2 ms·

> The problem is that people act in bad faith online, a lot. I think the fundamental problem is that people's values and perspectives can be too different to b

> The problem is that people act in bad faith online, a lot. I think the fundamental problem is that people's values and perspectives can be too different to be in the same room together without going at it. Most people couldn't handle being in the same room as an avowed neo-Nazi saying Nazi things, for example, without at least picking a verbal fight, even if the Nazi wasn't addressing them directly. If they're talking about how they want to kill Jews, most decent people will feel like they can't just let that go unchallenged. And that's not the kind of argument that can really be handled civilly. You get the same issue -- albeit usually not quite as strongly -- in a thousand different ways, when you have a globally scoped social platform. All those groups with fundamentally conflicting positions, all targeting each other. The result is chaos, which is why platforms are increasingly tightening the bounds of acceptable discourse.

kelnos 6y ago
Sure, but I think your example of a neo-Nazi vs. non-Nazi meeting up in a room describes a minority, extreme case. Most people are not Nazis, and most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. Two somewhat-reasonable people, even if they're complete strangers, could have a productive discussion (or at least resolve to agree to disagree, if it gets a little heated) if they were to meet in person to hash things out. But in an online conversation, especially on a limited medium like Twitter or Mastodon, they could both easily devolve into talking past each other, name-calling, and arguing in bad faith.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. A corollary of Goodwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one participant viewing another as a Nazi approaches 1".
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > Most people are not Nazis, and most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. Agreed, I just chose an example that most people would be able to empathize with or at least understand. But the same principle holds for, say, socialists and core Trump supporters, in my experience, and there are a lot more of each of those.

kelnos 6y ago

Sure, but I think your example of a neo-Nazi vs. non-Nazi meeting up in a room describes a minority, extreme case. Most people are not Nazis, and most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. Two somewhat-reasonable people, even if they're complete strangers, could have a productive discussion (or at least resolve to agree to disagree, if it gets a little heated) if they were to meet in person to hash things out. But in an online conversation, especially on a limited medium like Twitter or Mastodon, they could both easily devolve into talking past each other, name-calling, and arguing in bad faith.

logicchains 6y ago
>most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. A corollary of Goodwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one participant viewing another as a Nazi approaches 1".
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> Most people are not Nazis, and most of the bad discourse on the internet does not involve Nazis. Agreed, I just chose an example that most people would be able to empathize with or at least understand. But the same principle holds for, say, socialists and core Trump supporters, in my experience, and there are a lot more of each of those.