4 ms·

And to add another case, you step out of the cinema and make some rather tasteless remark about the lead actor. Your relatively well-chosen circle of friends r

by jddj 3y ago

And to add another case, you step out of the cinema and make some rather tasteless remark about the lead actor. Your relatively well-chosen circle of friends reacts to that negatively and you concede that you were probably being unfair. The online equivalent of that is more like a splitting of universes. Half of the comment's blast radius impacts a group of people who much like your friends finds it distasteful, but unlike your friends has very little other context about you with which to build an image. They launch an attack against this new simulacrum. The other half finds, amongst the near-infinite crowd of people you're not hanging out with right now (many of which wouldn't have passed some other social filter of yours), some number of people who agree with and amplify your off-the-cuff nasty take.

lqet 3y ago
Also, in your example, if you start this remark, you will immediately get subtle non-verbal feedback, often before you have even ended your first sentence. If you see a few friends cringe, twist their mouth, or start with "errr...", you quickly realize that your opinion is unfair, strange, or has no majority. You have a chance to pull out before too much (or any) damage is done, often by simply adding an attenuating end to your sentence or by changing to tone of your voice to make it clear that you are overly cynical / sarcastic. On social media, you have usually published your opinion in several multi-sentence posts, without any non-verbal context at all, before any feedback is received. Human conversation is a delicate dance to a fine, multi-dimensional tune. In comparison, online conversation seems like shadow boxing.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The trio of direct-ancestor messages I am replying to is a great summary.
- lynx23 3y ago
  So, are only opinions which have a majority worth voicing these days, or even worse, should every opinion that does not conform with majority be kept to oneself? Do you know what you are implying with this?
  - theobromananda 3y ago
    Not parent commenter, but I believe everything social should be kept to real life. The dynamics of online social media have almost nothing to do with real human interactions. It is a waste of time and a harmful superstimulus substitute, like empty calory fast food for real nutrition.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Keeping personal matters offline might be a reasonable ideal but a highly unreasonable and unfair practice. Many people do conduct significant social actions online. There are people who have no local access to a similar or understanding peer group. We often hear of this now in terms of sexual identity or preferences, but it could be anything from interests to skills or aptitudes to medical or psychological conditions. People go online to find community, especially community that's not represented locally. (This, like The Force, has both a light and dark side, of course.) There are also people who are distant from friends, family, or other community, and for whom online group interactions are among the few available options. We read and hear now of the closely guarded and coded language that was used to refer to situations and circumstances in Victorian times. Slangs and argots arose to be able to communicate within an anti-society whilst excluding normies. People today may use similar methods (though tools for tracking slang, such as Urban Dictionary, tend to catch up quickly). Technical means may help, as can anonymous or pseudonymous identities, though both these have their own serious limitations as I've described in other comments on this thread.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        the problem is that online discussion comes with higher risks, and one needs to be aware of those risks. but many aren't. your points are of course good, but there exists private online groups where these risks are lower so especially friends and family are a non issue as there is no problem to have a private online conversation. finding your community online is more difficult, but the point is not that you should avoid online groups, but that you need to be more careful how you communicate in online groups. you can't just hop in and spill your personal feelings without being aware of how those messages will be received. you want to get to know people first, and that takes more effort and time online than in person. it depends on what kind of people are in the group, and also if the group is public or private. hackernews is public but most people are reasonable here and bad faith messages are not tolerated, so for a public group it is a pretty safe one, unlike twitter where you risk having your messages promoted to people with an unhelpful attitude.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by jddj 3y ago

lqet 3y ago

Also, in your example, if you start this remark, you will immediately get subtle non-verbal feedback, often before you have even ended your first sentence. If you see a few friends cringe, twist their mouth, or start with "errr...", you quickly realize that your opinion is unfair, strange, or has no majority. You have a chance to pull out before too much (or any) damage is done, often by simply adding an attenuating end to your sentence or by changing to tone of your voice to make it clear that you are overly cynical / sarcastic. On social media, you have usually published your opinion in several multi-sentence posts, without any non-verbal context at all, before any feedback is received. Human conversation is a delicate dance to a fine, multi-dimensional tune. In comparison, online conversation seems like shadow boxing.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The trio of direct-ancestor messages I am replying to is a great summary.
lynx23 3y ago
So, are only opinions which have a majority worth voicing these days, or even worse, should every opinion that does not conform with majority be kept to oneself? Do you know what you are implying with this?
- theobromananda 3y ago
  Not parent commenter, but I believe everything social should be kept to real life. The dynamics of online social media have almost nothing to do with real human interactions. It is a waste of time and a harmful superstimulus substitute, like empty calory fast food for real nutrition.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Keeping personal matters offline might be a reasonable ideal but a highly unreasonable and unfair practice. Many people do conduct significant social actions online. There are people who have no local access to a similar or understanding peer group. We often hear of this now in terms of sexual identity or preferences, but it could be anything from interests to skills or aptitudes to medical or psychological conditions. People go online to find community, especially community that's not represented locally. (This, like The Force, has both a light and dark side, of course.) There are also people who are distant from friends, family, or other community, and for whom online group interactions are among the few available options. We read and hear now of the closely guarded and coded language that was used to refer to situations and circumstances in Victorian times. Slangs and argots arose to be able to communicate within an anti-society whilst excluding normies. People today may use similar methods (though tools for tracking slang, such as Urban Dictionary, tend to catch up quickly). Technical means may help, as can anonymous or pseudonymous identities, though both these have their own serious limitations as I've described in other comments on this thread.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      the problem is that online discussion comes with higher risks, and one needs to be aware of those risks. but many aren't. your points are of course good, but there exists private online groups where these risks are lower so especially friends and family are a non issue as there is no problem to have a private online conversation. finding your community online is more difficult, but the point is not that you should avoid online groups, but that you need to be more careful how you communicate in online groups. you can't just hop in and spill your personal feelings without being aware of how those messages will be received. you want to get to know people first, and that takes more effort and time online than in person. it depends on what kind of people are in the group, and also if the group is public or private. hackernews is public but most people are reasonable here and bad faith messages are not tolerated, so for a public group it is a pretty safe one, unlike twitter where you risk having your messages promoted to people with an unhelpful attitude.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]