4 ms·

I think its a few things: 1) Anonymity when its not useful. Many forums are relatively anonymous to the average user but most of the time its not useful. There

by pid_0 7y ago

I think its a few things: 1) Anonymity when its not useful. Many forums are relatively anonymous to the average user but most of the time its not useful. Theres no life or death situation on reddit. Sometimes, it can be useful, but most of the time its not. People post a lot of stuff they would never say in the real world because they have no responsibility to back it up or be associated with it. Just look at what they say on T_D 2) There are objectively a lot of instances of "censorship" of "wrongthink". There just is. Not all opinions are good, important, etc, but the more you shut them down, the more people will intentionally become toxic. This is especially made worse by point 1. 3) Radical moderation of communities. User moderated areas like reddit are shaped by the mods. T_D is largely the way it is due to rabid people shaping what is and is not allowed. Same with twitter.

livueta 7y ago
I think at this point in time the "anonymity makes people assholes" argument is pretty dead - look no further than Facebook during the 2016 election for a fantastic example of real names and faces being exactly zero inhibition to every sort of nasty behavior imaginable. Attacks on anonymity as an inherently flawed concept, only useful in specific niches like dissidents and reporters and inimical to quality discourse, should be ignored like the Facebook "one authentic self" gaslighting propoganda they are. You also imply that anonymity is somehow "not useful" except in cases of extreme threats to life or liberty at the same time you conflate pseudoanonymity and anonymity on Reddit. If anything, Reddit is a great example of how _insufficient_ anonymity can lead to evaporitively-cooled echo-chambers in short order: karma and rep, coupled with persistent identities, are powerful drivers of conformism. Why, then, you ask, is HN not quite as bad when it is also pseudoanonymous? I'd say it comes down to local culture. HN isn't as monolithic as it could be because at least some users disagree with expressing disagreement via downvote as long as a point is made in good faith. Similarly, some (almost entirely anonymous) chan boards were actually really good in terms of quality discourse, while others were shitholes. The differentiating factor is the attitude of the community and its moderation philosophy, rather than some simple "how anonymous is this site" bucketing. That's why I'm convinced that a lot of the problems with modern social media are the result of the creation of an environment where developing that type of site/board culture that can foster discourse is impossible: if you take a global platform where moderation is often outsourced and totally divided from any of the communities it theoretically serves and populate it with people who've not been exposed to the sort of behavioral norms common in earlier Internet communities, you end up with no norms at all - just an infinite vista of shitposting. If anything, I'd disagree with your third point even more strongly than your first: even though community-local moderation can exacerbate echo-chamber effects, it can also foster productive cultures. In other words, community-driven moderation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing worthwhile norms. Even if the ratio is 10 T_D:1 HN, I'll still take that over the global, no-holds-barred shitfight enabled by platforms like Twitter.

by pid_0 7y ago

livueta 7y ago

I think at this point in time the "anonymity makes people assholes" argument is pretty dead - look no further than Facebook during the 2016 election for a fantastic example of real names and faces being exactly zero inhibition to every sort of nasty behavior imaginable. Attacks on anonymity as an inherently flawed concept, only useful in specific niches like dissidents and reporters and inimical to quality discourse, should be ignored like the Facebook "one authentic self" gaslighting propoganda they are. You also imply that anonymity is somehow "not useful" except in cases of extreme threats to life or liberty at the same time you conflate pseudoanonymity and anonymity on Reddit. If anything, Reddit is a great example of how _insufficient_ anonymity can lead to evaporitively-cooled echo-chambers in short order: karma and rep, coupled with persistent identities, are powerful drivers of conformism. Why, then, you ask, is HN not quite as bad when it is also pseudoanonymous? I'd say it comes down to local culture. HN isn't as monolithic as it could be because at least some users disagree with expressing disagreement via downvote as long as a point is made in good faith. Similarly, some (almost entirely anonymous) chan boards were actually really good in terms of quality discourse, while others were shitholes. The differentiating factor is the attitude of the community and its moderation philosophy, rather than some simple "how anonymous is this site" bucketing. That's why I'm convinced that a lot of the problems with modern social media are the result of the creation of an environment where developing that type of site/board culture that can foster discourse is impossible: if you take a global platform where moderation is often outsourced and totally divided from any of the communities it theoretically serves and populate it with people who've not been exposed to the sort of behavioral norms common in earlier Internet communities, you end up with no norms at all - just an infinite vista of shitposting. If anything, I'd disagree with your third point even more strongly than your first: even though community-local moderation can exacerbate echo-chamber effects, it can also foster productive cultures. In other words, community-driven moderation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing worthwhile norms. Even if the ratio is 10 T_D:1 HN, I'll still take that over the global, no-holds-barred shitfight enabled by platforms like Twitter.