9 ms·

Really? People censoring themselves is the problem? Whenever I take a peek at social feeds I see people saying crazy things, insults, conspiracy theories, hate,

• lazypenguin 6y ago
  The website doesn't only mention censoring but also conformity. If people are saying things that they wouldn't normally say but do because of the larger audience and concurrency of engagement then that contributes to the problem...
• hudon 6y ago
  Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily. However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them. As such, what you are describing is actually evidence to support the self-censorship hypothesis, not refute it.
  • claudiawerner 6y ago
    >Frequent in-person discussions between people with different opinions tends to make people compromise and find nuance more easily Is there any reason to think this is the case? In my experience, in-person disagreements over 'big things' (be they politics or philosophy) either end in bitter disagreement, or what appears to be a compromise but actually isn't (because one or both parties do not wish to talk about the topic any more, before things get worse). > However if one side of the discussion is self-censoring, then both sides will tend to develop extreme opinions without any means to tamper them. This assumes that most disagreements are resolved when there is a difference of opinion. Personally, I rarely change my opinion after speaking to someone, and I instead change it when I do my own reading around topics. The fact is that it's awkward to ask 'what's your source for that?' in a conversation between friends. Either one or both parties don't care enough to provide a source, or it's impractical (such as at a dinner party). To surmise, I'm questioning whether mere in-person disagreement really does tamper the essence of those extreme opinions, not merely the appearance presented to that particular conversation partner.
    • julienb_sea 6y ago
      I don't agree. I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa. It is vastly more realistic to have a nuanced and respectful debate in private, versus a public discussion which will inevitably devolve. If you would like proof of this, open literally any twitter thread about politics with more than a few replies.
      • claudiawerner 6y ago
        >I have many very interesting conversations with people that I do not agree with politically, but I respect their intelligence and point of view, and vice versa. Likewise. But I wasn't saying that's not possible, I was saying that I'm not convinced many people change their opinions over the course of such conversations. Being civil is important, but the question was whether civil debate among people who know each other in person results in more reasonable opinions, or compromises. It's obviously better than online conversations. But to what extent? I don't think GP made a sufficiently convincing case.
        • nicky0 6y ago
          The objective of a conversation is not to change the other’s opinion, it is to understand each other on a deeper level than at the start. If the net result is a shift in opinion on either side (or both) then so be it. The idea of “right” and “wrong” views is flawed and to set out with the objective of persuading the other to your view is a mistake. Getting them to understand you view, whilst you get to understand theirs, is a better objective. You can’t change the world if you don’t understand it. It is of course extremely difficult to have this kind of conversation online especially in short form.
• bogwog 6y ago
  How many people do you see saying those crazy things? Hundreds? Thousands? What about the hundreds or millions or billions of others who don't post anything at all for fear (consciously or not) of backlash, either from the crazies or the not-crazies?
  • mola 6y ago
    Obviously anecdotal, but I'm talkig about people I actually personally know. IRL I'm able to have a conversation with them, online they are so used to trolls and extreme opinions that they get into "fight mode" where they automatically assume the worse about the other person, and interpret anything they say, in the worst possible way. And I don't see any chilling effect, other than "fuck that, I'm not gonna follow Facebook/twitter anymore" They're not writing anything, but they're not consuming it. Now if so called journalists would stay off twitter/facebook, the problem will be solved. Because it's not a chilling effect if the entire aparatus is irrelevant.
• lightgreen 6y ago
  > People censoring themselves is the problem? Yes. For example, very few people in SV can openly say they are going to vote for Trump. > the larger the audience and concurrency of engagement, the less people censor the them selves Yes, people don't censor themselves when they are in majority. For example, those who live in SV, and support gay marriage and BLM, they can throw insults without repercussions.
  • padseeker 6y ago
    what is SV?
    • lightgreen 6y ago
      Silicon Valley
  • colinmhayes 6y ago
    If you want respect don't admit to supporting bigotry.
    • lightgreen 6y ago
      Also, not accepting that people consider Trump a better presidental candidate is bigotry exactly, by definition from the dictionary. The fun fact about the word "bigotry" is that people who use "bigotry" as insults are very often bigots themselves.
      • colinmhayes 6y ago
        Cool, let's rephrase. If you want respect don't admit to being prejudiced against the way people are born. Being prejudiced against choices people make is completely fine.
        • lightgreen 6y ago
          > If you want respect I'm sorry for not expressing clearly. People want freedom more than respect. In particular, freedom to express support of Trump. > If you want respect don't admit to being prejudiced against the way people are born. I'm sorry, I don't see a connection between your comment and parent comment.
• hrktb 6y ago
  > saying crazy things, insults, conspiracy theories, hate Sadly, I think this is par for the course, and often those "crazy" things are accepted by a large enough part of society that the cooling effect is very low.
• mumblemumble 6y ago
  There's a selection effect going on there. People with more circumspect attitudes are more likely to be sensitive to social cooling, and when they back off of social media, they take their more measured opinions with them.
  • notacoward 6y ago
    The hot get hotter, the cool get cooler. It's just one more way that people are pulling away from each other toward two opposite extremes.
• eitland 6y ago
  Reasonable people on both sides censor themselves (at least more than unreasonable people). My theory is that this is why Full Name Required comments fields and also Facebook is way uglier than pseudonymous forums like HN and Ars Technica.
  • i_love_limes 6y ago
    You chose and interesting and very moderated forums there... Aren't the worst places on the internet unmoderated pseudonymous forums? 4chan, the horrible bits of Reddit, and the like?
    • westmeal 6y ago
      I honestly think its the opposite. When people don't have to stick to a side they'll actually discuss things without falling into a persona or clique. Then again there are trolls but they're rather easy to spot.
    • eitland 6y ago
      Old slashdot then. AFAIK and IIRC it was user moderated (and there was a fascinating system around metamoderation.)
• 542354234235 6y ago
  There are multiple issues. Self censorship is a problem, but conspiracy thinking is also a problem. Dr. Steven Novella recently said something to the effect of “the problem is that social media has automated conspiracy theory”. What he was talking about was how algorithms have had the effect of breadcrumbing people deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories and surrounding them with false confirmation.
  • raxxorrax 6y ago
    Conspiracies come from low trust and a feeling of inferiority for different reasons. Problem is that some conspiracies are true and some are even pushed by authoritative news sources. One conspiracy is certainly that the perspective of flat-earthers matters and should be addressed in any way. Same, with anti-vaxxers. We had vaccination quotas of 96% and as soon as people wanted to force others to vaccinate, it dropped considerably. Reactionary? Perhaps, but perfectly understandable.
• guerrilla 6y ago
  Maybe the situation is like Idiocracy where a certain class of people are cooled but unreasonable, insensitive and hateful people do not.
• imdsm 6y ago
  Perhaps people censoring themselves is the reason you see crazy things, insults, conspiracy theories, hate, etc. The rational and well-mannered people aren't taking the risk so all you hear is those who will take the risk. It's why politics is full of goons. Who in their right mind would go into that arena, to do good, when the risks are so high, the exposure so great, the hatred so guaranteed? Just the wrong people willing to take the risk.
  • mumblemumble 6y ago
    At an IRL social gathering, when someone starts getting cranky, you see and/or hear everyone else in the room going clammy, and know they feel the same way as you do. There's a certain loudness to their silence. On the Internet, those same people are completely imperceptible.
    • vlunkr 6y ago
      This is a great observation. I think one difference is that on the internet, the social gathering is much bigger, and these people end up finding each other. In real life, if you start ranting about flat earth or something, it's likely that no one around will agree with you and not engage. But if you do it online, you'll find plenty of others. (maybe trolls, but how can you really know?) So now you think maybe your ideas aren't so crazy. And normally rational people see all these people starting to believe in flat earth, and that no one is standing up to them, and that makes them unsure and uncomfortable. Maybe flat earth isn't the best example, but you know, I don't want to looks like I'm opposed to POPULAR_OPINION_ONLINE lol
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • mumblemumble 6y ago
        I'd go for a much more prosaic example, myself. How about Docker? Among members of my team, I have far and away the most moderate opinions on Docker. I'm pretty sure that this is largely because I'm also the one tasked with maintaining what infrastructure we have that's based on Docker. So my opinions are largely driven by first-hand experience, whereas my colleagues' opinions are largely driven by things they read on the Internet.
• simonke 6y ago
  This is explained by Foucault: if you think that you are being watched, you will censor yourself. He uses the panopticon as metaphor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon. Bauman later called our situation "Post-Panopticism".
• uoaei 6y ago
  Not all people are created equal... The less certain people censor themselves. And the more other kinds of people censor themselves. There seems to be widespread colloquial agreement that those who don't censor themselves are usually more extreme in their views, more confident in their truthiness, and often more mistaken about basic verifiable facts. This is very much a question of signal-to-noise ratio.