5 ms·

There's a possibility that if instead of discussing and debating ideas we disagree with, we repress them and try to bury them, it will just form a darker, more

There's a possibility that if instead of discussing and debating ideas we disagree with, we repress them and try to bury them, it will just form a darker, more extreme underground network. Extremism isn't some new thing. Right now certain political viewpoints are allowed to be discussed and others are not. The Overton window is very small. That leads people who disagree to try to find each other and band together, form some kind of opposition. Because their opinions are repressed, they stay insulated in their bubbles (as do people with mainstream opinions). The isolation leads to extremism. If you look at the polarization of politics in the united states, both sides hate each other and they won't talk. Maybe if there was some kind of discourse, things wouldn't be so bad. Right now the only words exchanged are insults, all republicans are alt-right, all democrats are communists. It wasn't always like that. It used to be possible for people who vote differently to be friends, or even live in the same household.

api 6y ago
That is exactly right. It also gives them an intellectual martyrdom card and a veneer of coolness. If you want the next hip counterculture that all the kids are into to be Naziism, by all means suppress it. Nazis don’t deserve to be handed the “2 Live Crew effect.” For those who don’t know this was a mediocre booty rap group whose record went triple platinum after attempts were made to ban it. A parent poster raised another great point: the echo chambers that are full of this toxic stuff are themselves not free speech zones. They are heavily moderates safe spaces for specific ideologies and cultures. I am not convinced that this stuff would fare so well on a level intellectual playing field. It’s asinine. On a final note it’s important to point out that the original explosion of e.g. Qanon happened not via some decentralized free speech zone or even the chans (where it was always ironic or a prank for most) but on social platforms with algorithmic timeline. The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. Discourse on these sites is not equals but is weighted toward what will maximize engagement. Trolling, demagoguery, shock mongering, and various forms of “porn” (outrage porn, fear porn) are what maximizes engagement. The algorithmic timeline would be extremely hard to implement in a decentralized system. That’s perhaps a good thing. It might look more like the genuinely flat forum world of the old Internet where discourse was comparatively far more reasonable.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. This is a really good point. I think it's important to point to this as the root of the problem, and realize that what's good for Facebook and Twitter isn't what's good for society.
  - api 6y ago
    I think a lot of this debate is on false premises. It’s not free unbiased media vs censorship but a debate over different kinds of biased media. All social platforms that implement any form of gamification or algorithmically weighted presentation are absolutely not neutral and will tend to promote whatever best satisfies the algorithm or echo chamber effect (in the case of gamified forums). If the goal of the site is to maximize engagement, that’s going to be extremism, edgelording, porn, and trolling.
  - riggernetard 6y ago
    the algorithm also enables you to see content you like. Genuinely, what's the issue?
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      It's what the parent comment said.
    - api 6y ago
      The algorithm has absolutely no way of knowing what I want. It can only guess by looking at what I've viewed, and the real motive is always to keep me on the site and maximize engagement. As I said: negativity maximizes engagement. Let me give you a simple example. Lets say I walk past you on the sidewalk and say hi. Not much engagement. Now lets say I walk up to you and punch you. I have just maximized engagement. Which is a better interaction?

api 6y ago

That is exactly right. It also gives them an intellectual martyrdom card and a veneer of coolness. If you want the next hip counterculture that all the kids are into to be Naziism, by all means suppress it. Nazis don’t deserve to be handed the “2 Live Crew effect.” For those who don’t know this was a mediocre booty rap group whose record went triple platinum after attempts were made to ban it. A parent poster raised another great point: the echo chambers that are full of this toxic stuff are themselves not free speech zones. They are heavily moderates safe spaces for specific ideologies and cultures. I am not convinced that this stuff would fare so well on a level intellectual playing field. It’s asinine. On a final note it’s important to point out that the original explosion of e.g. Qanon happened not via some decentralized free speech zone or even the chans (where it was always ironic or a prank for most) but on social platforms with algorithmic timeline. The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. Discourse on these sites is not equals but is weighted toward what will maximize engagement. Trolling, demagoguery, shock mongering, and various forms of “porn” (outrage porn, fear porn) are what maximizes engagement. The algorithmic timeline would be extremely hard to implement in a decentralized system. That’s perhaps a good thing. It might look more like the genuinely flat forum world of the old Internet where discourse was comparatively far more reasonable.

StavrosK 6y ago
> The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. This is a really good point. I think it's important to point to this as the root of the problem, and realize that what's good for Facebook and Twitter isn't what's good for society.
- api 6y ago
  I think a lot of this debate is on false premises. It’s not free unbiased media vs censorship but a debate over different kinds of biased media. All social platforms that implement any form of gamification or algorithmically weighted presentation are absolutely not neutral and will tend to promote whatever best satisfies the algorithm or echo chamber effect (in the case of gamified forums). If the goal of the site is to maximize engagement, that’s going to be extremism, edgelording, porn, and trolling.
- riggernetard 6y ago
  the algorithm also enables you to see content you like. Genuinely, what's the issue?
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    It's what the parent comment said.
  - api 6y ago
    The algorithm has absolutely no way of knowing what I want. It can only guess by looking at what I've viewed, and the real motive is always to keep me on the site and maximize engagement. As I said: negativity maximizes engagement. Let me give you a simple example. Lets say I walk past you on the sidewalk and say hi. Not much engagement. Now lets say I walk up to you and punch you. I have just maximized engagement. Which is a better interaction?