5 ms·

The first point isn’t an argument for fun but for individualism, almost to an extremist extent. If you want to publish your thoughts for others to see you’re go

The first point isn’t an argument for fun but for individualism, almost to an extremist extent. If you want to publish your thoughts for others to see you’re going to have to accept the fact that some people are just going to take it differently because it human experiences are diverse, and you must be mature enough to be accountable for what you say. It’s people’s problem that they see conflict with others as an inherent negative when the disagreement with others is what itself brews creativity, because it challenges your point of view. People criticize the media for being “biased” but then crave echo chambers of their own.

pjc50 3y ago
On Twitter it's not merely that you get a "different" interpretation, you have to deal with the most hostile interpretation possible of both your words and what you "didn't say". A little bit of disagreement is interesting; constant spurious repetitive negativity is exhausting and un-fun. Which is why people are leaving Twitter.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  Those are not very clear parameters as to what is allowable disagreement and what is not, and easily lends to supporting echo chambers.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Echo chambers are unavoidable. The particular problem the internet has (though other mediums quite often have also) is people arguing in bad faith. Lets say I'm against X which could be any number of things (religion, race, politics, sexual orientation, etc). Actually, lets say I hate any one of the people involved in the aforementioned categories, not just against. Do you think I'm going to have a rational disagreement on this in a manner where my mind could be changed by new information? Doesn't seem likely. Is my constant stream of bad faith arguments going to ruin the experience for everyone else? Seems very likely. This falls under the paradox of tolerance. Let the intolerant take over and you'll push out the tolerant that don't want to put up with their shit. The hard part, no I say the impossible part, is the demarcation between figuring out who is there just to be an asshole against the group and who is really having a discussion. Every person in the group will have a different definition and tolerance level.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > The hard part, no I say the impossible part, is the demarcation between figuring out who is there just to be an asshole against the group and who is really having a discussion. E This is an illusion. All are there to have discussions. They, like you, have some expectations about how the conversation will go, and like you, they preemptively position themselves to avoid being humiliated with the fallacies the other will undoubtedly attack with. Someone from either side could break the cycle. But an outsider doing that only does so that he might be inducted into the group (he doesn't want this though, already has one), and an insider doing so would be a traitor to the group. Thus no one can speak honestly. But both engage, at least initially, in the hopes that something will happen to break the cycle for them, and become frustrated when the miracle doesn't occur.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        This is such a naive take that I'm pretty flabbergasted by it. In an individual conversation most of what you way is true, you can at least expect to have a somewhat honest back and forth, and shut down the conversation cordially if its not going anywhere. Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, there isn't shit my group can do about it other than submit to your crap flood. Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring. If I choose violence then you have the option of choosing counter violence (defense), running away (shutting down ones forum), or death (letting the forum turn into a toxic brew).
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, t Look at what you just wrote here. Somehow, you've decided that we're a hivemind and telepathically colluding to "collectively be an asshole". Or maybe, you imagine that we do it the old-fashioned way with some side-channel communication. You don't believe this about your own group though. And it's obvious why... because you know you're not a telepath, and that there's no side-channel communication going on where you all decide to collectively be assholes. When someone from your side is an asshole (are you willing to admit it happens once in awhile), it's just because that one guy is an asshole, and you probably don't even know him. He just showed up. Your beliefs are driven by an information disparity here, and some natural biases. Because they're all mostly pseudonymous, it's easy to not look closely and see that it's only one being an asshole, rather than the whole group. You're also biasing them up nicely, the non-assholes already anticipate being treated that way, so they lean into it. The same is happening on your side too, you're just oblivious to it, and there's no reason to explore this... what would you do with it anyway? Bringing it up would make you seem like a group traitor, and mulling it over yourself just makes you feel bad. You can't defect, you're on the good side after all. They're seeing the same as you from the other side. Thus each side believes the other to be disingenuous, but know that they themselves are just victims of the disingenuity. > Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring. From the other side, of course. Your side never does this. You're the good guys. Only the bad guys do that. Of course, if your side did do it, it would only be for the best reasons. And only the other people in your group would do it, you never do that yourself.
- jwells89 3y ago
  It’s rather remarkable how strong of a tendency Twitter replies have to find something to be angry about once a tweet gets big. The original message can be something as neutral and innocuous as possible and it’ll still receive inflammatory responses. As you say, disagreement isn’t the issue, it’s a lack of basic civility and anybody who isn’t addicted to flameposting will get worn down by it quickly.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    It's not even lack of basic civility - it's also a complete lack of intellectual honesty and utter disregard for truth. Civility and intellectual honesty are correlated; being just rude doesn't get you anywhere near the level of typical Twitter outrage bait.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > you have to deal with the most hostile interpretation possible of both your words and what you "didn't say". Not just on Twitter, or even on the internet. I see this happen all the time in real life. It's perhaps the primary reason why substantive discussions have become rare: they're often impossible because you can't have real communication when everyone is misinterpreting everyone else.
somedude895 3y ago
> you must be mature enough to be accountable for what you say OP isn't talking about personal accountability but about platforms being afraid to lose advertising dollars or being sued and thus restricting the platforms.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  You’d lose advertising dollars just the same by establishing an ill reputation because of what you say, even without getting and losing a lawsuit.
Fricken 3y ago
The medium is the message. We are no longer in the literary age. The power is in the hands of the mob. You can make some carefully thought out post and try to be accountable for what you say. I can show up in your comment forum, shit all over everything and leave. In the old days you would've had to publish a book to get your message out, and if I saw it a bookstore it wouldn't register, I wouldn't pay money for it, and I wouldn't bother writing an angry letter to send to in the mail because it would have zero capacity to take you down a notch in a public forum. You're talking about old ideas from a more civilized age. Tribalism is back and in charge. The internet isn't here so that we can all get along and better understand one another's point of view. It's here so that we can take turns bashing one another.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That’s not been my experience on HN, out of thousands of comments and interactions with hundreds of different users, maybe a total of a dozen turned out to be random ‘bashers’.
  - Fricken 3y ago
    That's how you know you're in an echo chamber. We're all here to pretend like it's still the early days of the internet, before it had come into it's own as a medium, when it was still a skeuomorphic throwback to the literary era.
    - avbanks 3y ago
      I completely disagree with your comment but I have no need to bash you.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Why is the positive experience the echo chamber but the negative experience is a result of the inherent nature of the medium?
      - Fricken 3y ago
rockskon 3y ago
The issue here, as it always is when censors argue that their methods are simply the will of the masses, is that individuals aren't being given the freedom to decide for themselves if they like content or not. It's always the censor that determines what content others are allowed to see. The censor makes the decision on behalf of everyone else and claims their views represent everyone's views and their tastes represent everyone's tastes.

pjc50 3y ago

On Twitter it's not merely that you get a "different" interpretation, you have to deal with the most hostile interpretation possible of both your words and what you "didn't say". A little bit of disagreement is interesting; constant spurious repetitive negativity is exhausting and un-fun. Which is why people are leaving Twitter.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
Those are not very clear parameters as to what is allowable disagreement and what is not, and easily lends to supporting echo chambers.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Echo chambers are unavoidable. The particular problem the internet has (though other mediums quite often have also) is people arguing in bad faith. Lets say I'm against X which could be any number of things (religion, race, politics, sexual orientation, etc). Actually, lets say I hate any one of the people involved in the aforementioned categories, not just against. Do you think I'm going to have a rational disagreement on this in a manner where my mind could be changed by new information? Doesn't seem likely. Is my constant stream of bad faith arguments going to ruin the experience for everyone else? Seems very likely. This falls under the paradox of tolerance. Let the intolerant take over and you'll push out the tolerant that don't want to put up with their shit. The hard part, no I say the impossible part, is the demarcation between figuring out who is there just to be an asshole against the group and who is really having a discussion. Every person in the group will have a different definition and tolerance level.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > The hard part, no I say the impossible part, is the demarcation between figuring out who is there just to be an asshole against the group and who is really having a discussion. E This is an illusion. All are there to have discussions. They, like you, have some expectations about how the conversation will go, and like you, they preemptively position themselves to avoid being humiliated with the fallacies the other will undoubtedly attack with. Someone from either side could break the cycle. But an outsider doing that only does so that he might be inducted into the group (he doesn't want this though, already has one), and an insider doing so would be a traitor to the group. Thus no one can speak honestly. But both engage, at least initially, in the hopes that something will happen to break the cycle for them, and become frustrated when the miracle doesn't occur.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      This is such a naive take that I'm pretty flabbergasted by it. In an individual conversation most of what you way is true, you can at least expect to have a somewhat honest back and forth, and shut down the conversation cordially if its not going anywhere. Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, there isn't shit my group can do about it other than submit to your crap flood. Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring. If I choose violence then you have the option of choosing counter violence (defense), running away (shutting down ones forum), or death (letting the forum turn into a toxic brew).
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > Group dynamics do not allow this. If, for example, your groups decides to be an asshole about it, t Look at what you just wrote here. Somehow, you've decided that we're a hivemind and telepathically colluding to "collectively be an asshole". Or maybe, you imagine that we do it the old-fashioned way with some side-channel communication. You don't believe this about your own group though. And it's obvious why... because you know you're not a telepath, and that there's no side-channel communication going on where you all decide to collectively be assholes. When someone from your side is an asshole (are you willing to admit it happens once in awhile), it's just because that one guy is an asshole, and you probably don't even know him. He just showed up. Your beliefs are driven by an information disparity here, and some natural biases. Because they're all mostly pseudonymous, it's easy to not look closely and see that it's only one being an asshole, rather than the whole group. You're also biasing them up nicely, the non-assholes already anticipate being treated that way, so they lean into it. The same is happening on your side too, you're just oblivious to it, and there's no reason to explore this... what would you do with it anyway? Bringing it up would make you seem like a group traitor, and mulling it over yourself just makes you feel bad. You can't defect, you're on the good side after all. They're seeing the same as you from the other side. Thus each side believes the other to be disingenuous, but know that they themselves are just victims of the disingenuity. > Moreso, if I'm a 'true believer' it's commonly an "acceptable" practice to poison the well and make any discussion online completely toxic in order to keep reasonable conversation from occurring. From the other side, of course. Your side never does this. You're the good guys. Only the bad guys do that. Of course, if your side did do it, it would only be for the best reasons. And only the other people in your group would do it, you never do that yourself.
jwells89 3y ago
It’s rather remarkable how strong of a tendency Twitter replies have to find something to be angry about once a tweet gets big. The original message can be something as neutral and innocuous as possible and it’ll still receive inflammatory responses. As you say, disagreement isn’t the issue, it’s a lack of basic civility and anybody who isn’t addicted to flameposting will get worn down by it quickly.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It's not even lack of basic civility - it's also a complete lack of intellectual honesty and utter disregard for truth. Civility and intellectual honesty are correlated; being just rude doesn't get you anywhere near the level of typical Twitter outrage bait.
JohnFen 3y ago
> you have to deal with the most hostile interpretation possible of both your words and what you "didn't say". Not just on Twitter, or even on the internet. I see this happen all the time in real life. It's perhaps the primary reason why substantive discussions have become rare: they're often impossible because you can't have real communication when everyone is misinterpreting everyone else.

somedude895 3y ago

> you must be mature enough to be accountable for what you say OP isn't talking about personal accountability but about platforms being afraid to lose advertising dollars or being sued and thus restricting the platforms.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
You’d lose advertising dollars just the same by establishing an ill reputation because of what you say, even without getting and losing a lawsuit.

Fricken 3y ago

The medium is the message. We are no longer in the literary age. The power is in the hands of the mob. You can make some carefully thought out post and try to be accountable for what you say. I can show up in your comment forum, shit all over everything and leave. In the old days you would've had to publish a book to get your message out, and if I saw it a bookstore it wouldn't register, I wouldn't pay money for it, and I wouldn't bother writing an angry letter to send to in the mail because it would have zero capacity to take you down a notch in a public forum. You're talking about old ideas from a more civilized age. Tribalism is back and in charge. The internet isn't here so that we can all get along and better understand one another's point of view. It's here so that we can take turns bashing one another.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That’s not been my experience on HN, out of thousands of comments and interactions with hundreds of different users, maybe a total of a dozen turned out to be random ‘bashers’.
- Fricken 3y ago
  That's how you know you're in an echo chamber. We're all here to pretend like it's still the early days of the internet, before it had come into it's own as a medium, when it was still a skeuomorphic throwback to the literary era.
  - avbanks 3y ago
    I completely disagree with your comment but I have no need to bash you.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Why is the positive experience the echo chamber but the negative experience is a result of the inherent nature of the medium?
    - Fricken 3y ago

rockskon 3y ago

The issue here, as it always is when censors argue that their methods are simply the will of the masses, is that individuals aren't being given the freedom to decide for themselves if they like content or not. It's always the censor that determines what content others are allowed to see. The censor makes the decision on behalf of everyone else and claims their views represent everyone's views and their tastes represent everyone's tastes.