6 ms·

Yes, this is how social interaction in the real world, or even smaller online communities, has worked for ages. It's only on pseudonymous mega-sites like Twitt

by mjr00 4y ago

Yes, this is how social interaction in the real world, or even smaller online communities, has worked for ages. It's only on pseudonymous mega-sites like Twitter, Reddit and HN where jumping down people's throats for having an opposing viewpoint is even a thing.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Facebook seems to be the most politically divisive to me and it's not pseudonymous.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
the hypothesis that attaching real names to posts improves civility is over ten years out of date
- mjr00 4y ago
  "With real names" is not the same as "in the real world." There is a massive difference between me seeing a stranger's real name next to a Facebook post about how abortion is evil, and me having a conversation with a good friend of 10 years, or my mom, and it comes up that they're pro-life. We might have a long debate, but in the end, they're still my friend or family.
HelloMcFly 4y ago
Boy oh boy, I should take you to some Board of Education meetings.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  These are actually fine in most places. You only see videos of the out of control ones because they're the weird ones. If you only view the world through the snippets that are noteworthy enough to make headlines or get a lot of votes on Reddit, you end up with a very skewed view of what the world is like.
  - cm42 4y ago
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
      Ah, I see you're doing your part to help make the online world a better place /s
      - cm42 4y ago
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    > If you only view the world through the snippets that are noteworthy enough to make headlines or get a lot of votes on Reddit, you end up with a very skewed view of what the world is like. I think this very much depends on where you live. I'm not responding to reddit videos, I'm responding to events that my family and some friends who are in public education.
IshKebab 4y ago
No it isn't. Small online communities are generally run as a dictatorship. If you disagree with the mods, well screw you. In the real world it's a bit more nuanced because people care more about conflict in the real world. But even so there's usually a core group of people with similar beliefs and outsiders are pushed away. In the corporate world conflicting viewpoints in e.g. religion or politics are generally dealt with by making talking about them taboo or explicitly banning it. When you don't do that you get the mess that Google has found itself in several times recently where someone makes some comment that the majority disagree with (positive discrimination is bad, AI is sentient, etc) and other employees call for them to be fired. I can't think of many groups that actually manage to get people with opposing viewpoints to get on with each other without just banning talking about them. Universities maybe. The army perhaps?
jonathankoren 4y ago
You know, there are best practices for moderating discussions. https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design-day-one/ https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design...
winter_blue 4y ago
Tbh, it's worse in the real world, at least in the U.S., with the Democratic-Republican divide. I've personally witnessed extreme rage, foul language yelled at very loud voices, when folks from these two sides met (and talked about anything that was even slightly contentious).
eastbound 4y ago
So it seems people don’t say in public what they really think? Would that explain why we have very different votes during democratic elections compared to what media wants?
watwut 4y ago
People beat others or kill others over difference of opinion. And sometimes, the "difference of opinion" is that some people think a this or that minority should be killed while minority disagree.
- lob_it 4y ago
- cm42 4y ago
  Also, <sportsball>
nemo44x 4y ago
Have you been anywhere near a university lately? There’s a contingent of super militant students, supported by certain faculty, that spend their time policing who is allowed to have a “platform” and what’s acceptable speech.

by mjr00 4y ago

colinmhayes 4y ago

Facebook seems to be the most politically divisive to me and it's not pseudonymous.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

the hypothesis that attaching real names to posts improves civility is over ten years out of date

mjr00 4y ago
"With real names" is not the same as "in the real world." There is a massive difference between me seeing a stranger's real name next to a Facebook post about how abortion is evil, and me having a conversation with a good friend of 10 years, or my mom, and it comes up that they're pro-life. We might have a long debate, but in the end, they're still my friend or family.

HelloMcFly 4y ago

Boy oh boy, I should take you to some Board of Education meetings.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
These are actually fine in most places. You only see videos of the out of control ones because they're the weird ones. If you only view the world through the snippets that are noteworthy enough to make headlines or get a lot of votes on Reddit, you end up with a very skewed view of what the world is like.
- cm42 4y ago
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    Ah, I see you're doing your part to help make the online world a better place /s
    - cm42 4y ago
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > If you only view the world through the snippets that are noteworthy enough to make headlines or get a lot of votes on Reddit, you end up with a very skewed view of what the world is like. I think this very much depends on where you live. I'm not responding to reddit videos, I'm responding to events that my family and some friends who are in public education.

IshKebab 4y ago

No it isn't. Small online communities are generally run as a dictatorship. If you disagree with the mods, well screw you. In the real world it's a bit more nuanced because people care more about conflict in the real world. But even so there's usually a core group of people with similar beliefs and outsiders are pushed away. In the corporate world conflicting viewpoints in e.g. religion or politics are generally dealt with by making talking about them taboo or explicitly banning it. When you don't do that you get the mess that Google has found itself in several times recently where someone makes some comment that the majority disagree with (positive discrimination is bad, AI is sentient, etc) and other employees call for them to be fired. I can't think of many groups that actually manage to get people with opposing viewpoints to get on with each other without just banning talking about them. Universities maybe. The army perhaps?

jonathankoren 4y ago

You know, there are best practices for moderating discussions. https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design-day-one/ https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design...

winter_blue 4y ago

Tbh, it's worse in the real world, at least in the U.S., with the Democratic-Republican divide. I've personally witnessed extreme rage, foul language yelled at very loud voices, when folks from these two sides met (and talked about anything that was even slightly contentious).

eastbound 4y ago

So it seems people don’t say in public what they really think? Would that explain why we have very different votes during democratic elections compared to what media wants?

watwut 4y ago

People beat others or kill others over difference of opinion. And sometimes, the "difference of opinion" is that some people think a this or that minority should be killed while minority disagree.

lob_it 4y ago
cm42 4y ago
Also, <sportsball>

nemo44x 4y ago

Have you been anywhere near a university lately? There’s a contingent of super militant students, supported by certain faculty, that spend their time policing who is allowed to have a “platform” and what’s acceptable speech.