one time, it still doesn't matter who they are, because they should be ignored/chastised for providing useless information in any case. At worst it's a complete fabrication, but even at best it's an anecdote with no statistical foundation. Because data needs to come from someone who both has enough of it to draw reasonable conclusions from and is known and trusted enough for you to be willing to accept that they aren't fabricating it, which is almost never the case for a rando on a message board, regardless of what disclaimers they provide.

belorn 8y ago

As a counter weight, communities are built on the assuming of good faith. If we assume a psuedo-anonymous stranger is a bad actor then it is impossible to have functional open community online. Open communities must balance the risk of bad actors with the health of the community, and most does so through a few selected moderators which job it is to screen for bad actors. This only work as long as the remaining members continue to assume good faith in each other, including the moderators. I would say that wearing your allegiance on your sleeve kills open communities. Dissenting views are eliminated and thus we get echo chambers. Anything slightly dissenting is seen as bad actor, and we get a oppressive environment where the perceived risk of weaponized accounts becomes a tool for control.