5 ms·

> 2006-2019 I believe this was when youtube was growing. > it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away I believe youtube was gr

> 2006-2019 I believe this was when youtube was growing. > it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away I believe youtube was growing at this time. I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? The platform's or the content creator's? There's a saying that's oft repeated "dont read the comments section". That's a strategy in line with the approach I'd endorse. We shouldn't be censoring information just because its "toxic", people need to find ways to withstand or ignore or deal with the criticism that exists in the world. People develop weak immune systems if they are protected from everything, it's not just a biological thing. The American mind is as coddled as their biological immune system. We should be teaching people how to deal and withstand criticism whether valid or caustic. Otherwise we get this mad world where no one can offend anyone and you can't even tell clinically obese people their body is not healthy.

shadowgovt 5y ago
> I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? Wrong way to frame the incentives. "Who benefits if the toxicity is dealt with?" is the relvant question. (... and the answer is "the platform owner, assuming they attract more viewers with honey than acid." So, a predictable outcome if the premise holds).
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  This, I can't disagree with. But moralistically I'm still at odds with the coddling.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.
  - dpark 5y ago
    Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      > Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.
      - dpark 5y ago
        > other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Yeah, because arguing with loud racists is a good use of time.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        It's probably worth noting that arguments on the Internet don't show majority and minority opinion. If anything, they might proxy to the opinions espoused by those with the most free time to argue on the Internet. It is, hypothetically, possible that one will find fringe opinions there more often because those on the fringe tend to be detached from other uses of time (i.e. if you're unemployed, you have a lot of time to argue with strangers online, for example).
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  The answer is: everyone who's not toxic.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    Not necessarily. At this point "toxic" as a term means anything offensive to someone. Its a useful definition if you wanted unlimited power to censor anyone you wish. Its not useful for the public. People don't benefit only hearing praise, agreements, and adulation.
oblio 5y ago
> I personally don't remember it being that toxic. Then you're probably not remembering it right. Its toxicity levels were off the charts. I'd go out of my way to block the comments just so I couldn't see them when a video would be loading and have them ruin my day. > But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? The platform's or the content creator's? Well, as they say, "my house, my rules". It's their house :-) > People develop weak immune systems if they are protected from everything, it's not just a biological thing. > We should be teaching people how to deal and withstand criticism whether valid or caustic. Nobody can withstand internet criticism. We weren't built for this. We were built for a tribe of apes around us, most of which would leave us alone to not disturb the social hierarchy. There's no psyche on this planet that can withstand a torrent of crap thrown onto it from all over the world. See articles about Facebook moderators for more details (those poor souls!).
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  Yes, and no one can withstand the barrage of internet dopamine bullets. I agree, we weren't designed for it. But I disagree that no one can withstand the barrage. People can teach themselves to fend these things off, in fact I think its the only thing that works.
  - oblio 5y ago
    We can't really teach that at scale. And even if we could, sometimes you just can't avoid some situations, they just happen. Most jurisdictions around the world have laws against verbal assault (threatening others with actual harm) or verbal harassment, for this very reason. Verbal interactions can lead to very real effects (people have been driven to suicide, for example). Some people we interact with are just cuckoo and if we can't get out of there quickly there needs to be a way to keep the situation under control.
  - drusepth 5y ago
    Curious: what makes you think people can teach themselves to manage endless deluges of toxicity, but not teach themselves to manage internet dopamine bullets?

shadowgovt 5y ago

> I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? Wrong way to frame the incentives. "Who benefits if the toxicity is dealt with?" is the relvant question. (... and the answer is "the platform owner, assuming they attract more viewers with honey than acid." So, a predictable outcome if the premise holds).

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
This, I can't disagree with. But moralistically I'm still at odds with the coddling.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.
- dpark 5y ago
  Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    > Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.
    - dpark 5y ago
      > other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Yeah, because arguing with loud racists is a good use of time.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      It's probably worth noting that arguments on the Internet don't show majority and minority opinion. If anything, they might proxy to the opinions espoused by those with the most free time to argue on the Internet. It is, hypothetically, possible that one will find fringe opinions there more often because those on the fringe tend to be detached from other uses of time (i.e. if you're unemployed, you have a lot of time to argue with strangers online, for example).
TulliusCicero 5y ago
The answer is: everyone who's not toxic.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  Not necessarily. At this point "toxic" as a term means anything offensive to someone. Its a useful definition if you wanted unlimited power to censor anyone you wish. Its not useful for the public. People don't benefit only hearing praise, agreements, and adulation.

oblio 5y ago

> I personally don't remember it being that toxic. Then you're probably not remembering it right. Its toxicity levels were off the charts. I'd go out of my way to block the comments just so I couldn't see them when a video would be loading and have them ruin my day. > But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? The platform's or the content creator's? Well, as they say, "my house, my rules". It's their house :-) > People develop weak immune systems if they are protected from everything, it's not just a biological thing. > We should be teaching people how to deal and withstand criticism whether valid or caustic. Nobody can withstand internet criticism. We weren't built for this. We were built for a tribe of apes around us, most of which would leave us alone to not disturb the social hierarchy. There's no psyche on this planet that can withstand a torrent of crap thrown onto it from all over the world. See articles about Facebook moderators for more details (those poor souls!).

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
Yes, and no one can withstand the barrage of internet dopamine bullets. I agree, we weren't designed for it. But I disagree that no one can withstand the barrage. People can teach themselves to fend these things off, in fact I think its the only thing that works.
- oblio 5y ago
  We can't really teach that at scale. And even if we could, sometimes you just can't avoid some situations, they just happen. Most jurisdictions around the world have laws against verbal assault (threatening others with actual harm) or verbal harassment, for this very reason. Verbal interactions can lead to very real effects (people have been driven to suicide, for example). Some people we interact with are just cuckoo and if we can't get out of there quickly there needs to be a way to keep the situation under control.
- drusepth 5y ago
  Curious: what makes you think people can teach themselves to manage endless deluges of toxicity, but not teach themselves to manage internet dopamine bullets?