4 ms·

> lead people to believe that humans are getting nastier over time, even when they’re not Most people aren't nasty or getting nastier but nasty people are like

> lead people to believe that humans are getting nastier over time, even when they’re not Most people aren't nasty or getting nastier but nasty people are likely over represented in those with power and there seems to be a current swing to having more such people getting into positions of power. Added to that is that modern technology and weapons make it easier for a few "bad apples" in power to cause more grief to more people than before.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Their lawyers have recrafted the laws/regulations/courts that used to keep them in check. And now it's a combination of the callously indifferent and the belligerently selfish. Their willingness to ignore their conscience gives them serious business advantages, and their enormous profits have given them too much power. It's all "ends justify the means" fools.
twiceaday 2y ago
Its the media (or more generally group dynamics) too. One side exaggerates how nasty the other side is, which gets people outraged and engaged, then they act nasty to them because its 'justified.' It also creates a feedback loop where regardless of what the other side did originally they are now much more likely to be nasty to your side simply because you were nasty to them. Maximizing engagement like this necessarily destabilizes discourse. There is a huge monetary incentive to maximizing engagement, while there is only a mild philosophical one to stabilizing discourse, so guess which one loses.
- beej71 2y ago
  IMHO this nails it. I finally caved to one of those "balanced news" sites because someone had a 50%-off sale. They have a feature where you can see news stories that are being ignored by either liberal or conservative outlets. It's damned fascinating, tempered by the fact that it's also damned terrifying that the populace as a whole is being controlled by it... and also that the future President of the US is trying to control it. But maybe that's just me falling into the trap TFA talks about. :)
inglor_cz 2y ago
Social network algorithms tend to promote nasty people and their polarizing comments, so for a person which lives online, their belief that humans are getting nastier is colored by their everyday interactions. It is good that gentle people still exist and may, in fact, be very numerous, but is it still as good if their ability to contribute to societal norms is diminished?
nonameiguess 2y ago
I highly doubt this. It feels like just another symptom of what they're describing here about memory versus present experience. Ask me if I think Trump seems nastier than Reagan and yeah, he does. But that's because I have a living impression of both of them and I was a child when Reagan was president. I can't say Putin is nastier than Stalin, or Trump is nastier than Andrew Jackson. Macron isn't worse than Napoleon. Merkel isn't worse than Hitler. History has some really shitty, nasty leaders in it, and I can't look at today and say this is worse than notable really bad times.

MrMcCall 2y ago

Their lawyers have recrafted the laws/regulations/courts that used to keep them in check. And now it's a combination of the callously indifferent and the belligerently selfish. Their willingness to ignore their conscience gives them serious business advantages, and their enormous profits have given them too much power. It's all "ends justify the means" fools.

twiceaday 2y ago

Its the media (or more generally group dynamics) too. One side exaggerates how nasty the other side is, which gets people outraged and engaged, then they act nasty to them because its 'justified.' It also creates a feedback loop where regardless of what the other side did originally they are now much more likely to be nasty to your side simply because you were nasty to them. Maximizing engagement like this necessarily destabilizes discourse. There is a huge monetary incentive to maximizing engagement, while there is only a mild philosophical one to stabilizing discourse, so guess which one loses.

beej71 2y ago
IMHO this nails it. I finally caved to one of those "balanced news" sites because someone had a 50%-off sale. They have a feature where you can see news stories that are being ignored by either liberal or conservative outlets. It's damned fascinating, tempered by the fact that it's also damned terrifying that the populace as a whole is being controlled by it... and also that the future President of the US is trying to control it. But maybe that's just me falling into the trap TFA talks about. :)

inglor_cz 2y ago

Social network algorithms tend to promote nasty people and their polarizing comments, so for a person which lives online, their belief that humans are getting nastier is colored by their everyday interactions. It is good that gentle people still exist and may, in fact, be very numerous, but is it still as good if their ability to contribute to societal norms is diminished?

nonameiguess 2y ago

I highly doubt this. It feels like just another symptom of what they're describing here about memory versus present experience. Ask me if I think Trump seems nastier than Reagan and yeah, he does. But that's because I have a living impression of both of them and I was a child when Reagan was president. I can't say Putin is nastier than Stalin, or Trump is nastier than Andrew Jackson. Macron isn't worse than Napoleon. Merkel isn't worse than Hitler. History has some really shitty, nasty leaders in it, and I can't look at today and say this is worse than notable really bad times.