3 ms·

It's not even centered on the US. I personally think the Internet just desensitized us all. Reasons for that are easy to come up, imo chief among them being we

by ffsm8 1y ago

It's not even centered on the US. I personally think the Internet just desensitized us all. Reasons for that are easy to come up, imo chief among them being web2.0 (social media) and the ever increasing degree with which people exaggerate everything just to get a reaction. Under that context, what's a little skirt chasing compared to what people usually say about the politicians? And how are you gonna remember he did something a few months ago, when so many more extreme things have happened since? Really, I feel like social media will be considered the most destructive force to society in 20-50 yrs

Volker-E 1y ago
Agreed by all, but one: In 0 years.
avhception 1y ago
It's like watching the public discourse devolve into ever more screaming and posturing. The only winning move is not to play. Sometimes I find myself thinking about that experiment with the perfect rat paradise. The overpopulation got so bad, the normal social functions of the rats started to break down and the rats started acting like sociopaths. Sometimes, I think that's what we're doing to ourselves by exposing the average human to millions of voices through the internet. Of course, ironically, I'm ignoring my own advice and still engage with the Internet. Though I mostly keep to HN and some IRC.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  https://old.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/q4k070/has_john_b_calhouns_mouse_utopia_experiments_been/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/q4k07...
- NavinF 1y ago
  The mouse utopia experiment is mostly fake and researchers who reproduced the experiment didn't see any of those behaviors: https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia It was just as wrong as predictions about human overpopulation like Malthusianism
  - avhception 1y ago
    Oh thanks, I didn't know that! TIL!
- XorNot 1y ago
  But you're doing more then that: even in what you call a crisis you are refusing to engage with specific issues, resorting still to generalities and calls about "both sides". Like there are any number of extremely specific issues which are not "screaming and posturing" unless you're dead set on not talking about them.
  - avhception 1y ago
    Huh? "Both" sides? I didn't even think about any sides, much less specifically two of them. My comment wasn't even necessarily about online discussions concerning politics. It was just as much about, for example, the way people show off their fake-successful influencer-lifestyle or something like that. The ways that social media causes bad feelings like jealousy, for example.
Henchman21 1y ago
It’s almost like the correct action to take would be a Luddite-style wrench-in-the-works. Sabotage in service of humanity. And as an added bonus, think of all the electricity we’d get back!
- johntarter 1y ago
  Bring on the Bureau of Sabotage from Frank Herbert's ConSentiency universe books!
  - Henchman21 1y ago
    I will settle for a Butlerian Jihad to destroy the "thinking machines"
    - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
      So we can all be forced into a feudal caste system and become mortally dependent on eugenically-bred drugged-up subcastes?
      - Henchman21 1y ago
        The survival of the species demands it.
        eli_gottlieb 1y ago
        Says you and your hallucinogenic-induced "psychic visions".
usefulcat 1y ago
30 years ago in the US, there were a handful of major TV news outlets, and most people got their news from one of those and/or a newspaper, of which there were also a limited number. The thing about those sources is that for the most part, it wasn't really economically viable to alienate half the population by leaning hard right or left. Any reduction in audience would likely translate to a commensurate reduction in advertising revenue. Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' available in various forms around the internet, and of course people are free to choose what to pay attention to. This means it's entirely feasible for each source to cater to a particular viewpoint, even at the expense of definitely alienating half or more of the theoretical potential audience. I theorize that the reason for this is that people have voted with their feet, balanced sources aren't as profitable and that's why there are fewer of them. It makes sense, a more balanced take on events is by definition not nearly as sensational, and almost always requires more mental effort on the part of the listener. That by itself would probably be enough to explain the current situation, but on top of that, we also have the fact that many people receive the above mentioned information via algorithms designed to feed them more of what they already like (i.e. agree with) and nothing else, which of course only amplifies the effect further. I have no idea how we get out of this situation (or if in fact we will), but in my mind it's not surprising at all.
- panopticon 1y ago
  The cracks in the media were already visible 30 years ago. Conservative talk radio was taking off, people were beginning to call CNN "Clinton News Network", and Fox News was right around the corner. There was clearly an appetite—and a market—for partisan news. This was further fueled by the growth of national radio and TV networks that were less beholden to capturing local audiences. I think the internet just supercharged a change that was already well underway.
  - tstrimple 1y ago
    Agreed. And Democrats were fucking stupid and decided to just ignore all of the systems Republicans were putting into place over decades. There are multiple conservative think tanks who approve supreme court nominations and spearhead Republican policy. They have been working on it for decades. It's unfortunate that the only political party in this country which can look to the future an make long term plans is the one most likely to follow the Nazi party into the history books.

by ffsm8 1y ago

Volker-E 1y ago

Agreed by all, but one: In 0 years.

avhception 1y ago

It's like watching the public discourse devolve into ever more screaming and posturing. The only winning move is not to play. Sometimes I find myself thinking about that experiment with the perfect rat paradise. The overpopulation got so bad, the normal social functions of the rats started to break down and the rats started acting like sociopaths. Sometimes, I think that's what we're doing to ourselves by exposing the average human to millions of voices through the internet. Of course, ironically, I'm ignoring my own advice and still engage with the Internet. Though I mostly keep to HN and some IRC.

heavyset_go 1y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/q4k070/has_john_b_calhouns_mouse_utopia_experiments_been/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/q4k07...
NavinF 1y ago
The mouse utopia experiment is mostly fake and researchers who reproduced the experiment didn't see any of those behaviors: https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia It was just as wrong as predictions about human overpopulation like Malthusianism
- avhception 1y ago
  Oh thanks, I didn't know that! TIL!
XorNot 1y ago
But you're doing more then that: even in what you call a crisis you are refusing to engage with specific issues, resorting still to generalities and calls about "both sides". Like there are any number of extremely specific issues which are not "screaming and posturing" unless you're dead set on not talking about them.
- avhception 1y ago
  Huh? "Both" sides? I didn't even think about any sides, much less specifically two of them. My comment wasn't even necessarily about online discussions concerning politics. It was just as much about, for example, the way people show off their fake-successful influencer-lifestyle or something like that. The ways that social media causes bad feelings like jealousy, for example.

Henchman21 1y ago

It’s almost like the correct action to take would be a Luddite-style wrench-in-the-works. Sabotage in service of humanity. And as an added bonus, think of all the electricity we’d get back!

johntarter 1y ago
Bring on the Bureau of Sabotage from Frank Herbert's ConSentiency universe books!
- Henchman21 1y ago
  I will settle for a Butlerian Jihad to destroy the "thinking machines"
  - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
    So we can all be forced into a feudal caste system and become mortally dependent on eugenically-bred drugged-up subcastes?
    - Henchman21 1y ago
      The survival of the species demands it.
      - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
        Says you and your hallucinogenic-induced "psychic visions".

usefulcat 1y ago

30 years ago in the US, there were a handful of major TV news outlets, and most people got their news from one of those and/or a newspaper, of which there were also a limited number. The thing about those sources is that for the most part, it wasn't really economically viable to alienate half the population by leaning hard right or left. Any reduction in audience would likely translate to a commensurate reduction in advertising revenue. Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' available in various forms around the internet, and of course people are free to choose what to pay attention to. This means it's entirely feasible for each source to cater to a particular viewpoint, even at the expense of definitely alienating half or more of the theoretical potential audience. I theorize that the reason for this is that people have voted with their feet, balanced sources aren't as profitable and that's why there are fewer of them. It makes sense, a more balanced take on events is by definition not nearly as sensational, and almost always requires more mental effort on the part of the listener. That by itself would probably be enough to explain the current situation, but on top of that, we also have the fact that many people receive the above mentioned information via algorithms designed to feed them more of what they already like (i.e. agree with) and nothing else, which of course only amplifies the effect further. I have no idea how we get out of this situation (or if in fact we will), but in my mind it's not surprising at all.

panopticon 1y ago
The cracks in the media were already visible 30 years ago. Conservative talk radio was taking off, people were beginning to call CNN "Clinton News Network", and Fox News was right around the corner. There was clearly an appetite—and a market—for partisan news. This was further fueled by the growth of national radio and TV networks that were less beholden to capturing local audiences. I think the internet just supercharged a change that was already well underway.
- tstrimple 1y ago
  Agreed. And Democrats were fucking stupid and decided to just ignore all of the systems Republicans were putting into place over decades. There are multiple conservative think tanks who approve supreme court nominations and spearhead Republican policy. They have been working on it for decades. It's unfortunate that the only political party in this country which can look to the future an make long term plans is the one most likely to follow the Nazi party into the history books.