3 ms·

What's the likelihood of your spending a lifetime engaging with wrong people online having enough payoff to be worth it, even if it does have real consequences?

duxup 5y ago
I don't think I fully understand the question. I think I've gotten a lot from spending time online... often in situations where there was a moderation system in place.
- brimble 5y ago
  It's a question of how different the actual real world would be if one were to "stop caring that someone is wrong on the internet" versus the alternative world in which one cared very much about this. I would suggest that most of the time, the likely answer is "little to no different". In light of that, how many hours of one's life should be devoted to it? Almost none, probably. If improving the world is the goal, arguing on forums or Twitter is surely a terrible use of time and energy for most people (those with a massive audience, lots of money, fame, or any combination of those things, may be exceptions). It's similar to keeping up with day-to-day national news. How often is there something actually important and actionable that one learns only by closely following non-local news, that wouldn't have made its way through the grapevine (or down to local news) fast enough anyway? Barring people who need to trade on that information or otherwise need to be very plugged-in for their job, or what have you. Yet some people try to paint following such news closely as necessary for being a good citizen. Is it, though? If I look at it honestly, the difference between checking in on what's happening nationally (or internationally) every day, and checking in once a quarter, is practically indistinguishable, in terms of what I do and what I can realistically affect. Even once a quarter is probably more frequent than necessary to achieve approximately the maximum actual real-world benefit it is likely to provide to me. Yet people follow pundits on Twitter or read news sites daily or watch 24/7 cable news and seem to genuinely think they're a better citizen for it, rather than that they're engaging in a low-value hobby like watching daytime soap operas or following e-sports as a spectator (which are fine diversions and people should absolutely do those things if they enjoy them, but practically no-one's under the illusion that those are laudible or improving activities)
  - ok123456 5y ago
    Exactly. It just becomes a form a virtuous consumption that is slightly interactive in that you can report people who cross some line. This feedback loop is part of the design and keeps you consuming and interacting.
    - brimble 5y ago
      You see another funny effect like this in voting. A rough list of voting one can do, in order of likelihood of it affecting anything in the real world, most-to-least: 1. Voting in local party elections/primaries/et c. 2. Voting in local elections. 3. Voting in state-level party primaries. 4. Voting in state-level elections. 5. Voting in national-level primaries (that is, conducted at the state level but for national offices) 6. Voting in national elections. 7. (Largely as an effect of how US Presidential elections work) Voting for president, specifically. Note that this is damn near perfectly the inverse of participation rates in and media attention given to these activities, and that people will shit all over you for failing to do #7 while they themselves mostly ignore the lower numbers. Meanwhile an hour a year working with/for your preferred local party may very well be more effective than all of that voting. But "you didn't vote for President, so you don't get to complain and are a bad citizen". Horse-shit.
      - ok123456 5y ago
        National electoral politics is largely a busy-box: "There so much wrong in the country and it's always getting worse, but at least I have a say in it!" Every 8 years we 'throw the bums out' yet the policies never really change.

duxup 5y ago

I don't think I fully understand the question. I think I've gotten a lot from spending time online... often in situations where there was a moderation system in place.

brimble 5y ago
It's a question of how different the actual real world would be if one were to "stop caring that someone is wrong on the internet" versus the alternative world in which one cared very much about this. I would suggest that most of the time, the likely answer is "little to no different". In light of that, how many hours of one's life should be devoted to it? Almost none, probably. If improving the world is the goal, arguing on forums or Twitter is surely a terrible use of time and energy for most people (those with a massive audience, lots of money, fame, or any combination of those things, may be exceptions). It's similar to keeping up with day-to-day national news. How often is there something actually important and actionable that one learns only by closely following non-local news, that wouldn't have made its way through the grapevine (or down to local news) fast enough anyway? Barring people who need to trade on that information or otherwise need to be very plugged-in for their job, or what have you. Yet some people try to paint following such news closely as necessary for being a good citizen. Is it, though? If I look at it honestly, the difference between checking in on what's happening nationally (or internationally) every day, and checking in once a quarter, is practically indistinguishable, in terms of what I do and what I can realistically affect. Even once a quarter is probably more frequent than necessary to achieve approximately the maximum actual real-world benefit it is likely to provide to me. Yet people follow pundits on Twitter or read news sites daily or watch 24/7 cable news and seem to genuinely think they're a better citizen for it, rather than that they're engaging in a low-value hobby like watching daytime soap operas or following e-sports as a spectator (which are fine diversions and people should absolutely do those things if they enjoy them, but practically no-one's under the illusion that those are laudible or improving activities)
- ok123456 5y ago
  Exactly. It just becomes a form a virtuous consumption that is slightly interactive in that you can report people who cross some line. This feedback loop is part of the design and keeps you consuming and interacting.
  - brimble 5y ago
    You see another funny effect like this in voting. A rough list of voting one can do, in order of likelihood of it affecting anything in the real world, most-to-least: 1. Voting in local party elections/primaries/et c. 2. Voting in local elections. 3. Voting in state-level party primaries. 4. Voting in state-level elections. 5. Voting in national-level primaries (that is, conducted at the state level but for national offices) 6. Voting in national elections. 7. (Largely as an effect of how US Presidential elections work) Voting for president, specifically. Note that this is damn near perfectly the inverse of participation rates in and media attention given to these activities, and that people will shit all over you for failing to do #7 while they themselves mostly ignore the lower numbers. Meanwhile an hour a year working with/for your preferred local party may very well be more effective than all of that voting. But "you didn't vote for President, so you don't get to complain and are a bad citizen". Horse-shit.
    - ok123456 5y ago
      National electoral politics is largely a busy-box: "There so much wrong in the country and it's always getting worse, but at least I have a say in it!" Every 8 years we 'throw the bums out' yet the policies never really change.