3 ms·

I watched the famous movie 12 Angry Men for the first time recently (I think it holds up well today, BTW). There is a scene where a man goes on a racist tirade

by hnick 6y ago

I watched the famous movie 12 Angry Men for the first time recently (I think it holds up well today, BTW). There is a scene where a man goes on a racist tirade. Instead of engaging in argument or ignoring him, they stand up and turn their backs. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA This is much like the disapproving glare mentioned, but what's the online equivalent? I play a few online games but not much multiplayer. Public voice chat made it a much less enjoyable experience. You can mute people of course. But as far as I know, they don't get told. What if each time it happened it popped up a message "4 people have muted you today", "3 out of 8 teammates have muted you"? It could be a useful feedback mechanism.

holler 6y ago
that’s an interesting idea.. the analog to real life would be if someone turned around and walked away, effectively muting your speech to their ears. I’m working on a new public chat app sqwok.im, actively thinking about these issues, and may consider this, thank you
anonymousab 6y ago
Negative feedback and dislike features can reduce engagement or drive people away, so social media platforms are incentivized to avoid such mechanisms.
- hnick 6y ago
  And I think they're just chasing local maxima. Over the long term, they devolve and people leave.
  - sbarre 6y ago
    This is a very important observation.. It parallels the real-world chase of short-term profits in business, and short-term "points" in politics. If the major platforms took a longer view of their communities, and asked themselves how do you build the _best_ community, not the _biggest_ community, we might all be better off.. But then their stockholders wouldn't be better off, so it hasn't happened. That said, now with businesses and advertisers (the actual customers of social networks - because the users sure aren't) starting to pull ad dollars, we may see some of this change? One can hope..
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes, but that is what needs to happen: reduction of negative engagement.
  - sideshowb 6y ago
    Yes but if you're doing it by driving people away you want to get rid of trolls not those engaging in good faith.
watwut 6y ago
1 person muted you however am bring retaliation toward assumed 1 person. As in, muting is "safe" in the sense that aggressive person is not getting information and thus can't treat your mute as you being hostile. And abusive people would see mute as unfair hostility and would retaliate.
- hnick 6y ago
  The assumption is that you can't see who muted you etc, which is already standard. Those sort of people will get aggressive anyway when someone doesn't reply to their jabs. So you could use that to argue against any sort of mute feature in the first place. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think too many assume silence is assent, because many players are reluctant to speak up for fear of being targeted and this makes people feel that they have support for what they say. So have the game do it instead.
  - watwut 6y ago
    If I antagonized one or two people, I can guess who muted me. That us what I mean. So while this would work in general "annoying to everybidy" case, it would be bad for those who are singled out target.
sideshowb 6y ago
It needn't be active muting either. What if some sort of engagement metric were shown e.g. Votes divided by views (or some more sophisticated variant thereof)?
thinkingemote 6y ago
It's also social pressure on the others to also mute / turn their backs and join in. That's more difficult online for non engagement.
mjklin 6y ago
There was a remake of that movie made in the 90s with Tony Danza, a different take but also worth watching. In that movie the racist tirade is made by a non-white juror who is stopped by the grandfatherly German juror in a calm tone: “You just shut your filthy mouth and don’t open it again.”

by hnick 6y ago

holler 6y ago

that’s an interesting idea.. the analog to real life would be if someone turned around and walked away, effectively muting your speech to their ears. I’m working on a new public chat app sqwok.im, actively thinking about these issues, and may consider this, thank you

anonymousab 6y ago

Negative feedback and dislike features can reduce engagement or drive people away, so social media platforms are incentivized to avoid such mechanisms.

hnick 6y ago
And I think they're just chasing local maxima. Over the long term, they devolve and people leave.
- sbarre 6y ago
  This is a very important observation.. It parallels the real-world chase of short-term profits in business, and short-term "points" in politics. If the major platforms took a longer view of their communities, and asked themselves how do you build the _best_ community, not the _biggest_ community, we might all be better off.. But then their stockholders wouldn't be better off, so it hasn't happened. That said, now with businesses and advertisers (the actual customers of social networks - because the users sure aren't) starting to pull ad dollars, we may see some of this change? One can hope..
pjc50 6y ago
Yes, but that is what needs to happen: reduction of negative engagement.
- sideshowb 6y ago
  Yes but if you're doing it by driving people away you want to get rid of trolls not those engaging in good faith.

watwut 6y ago

1 person muted you however am bring retaliation toward assumed 1 person. As in, muting is "safe" in the sense that aggressive person is not getting information and thus can't treat your mute as you being hostile. And abusive people would see mute as unfair hostility and would retaliate.

hnick 6y ago
The assumption is that you can't see who muted you etc, which is already standard. Those sort of people will get aggressive anyway when someone doesn't reply to their jabs. So you could use that to argue against any sort of mute feature in the first place. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think too many assume silence is assent, because many players are reluctant to speak up for fear of being targeted and this makes people feel that they have support for what they say. So have the game do it instead.
- watwut 6y ago
  If I antagonized one or two people, I can guess who muted me. That us what I mean. So while this would work in general "annoying to everybidy" case, it would be bad for those who are singled out target.

sideshowb 6y ago

It needn't be active muting either. What if some sort of engagement metric were shown e.g. Votes divided by views (or some more sophisticated variant thereof)?

thinkingemote 6y ago

It's also social pressure on the others to also mute / turn their backs and join in. That's more difficult online for non engagement.

mjklin 6y ago

There was a remake of that movie made in the 90s with Tony Danza, a different take but also worth watching. In that movie the racist tirade is made by a non-white juror who is stopped by the grandfatherly German juror in a calm tone: “You just shut your filthy mouth and don’t open it again.”