4 ms·

It's kind of a youthful trait, isn't it? An idealism that may carry a ton of insight, really, but no understanding of application. So they think complicated th

It's kind of a youthful trait, isn't it? An idealism that may carry a ton of insight, really, but no understanding of application. So they think complicated things shouldn't be complicated and get angry about it. (I did. The Great Recession landed at a critical age in my life) They demand simple answers, because complicated ones take too long and require real attention and dedication. People grow out of that. While their politics may not change, usually their approach and understanding do. For any of the good it's done, it seems like Twitter has arrested that other process. Maybe it's the immediacy, or the audience, or the format, or a combination—don't know. But it used to be the only place you found that kind of squabbling was talk radio, cable TV, or a bar—easily avoidable and not as polluting of regular discourse.

yowlingcat 5y ago
Twitter has certainly accelerated it. I recently lost a previously intelligent and talented long-time friend who struggled with mental illness to Twitter. He only started seriously getting into it a year and a half ago when the pandemic started, but the difference was stark. Gone was his usual curiosity and desire to engage in debate -- his interactions began to simplify into snarky one-liners. And to disagree with anything he said was to invite the real life equivalent of a quote tweet clapback. It's like dealing with a cult member. I used to like Twitter. I still do. But now, feeling personally the way it exacerbates things for those who struggle with mental illness -- it's hard to not feel like it (and Facebook) are deeply complicit in harvesting mental illness for the attention economy. I was fortunate to not have family members or close friends radicalized by media outlets into becoming insufferable people to be around, but now that my luck has run out, I feel a lot more empathy for the pain so many others have gone through. There's nothing new about it besides the scale (other media obviously predates it). But society and especially the most vulnerable members are not handling or even recognizing this mental contagion very well if at all.
- bityard 5y ago
  I'm sorry for your loss. I am hopeful that within our lifetime, humanity will figure out that social networks as currently implemented are a net loss in terms of damage to mental health, communication skills, isolation from meaningful human contact, and time wasted.
littlestymaar 5y ago
> It's kind of a youthful trait, isn't it? […]People grow out of that. I wish you were right, but I've met enough angry mobs of 50 to 70 people online to know you aren't unfortunately. Face to face, people are usually pretty civil and they don't easily call name on one another (because you know, a punch in the face is just painful), but even in real life, when the discussion happens in front of a group, discussions are quickly getting hotter. And being separated by a screen and an internet connection make things far worse.
- bityard 5y ago
  > Face to face, people are usually pretty civil and they don't easily call name on one another It used to be the case that this was true even with written and remote (telephone) communication. Now with the way people behave on facebook and twitter (and yes, hacker news), snark, insults and exaggerated outrage are the "new normal" for non-business written communication. The younger generations haven't known anything different, so part of me wonders if we'll see a shift in face-to-face communication that more closely mirrors how we see people (poorly) behave on social networks, or whether the threat of real physical violence of an in-person confrontation will keep that in check.
  - babyblueblanket 5y ago
    I don't know if it's true that face-to-face communication is actually better when you begin to talk about controversial, political subjects. There's a reason why it's been common courtesy not to talk about politics or religion at any large family gathering.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      The key word here is “large” I think. It's deeply irrational, but in front of people, discussion usually become a contest to assert one's status among the group, and it's just too hard to “surrender”.
      - babyblueblanket 5y ago
cblconfederate 5y ago
It's the speed of information, it's inhuman. Even if the amount of information is the same, it's presented in tiny bits of info that are largely overlapping and with no depth. There is no end to the list of factoids, so people never learn to make confident conclusions, so they go with gut feeling.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  Good insight! Putting it in that frame, it sounds like encoded data reaching an endpoint in the wrong packet order. In many of our daily jobs, that would be considered a bug and would result in removal of dependent features, or active reworking until resolution.
mountainriver 5y ago
Yeah that’s definitely a part of it, I read at one point that the human brain doesn’t develop nuance until a persons late 20s

yowlingcat 5y ago

Twitter has certainly accelerated it. I recently lost a previously intelligent and talented long-time friend who struggled with mental illness to Twitter. He only started seriously getting into it a year and a half ago when the pandemic started, but the difference was stark. Gone was his usual curiosity and desire to engage in debate -- his interactions began to simplify into snarky one-liners. And to disagree with anything he said was to invite the real life equivalent of a quote tweet clapback. It's like dealing with a cult member. I used to like Twitter. I still do. But now, feeling personally the way it exacerbates things for those who struggle with mental illness -- it's hard to not feel like it (and Facebook) are deeply complicit in harvesting mental illness for the attention economy. I was fortunate to not have family members or close friends radicalized by media outlets into becoming insufferable people to be around, but now that my luck has run out, I feel a lot more empathy for the pain so many others have gone through. There's nothing new about it besides the scale (other media obviously predates it). But society and especially the most vulnerable members are not handling or even recognizing this mental contagion very well if at all.

bityard 5y ago
I'm sorry for your loss. I am hopeful that within our lifetime, humanity will figure out that social networks as currently implemented are a net loss in terms of damage to mental health, communication skills, isolation from meaningful human contact, and time wasted.

littlestymaar 5y ago

> It's kind of a youthful trait, isn't it? […]People grow out of that. I wish you were right, but I've met enough angry mobs of 50 to 70 people online to know you aren't unfortunately. Face to face, people are usually pretty civil and they don't easily call name on one another (because you know, a punch in the face is just painful), but even in real life, when the discussion happens in front of a group, discussions are quickly getting hotter. And being separated by a screen and an internet connection make things far worse.

bityard 5y ago
> Face to face, people are usually pretty civil and they don't easily call name on one another It used to be the case that this was true even with written and remote (telephone) communication. Now with the way people behave on facebook and twitter (and yes, hacker news), snark, insults and exaggerated outrage are the "new normal" for non-business written communication. The younger generations haven't known anything different, so part of me wonders if we'll see a shift in face-to-face communication that more closely mirrors how we see people (poorly) behave on social networks, or whether the threat of real physical violence of an in-person confrontation will keep that in check.
- babyblueblanket 5y ago
  I don't know if it's true that face-to-face communication is actually better when you begin to talk about controversial, political subjects. There's a reason why it's been common courtesy not to talk about politics or religion at any large family gathering.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    The key word here is “large” I think. It's deeply irrational, but in front of people, discussion usually become a contest to assert one's status among the group, and it's just too hard to “surrender”.
    - babyblueblanket 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago

It's the speed of information, it's inhuman. Even if the amount of information is the same, it's presented in tiny bits of info that are largely overlapping and with no depth. There is no end to the list of factoids, so people never learn to make confident conclusions, so they go with gut feeling.

52-6F-62 5y ago
Good insight! Putting it in that frame, it sounds like encoded data reaching an endpoint in the wrong packet order. In many of our daily jobs, that would be considered a bug and would result in removal of dependent features, or active reworking until resolution.

mountainriver 5y ago

Yeah that’s definitely a part of it, I read at one point that the human brain doesn’t develop nuance until a persons late 20s