60 ms·

> The fediverse makes these bubbles so much worse, with servers of like minded moderation creating a trend towards groupthink as opposed to representing a varie

> The fediverse makes these bubbles so much worse, with servers of like minded moderation creating a trend towards groupthink as opposed to representing a variety of opinions. You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed. > regression towards the normal mean. Yeah, the normal mean is something to strive for... If it already benefits you.

naasking 3y ago
> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed. Creating a space where you don't have to face the fact that your fellow humans are sexist or racist is the very definition of a bubble.
tired-turtle 3y ago
What you described as a safe space can quickly become, ironically, an intolerant one, albeit not for you, as you self-selected by joining. I think OP is addressing the paradox of tolerance, hence the call for differing but not hateful opinions. There’s a fine line between the two and cloistering oneself among likeminded people seems to inevitably lead to some form of intolerance.
nindalf 3y ago
No one questions that living in a bubble is comfortable. But your comfort comes at a cost, which is that people you disagree with aren’t exposed to disagreements with you. They’re now in a bubble (or “safe space”) where everyone agrees with them, so they’re more convinced than ever that they’re right. And yeah ok, you say that’s not your responsibility. That’s fine, but then you shouldn’t be surprised when society is torn apart by these differences.
- john-radio 3y ago
  This comment is the slippery slope fallacy because the person responding to you has rightly pointed out that not every situation that's described as a "groupthink bubble" actually is one; sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. Maybe the assholes getting shown the door in such situations always tell themselves that "Society is about to get torn apart by me getting treated this way" but thinking it does not make it so.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. When they exit, the remainders are going to more and more normalize these, as more and more of the moderates exit. Eventually it could even become the default norm.
    - mananaysiempre 3y ago
      (The process has occasionally been compared to evaporative cooling[1].) [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
  - Jerrrry 3y ago
    >sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. those people were formed due to and in part of a bubble; and denying them the opportunity to have their bubble popped as it causes you discomfort is the exact opposite of being able to express oneself at all - it always comes with the chance of making someone uncomfortable. "In order to be able to think, you must risk being offended." -JP, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BW9haau6Hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BW9haau6Hw
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      I’m really confused here. Are you saying black people live in a bubble for not wanting slurs thrown at them? It’s not like black people are unfamiliar with that word or the word is particularly enlightening? Who are we making uncomfortable by barring calling black people racial slurs, here? This is absolutely baffling logic when applied to racial slurs and black people.
      - heavyset_go 3y ago
        [flagged]
- andyjohnson0 3y ago
  > But your comfort comes at a cost, which is that people you disagree with aren’t exposed to disagreements with you. Whats the alternative? That most shared discourse happens in a single space? I think its fairly clear that that doesn't work so well when everyone has write access to that space: it either dissolves into q conflict zone, or bubbles form within it, or both. Before social media there was less of a problem because of gatekeeping by traditional journalism and state regulation, and because print media moves too slowly to permit high-freqency positive feedback loops to form. I'm not suggesting going back to the situation before social media, but I'm not convinced that "comfortable bubbles" are the main problem. I suspect that the frequency and scale of discourse are at least as important.
marcinzm 3y ago
Bubbles are safe until the day you realize a bubble that would like you dead has now grown large enough to vote in a like minded government in your country. Then nothing is safe.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  Jesus Christ the hyperbole. Name a single example of a country where a government that "wants certain people dead" has been voted in recently, other than such countries where this has been happening for decades anyway without social media even existing.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    That's the pint isn't it? Social media is relatively recent however I'd say all those countries you tried to discount essentially had real life bubbles of various sorts.
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      Social media has been around for 15+ years. That's 3-4 election cycles in most countries. And the way I see it, the same kind of people are getting voted in that have been for decades. Yes, that includes Trump, who is just Reagan with a fouler mouth.
  - kaffeeringe 3y ago
    Myanmar. USA. They only didn't succeed with their coup.
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      Myanmar has been in a nearly continuous civil war for decades. It's a failed state and always has been. That has nothing to do with social media. And no US government in recent history, including the one before the current one, had killing people on their agenda. That's just complete and utter horseshit.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
flagrant_taco 3y ago
> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed. There is a real risk that avoiding topics or people one finds offensive can make a person less resilient. Its a totally reasonable response to the internet where you have the opposite problem of being exposed to more than you otherwise would have, but creating too tight of a bubble can have downsides.

naasking 3y ago

> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed. Creating a space where you don't have to face the fact that your fellow humans are sexist or racist is the very definition of a bubble.

tired-turtle 3y ago

What you described as a safe space can quickly become, ironically, an intolerant one, albeit not for you, as you self-selected by joining. I think OP is addressing the paradox of tolerance, hence the call for differing but not hateful opinions. There’s a fine line between the two and cloistering oneself among likeminded people seems to inevitably lead to some form of intolerance.

nindalf 3y ago

No one questions that living in a bubble is comfortable. But your comfort comes at a cost, which is that people you disagree with aren’t exposed to disagreements with you. They’re now in a bubble (or “safe space”) where everyone agrees with them, so they’re more convinced than ever that they’re right. And yeah ok, you say that’s not your responsibility. That’s fine, but then you shouldn’t be surprised when society is torn apart by these differences.

john-radio 3y ago
This comment is the slippery slope fallacy because the person responding to you has rightly pointed out that not every situation that's described as a "groupthink bubble" actually is one; sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. Maybe the assholes getting shown the door in such situations always tell themselves that "Society is about to get torn apart by me getting treated this way" but thinking it does not make it so.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. When they exit, the remainders are going to more and more normalize these, as more and more of the moderates exit. Eventually it could even become the default norm.
  - mananaysiempre 3y ago
    (The process has occasionally been compared to evaporative cooling[1].) [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
- Jerrrry 3y ago
  >sometimes it's just people not wanting to hang out with guys who drop the N-word "as a joke" or overtly support authoritarianism or whatever. those people were formed due to and in part of a bubble; and denying them the opportunity to have their bubble popped as it causes you discomfort is the exact opposite of being able to express oneself at all - it always comes with the chance of making someone uncomfortable. "In order to be able to think, you must risk being offended." -JP, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BW9haau6Hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BW9haau6Hw
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    I’m really confused here. Are you saying black people live in a bubble for not wanting slurs thrown at them? It’s not like black people are unfamiliar with that word or the word is particularly enlightening? Who are we making uncomfortable by barring calling black people racial slurs, here? This is absolutely baffling logic when applied to racial slurs and black people.
    - heavyset_go 3y ago
      [flagged]
andyjohnson0 3y ago
> But your comfort comes at a cost, which is that people you disagree with aren’t exposed to disagreements with you. Whats the alternative? That most shared discourse happens in a single space? I think its fairly clear that that doesn't work so well when everyone has write access to that space: it either dissolves into q conflict zone, or bubbles form within it, or both. Before social media there was less of a problem because of gatekeeping by traditional journalism and state regulation, and because print media moves too slowly to permit high-freqency positive feedback loops to form. I'm not suggesting going back to the situation before social media, but I'm not convinced that "comfortable bubbles" are the main problem. I suspect that the frequency and scale of discourse are at least as important.

marcinzm 3y ago

Bubbles are safe until the day you realize a bubble that would like you dead has now grown large enough to vote in a like minded government in your country. Then nothing is safe.

p-e-w 3y ago
Jesus Christ the hyperbole. Name a single example of a country where a government that "wants certain people dead" has been voted in recently, other than such countries where this has been happening for decades anyway without social media even existing.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  That's the pint isn't it? Social media is relatively recent however I'd say all those countries you tried to discount essentially had real life bubbles of various sorts.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    Social media has been around for 15+ years. That's 3-4 election cycles in most countries. And the way I see it, the same kind of people are getting voted in that have been for decades. Yes, that includes Trump, who is just Reagan with a fouler mouth.
- kaffeeringe 3y ago
  Myanmar. USA. They only didn't succeed with their coup.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    Myanmar has been in a nearly continuous civil war for decades. It's a failed state and always has been. That has nothing to do with social media. And no US government in recent history, including the one before the current one, had killing people on their agenda. That's just complete and utter horseshit.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

flagrant_taco 3y ago

> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed. There is a real risk that avoiding topics or people one finds offensive can make a person less resilient. Its a totally reasonable response to the internet where you have the opposite problem of being exposed to more than you otherwise would have, but creating too tight of a bubble can have downsides.