3 ms·

Comments you see on the Internet are not a random sample! If there's one lesson I could drive home to everyone about media literacy, this is it. Everything you

Comments you see on the Internet are not a random sample! If there's one lesson I could drive home to everyone about media literacy, this is it. Everything you see online is intensely, competitively selected for its ability to drive engagement, and celebrating murder drives a ton of engagement precisely because it transgresses well-established and widely agreed norms. Indeed, as we've seen here, the murder drives so much engagement that people are eager to discuss it in the comments of any article that's even tangentially related!

standardUser 2y ago
> Everything you see online is intensely, competitively selected for its ability to drive engagement Mostly you're seeing accounts/sites you follow and choose to view and often those accounts have a consistent set of commenters. It's not like you log and the internet shows you entirely random things every time.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  If you're viewing "Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, news articles, et al", that's usually not so. Each of these platforms optimize their default views to show you the content they expect will be most engaging, although the first three apply some algorithmic filtering to try and make the content engaging to you in particular rather than the average viewer. Equally importantly, the content that gets produced is subject to this same filter. If you think the killer was justified, or you think the impulse to justify the killer shows everything that's wrong with America, you'll be excited to go write out a banger Tweet on the topic. If you have the boring, conventional view that all murders are tragic and you hope killers are brought to justice for the sake of the victim's friends and family, it's not going to occur to you to comment on this particular one.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    Let’s not forget if you go against the grain and post “people are celebrating murder, which is gross” you are probably going to get downvoted—even on this site! This whole celebration of murder thing is so bizarre. The fact it seems to be the default “way to get upvotes” and speaking out is “downvote city” is… well… disconcerting to say the least.
    - standardUser 2y ago
      It speaks to the deep and broad frustration among Americans towards our healthcare system. This isn't just executives or politicians "screwing people over" like we see in so many other realms. There's a significant number of Americans who love someone who has actually died or suffered severer/permanent physical distress for the sake of insurance company profits. When someone's family gets blown up from the sky and that someone becomes a terrorist willing to use violence against the party they blame for their family members death, we may not like it but we don't pretend to not understand it. Similarly we can't pretend to not understand this phenomenon.
      - IncreasePosts 2y ago
        We actually have no sure idea what the motives of the individual were. There's the obvious angle. Then, maybe Thompson paid someone to kill him, so his family could get an insurance payout. Maybe Thompson was fucking the shooter's ex girlfriend, and he wanted to mislead investigators as to why Thompson was killed. Maybe it's a Russian operation to sow discord in the US. Etc
        standardUser 2y ago
        We have a good idea. Not no idea. And we know exactly how people are responding to the killing, regardless of motive, so we don't have to split hairs on that at all.
        IncreasePosts 2y ago
        We know how people chronically on social media are responding to the killing
        standardUser 2y ago
        Do you not have friends? A social network of your own? People I know are responding in a similar fashion to what we are seeing all over the entire spectrum of online media.
computerthings 2y ago
He ran the health insurance company that holds the record in denied claims in the US. I think that's why hardly anyone sheds a tear. Right now, the culturally transgressive thing to do is, say, make youtube videos about how shocking it is for the public to have no love for this CEO, and then getting ratio'd, everywhere, all the time. What do find troubling is the glorification of the killer. We know nothing about his motives, might be a paid hit, whatever. But I attribute part of that to being basically drunk on the fact that people really enjoy that this CEO -- as a faceless representative of a whole class of people -- got killed. And they genuinely do enjoy he did, not necessarily for noble reasons, but it's not "really about something else". The problem boils down to the abuser reacting in shock at backlash, instead of realizing they've abused people into genuinely hating them this much.
- computerthings 2y ago
  So I "checked", so to speak, instead of just going by the random things I saw, and yes, it's everywhere. Where people can speak freely, this is what they say. There is nothing wrong with any of these people. The only noteworthy thing here are the attempts to smear or silence them. CNN: "Some social media users seem to lack sympathy for the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s death" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcY38-ILjos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcY38-ILjos top voted 10 comments as of now: > A "civilized society" doesn't allow its citizens to suffer and die needlessly so that insurance CEOs get filthy rich. > CNN doesn't get to dictate how people should feel. > How many people died to fund the CEO's lifestyle? > You can see how fox and cnn suddenly have the same opinion when it comes to safety of elites > Shut up, CNN. Your days of being relevant are running out anyways. The people have spoken. > I love how the media, complicit in the war against the poor, tells the poor how they can and cannot express their anger. > We're giving back the same sympathy that was given to us. > No. You’re not going to tell me I need to have sympathy for someone who spent his life and career without sympathy for others. Not being sad a bad person died does not mean something is wrong with me. > Finally, something all Americans can be UNITED against > You're morale grandstanding for a mass murdering pyschopath. The CEO was a monster. MSNBC: "What the online reaction to CEO's killing reveals about America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zY1phtEuT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zY1phtEuT4 top voted 15 comments as of now: > So the problem is social media? Why aren't they talking about the real problem? The appalling US healthcare system. > Celebrate murder?? normalizing insurance companies is celebrating murder, you hypocrites. > His $10 million salary was $10 million of healthcare that was denied. How many people had to die for that $10 million. Healthcare should not be for profit. Do you get it now? > This clip is all the proof we need that corporate media is more out of touch with the average person than ever before. > 3:50 So you want to censor valid public opinion rather than address the root issues leading to such opinions? Good to know. > These elite people sitting at a round table discussing how the peasants are behaving! Not once did the hint at that just maybe the insurance companies should evaluate their policies > The only people who are surprised by this reaction are the talking heads. The media is more out of touch than ever. > We keep being told that the deaths of poor and middle class people (old and young) is not a problem for the system. Then a fat rich man gets killed because of his greedy actions and the upper class is shocked that we say “it is not a problem”. That is part of the problem. > So the lesson we learned is to silence people online? Get a grip. People aren’t upset that he was murdered, because he runs a company that denies care that leads to people’s deaths. “We’re normalizing murder”… well we’ve already normalized it for companies like UHC, why is this so different? Because we don’t have it on video? > this woman says we should be outraged at the murder of a human being, ok, then why are we not equally outraged at the murder of thousands caused by the frivolous denial of life saving care by these insurance companies? Where is the outrage at that and why are those deaths acceptable?

standardUser 2y ago

> Everything you see online is intensely, competitively selected for its ability to drive engagement Mostly you're seeing accounts/sites you follow and choose to view and often those accounts have a consistent set of commenters. It's not like you log and the internet shows you entirely random things every time.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
If you're viewing "Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, news articles, et al", that's usually not so. Each of these platforms optimize their default views to show you the content they expect will be most engaging, although the first three apply some algorithmic filtering to try and make the content engaging to you in particular rather than the average viewer. Equally importantly, the content that gets produced is subject to this same filter. If you think the killer was justified, or you think the impulse to justify the killer shows everything that's wrong with America, you'll be excited to go write out a banger Tweet on the topic. If you have the boring, conventional view that all murders are tragic and you hope killers are brought to justice for the sake of the victim's friends and family, it's not going to occur to you to comment on this particular one.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  Let’s not forget if you go against the grain and post “people are celebrating murder, which is gross” you are probably going to get downvoted—even on this site! This whole celebration of murder thing is so bizarre. The fact it seems to be the default “way to get upvotes” and speaking out is “downvote city” is… well… disconcerting to say the least.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    It speaks to the deep and broad frustration among Americans towards our healthcare system. This isn't just executives or politicians "screwing people over" like we see in so many other realms. There's a significant number of Americans who love someone who has actually died or suffered severer/permanent physical distress for the sake of insurance company profits. When someone's family gets blown up from the sky and that someone becomes a terrorist willing to use violence against the party they blame for their family members death, we may not like it but we don't pretend to not understand it. Similarly we can't pretend to not understand this phenomenon.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      We actually have no sure idea what the motives of the individual were. There's the obvious angle. Then, maybe Thompson paid someone to kill him, so his family could get an insurance payout. Maybe Thompson was fucking the shooter's ex girlfriend, and he wanted to mislead investigators as to why Thompson was killed. Maybe it's a Russian operation to sow discord in the US. Etc
      - standardUser 2y ago
        We have a good idea. Not no idea. And we know exactly how people are responding to the killing, regardless of motive, so we don't have to split hairs on that at all.
        IncreasePosts 2y ago
        We know how people chronically on social media are responding to the killing
        standardUser 2y ago
        Do you not have friends? A social network of your own? People I know are responding in a similar fashion to what we are seeing all over the entire spectrum of online media.

computerthings 2y ago

He ran the health insurance company that holds the record in denied claims in the US. I think that's why hardly anyone sheds a tear. Right now, the culturally transgressive thing to do is, say, make youtube videos about how shocking it is for the public to have no love for this CEO, and then getting ratio'd, everywhere, all the time. What do find troubling is the glorification of the killer. We know nothing about his motives, might be a paid hit, whatever. But I attribute part of that to being basically drunk on the fact that people really enjoy that this CEO -- as a faceless representative of a whole class of people -- got killed. And they genuinely do enjoy he did, not necessarily for noble reasons, but it's not "really about something else". The problem boils down to the abuser reacting in shock at backlash, instead of realizing they've abused people into genuinely hating them this much.

computerthings 2y ago
So I "checked", so to speak, instead of just going by the random things I saw, and yes, it's everywhere. Where people can speak freely, this is what they say. There is nothing wrong with any of these people. The only noteworthy thing here are the attempts to smear or silence them. CNN: "Some social media users seem to lack sympathy for the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s death" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcY38-ILjos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcY38-ILjos top voted 10 comments as of now: > A "civilized society" doesn't allow its citizens to suffer and die needlessly so that insurance CEOs get filthy rich. > CNN doesn't get to dictate how people should feel. > How many people died to fund the CEO's lifestyle? > You can see how fox and cnn suddenly have the same opinion when it comes to safety of elites > Shut up, CNN. Your days of being relevant are running out anyways. The people have spoken. > I love how the media, complicit in the war against the poor, tells the poor how they can and cannot express their anger. > We're giving back the same sympathy that was given to us. > No. You’re not going to tell me I need to have sympathy for someone who spent his life and career without sympathy for others. Not being sad a bad person died does not mean something is wrong with me. > Finally, something all Americans can be UNITED against > You're morale grandstanding for a mass murdering pyschopath. The CEO was a monster. MSNBC: "What the online reaction to CEO's killing reveals about America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zY1phtEuT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zY1phtEuT4 top voted 15 comments as of now: > So the problem is social media? Why aren't they talking about the real problem? The appalling US healthcare system. > Celebrate murder?? normalizing insurance companies is celebrating murder, you hypocrites. > His $10 million salary was $10 million of healthcare that was denied. How many people had to die for that $10 million. Healthcare should not be for profit. Do you get it now? > This clip is all the proof we need that corporate media is more out of touch with the average person than ever before. > 3:50 So you want to censor valid public opinion rather than address the root issues leading to such opinions? Good to know. > These elite people sitting at a round table discussing how the peasants are behaving! Not once did the hint at that just maybe the insurance companies should evaluate their policies > The only people who are surprised by this reaction are the talking heads. The media is more out of touch than ever. > We keep being told that the deaths of poor and middle class people (old and young) is not a problem for the system. Then a fat rich man gets killed because of his greedy actions and the upper class is shocked that we say “it is not a problem”. That is part of the problem. > So the lesson we learned is to silence people online? Get a grip. People aren’t upset that he was murdered, because he runs a company that denies care that leads to people’s deaths. “We’re normalizing murder”… well we’ve already normalized it for companies like UHC, why is this so different? Because we don’t have it on video? > this woman says we should be outraged at the murder of a human being, ok, then why are we not equally outraged at the murder of thousands caused by the frivolous denial of life saving care by these insurance companies? Where is the outrage at that and why are those deaths acceptable?