3 ms·

> but the real world is far worse Do you have an example? I’ve also found in-person interactions to be significantly better than what you’ll find in online com

> but the real world is far worse Do you have an example? I’ve also found in-person interactions to be significantly better than what you’ll find in online communities. In my experience, the Internet seems to magnify our worst tendencies, and brings out a side of people that they would not otherwise show in public. The Internet was once the place you describe, but has rapidly decayed, and I’m intentionally spending less and less time using it as a result.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Do you have an example? It is hard to give a concrete example; this is more of a general sentiment. In my experience, the internet does not necessarily magnify the worst tendencies, but rather on the web people are more honest and direct than in the real life. In the real life, people love to present themselves in a "masked" and "fake" way: nice and polite on the surface, but in reality waiting for the next opportunity to double-cross you. On the internet, there is much less discrepancy between their masking and their behaviour: if you only look at the surface, the web might seem more toxic, because there is less masking and sugar-coating (i.e. more honesty). But if you are willing to look beyond the surface both of the real world and the web, you'll see the opposite: more honesty and less unexpected double-crossing. Thus: if you are the kind of person that can easily be deceived by people who are "masking", "acting" and "faking" in the real world, then I can understand why you might consider the web to be a little bit toxic. But if you are willing to look beyond the surface, it is completely the other way round.
- haswell 3y ago
  > On the internet, there is much less discrepancy between their masking and their behaviour: if you only look at the surface, the web might seem more toxic, because there is less masking and sugar-coating (i.e. more honesty) There’s a huge difference between being blunt/honest and the kind of abusive bad faith toxicity oozing with ad hominem and all forms of logical fallacy that make up the average thread on popular social networks. The difference I’m talking about is not just about politeness, but about people’s willingness to have a good faith conversation and to see the other participant as another human being vs. a faceless other/enemy who is apparently so evil that all manners of abusive language is considered justified. This is especially prevalent in anything related to politics. In the real world, I know and can have decent conversations with people even when we firmly disagree. Is this just us putting on a mask? Maybe so. But the end result is a result where we usually come away understanding each other a bit better, even if we still disagree on policies. The anger/hate filled dialogue version of this conversation that happens online gets no one anywhere. The utility of the online discussion is often close to zero, because everyone involved goes into rage mode at which point no one is hearing anyone. And even if it’s true that the online version is just the unfiltered version, that isn’t a ringing endorsement. If anything, it highlights the issue that the medium degrades our ability to relate to the other people we interact with, and this is important considering all of our psychological machinery has evolved around in-person human interactions. If everyone behaved the way they behave online in the real world, the real world would be a far more violent place. There are a few places left (like this one) that still value good faith, especially in the face of disagreement. But this has all but disappeared with minor exceptions in the prevalent online communities. It’s one of the reasons Reddit is a place I only go for football these days, when at one time, it was my primary online social outlet. And don’t get me started on Facebook/Twitter. For what it’s worth, I’m in my late 30s, and have been participating in internet communities since I was 12. This is a shift that was gradual at first, but has accelerated in the social media era.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> Do you have an example? It is hard to give a concrete example; this is more of a general sentiment. In my experience, the internet does not necessarily magnify the worst tendencies, but rather on the web people are more honest and direct than in the real life. In the real life, people love to present themselves in a "masked" and "fake" way: nice and polite on the surface, but in reality waiting for the next opportunity to double-cross you. On the internet, there is much less discrepancy between their masking and their behaviour: if you only look at the surface, the web might seem more toxic, because there is less masking and sugar-coating (i.e. more honesty). But if you are willing to look beyond the surface both of the real world and the web, you'll see the opposite: more honesty and less unexpected double-crossing. Thus: if you are the kind of person that can easily be deceived by people who are "masking", "acting" and "faking" in the real world, then I can understand why you might consider the web to be a little bit toxic. But if you are willing to look beyond the surface, it is completely the other way round.

haswell 3y ago
> On the internet, there is much less discrepancy between their masking and their behaviour: if you only look at the surface, the web might seem more toxic, because there is less masking and sugar-coating (i.e. more honesty) There’s a huge difference between being blunt/honest and the kind of abusive bad faith toxicity oozing with ad hominem and all forms of logical fallacy that make up the average thread on popular social networks. The difference I’m talking about is not just about politeness, but about people’s willingness to have a good faith conversation and to see the other participant as another human being vs. a faceless other/enemy who is apparently so evil that all manners of abusive language is considered justified. This is especially prevalent in anything related to politics. In the real world, I know and can have decent conversations with people even when we firmly disagree. Is this just us putting on a mask? Maybe so. But the end result is a result where we usually come away understanding each other a bit better, even if we still disagree on policies. The anger/hate filled dialogue version of this conversation that happens online gets no one anywhere. The utility of the online discussion is often close to zero, because everyone involved goes into rage mode at which point no one is hearing anyone. And even if it’s true that the online version is just the unfiltered version, that isn’t a ringing endorsement. If anything, it highlights the issue that the medium degrades our ability to relate to the other people we interact with, and this is important considering all of our psychological machinery has evolved around in-person human interactions. If everyone behaved the way they behave online in the real world, the real world would be a far more violent place. There are a few places left (like this one) that still value good faith, especially in the face of disagreement. But this has all but disappeared with minor exceptions in the prevalent online communities. It’s one of the reasons Reddit is a place I only go for football these days, when at one time, it was my primary online social outlet. And don’t get me started on Facebook/Twitter. For what it’s worth, I’m in my late 30s, and have been participating in internet communities since I was 12. This is a shift that was gradual at first, but has accelerated in the social media era.