4 ms·

The entire Internet now is a giant confirmation bias machine, which is impressive considering it also exposes you to unlimited conflicting viewpoints no matter

• awesome_dude 1y ago
  It could also be that, that's the kind of world we really live in. Most of the discourse that we see is where groups of people are intersecting that wouldn't really meet in the real world because of the echo chambers we keep. The Americans are often saying that they only see that crank uncle, or their liberal nephew or niece, at thanksgiving, and, honestly, it's the same for the rest of us around the world - we're normally only exposed to the very different viewpoints at family gatherings. IRL we try to avoid conflict, and try not to associate with people that hold views that are vastly different to our own, so much so it's considered "unprofessional" to have the discussions at work that would show how different everyone's (political) viewpoints are in the workplace.
  • jchw 1y ago
    Social media exposes us to more viewpoints than we would normally see, but I think there is actually a such thing as too much. Online communities have the same kind of issue, they really need to strike a balance between being too much of a "circle jerk", and being too fractured and conflict-ridden to have productive discussion. What I think is interesting, though, is that due to the way social media platforms work, you can actually have both a massive circle jerk amongst people that agree with each-other, and constant, unending, vile conflict between people who do not, due to algorithmic feeds. (If anything, they both wind up feeding into each-other.) IRL I think people are often more empathetic and sympathetic, and I think that this environment leads to less polarized opinions even when our exposure to viewpoints is relatively limited. That said, lately, IRL socialization has become quite limited, especially after the COVID-19 lockdowns. Online interactions are just not really the same... especially not limited to text, over heavily manipulated platforms like Twitter/Facebook/etc. Seems a bit contradictory I'm sure, but if the problems of socializing on the Internet were simple and easy to understand, we wouldn't have to talk about it so much :)
    • awesome_dude 1y ago
      > IRL I think people are often more empathetic and sympathetic, and I think that this environment leads to less polarized opinions even when our exposure to viewpoints is relatively limited. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but the only real difference between IRL and online discussions is that online people can get heated at each other without any fear of physical violence. That limiting factor for IRL prevents people from being more frank about their position on whatever. Speaking as someone that has been public on various political positions in the past, I've seen the polarised views forever. I mean, history is littered with stories about polarised sections of societies inflicting actual violence with one another - American examples might be the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the Vietnam war, Drug use (and it's policing alleged as being a way to break up communities that oppose the ruling community) Oh, I should also point out, people like Nixon, Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, etc, don't come into power in a vacuum, they have vast communities of supporters that believe that they are right, and the communities that they oppose are wrong (same goes for the communities that they oppose, vast groups of people that believe they are right and the community that they oppose is wrong)
      • jchw 1y ago
        I think that it's actually not an IRL vs Internet discussion dichotomy FWIW, that oversimplifies things a bit too much. For example, I think sympathy and empathy increases as you go from public interaction in major social platform -> 1-on-1 direct message -> audio call -> video call -> IRL private conversation. Many reasons really. Public interactions have public scrutiny, it often is more of a performance than an authentic social interaction. Text conversations are low bandwidth. All internet conversation carries the burden that things you say may be recorded and used against you. And of course, seeing and hearing a human on the other end just naturally will increase empathy. I hear what you're saying, but I think you are looking at this wrong. I'm not suggesting that IRL social interactions are perfect and Internet ones are hopelessly broken. We have plenty of history to show how IRL social interactions can break down, in small groups or big. What I'm saying is that IRL interactions are better on average than Internet interactions, largely due to the modality and venue that most Internet interactions occur. Edit: also, it is worth noting that there are definitely robust studies that can back up some of these ideas, which may be a good data point to add into this discussion. That said, I am honestly too lazy to go cite sources right now, to be completely honest with you. (And I know HN is rightly a bit skeptical of psychology studies, since you can pretty much find something to validate anything you want, but there are some actually good and interesting ones.)
  • dehrmann 1y ago
    > IRL we try to avoid conflict, and try not to associate with people that hold views that are vastly different to our own... This is what I love about the Iowa caucus system. It's messy, it's physical, it's real, and you might see social consequences for your stance.
• ggm 1y ago
  I simultaneously think this is true and a massive contradiction. A right and a left winger posting on a thread about J6 would both come away convinced of their rectitude, despite actively disagreeing about everything. There is almost no boundary of agreement over facts or intent, just an active disagreement online.
  • nostrademons 1y ago
    Selection bias is the most powerful force known to man, or life for that matter. An Internet where every voice is represented is an Internet with billions and billions of ways for selection bias to make you happy.
• _mu 1y ago
  > I think this is just a natural consequence of structuring everything around engagement. Agree - for me this leads to the conclusion that some services should not be run for-profit, or at least they should be run for public benefit. Similar to how governments in some countries own part of the railway.
  • socalgal2 1y ago
    Doesn't help - even those are heavily biased
    • a123b456c 1y ago
      User ownership could help, if users know what they want
  • rusk 1y ago
    I’m not against for profit so much as the monetisation of engagement. The web has always had a revenue problem. For a time this was solved by “advertising” and that was massively successful and what we see here is the result of that. There has historically been a reluctance to ask people for money - handling money brings a whole host of other unglamorous problems. As we saw with Steam the last few weeks.
    • Kye 1y ago
      The people who have always had trouble finding platforms and payment processors also always had trouble finding advertisers. Random demonetization on YouTube is a huge problem, for example.
      • jchw 1y ago
        Porn, piracy and other questionable sites have always had a lot of fun when it comes to finding advertisers, but it does seem like it's gotten worse over time, encompassing many more sites. It also seems like whether an advertiser is concerned about where exactly their algorithmic ads appear is pretty inconsistent, too. What I think is interesting is that it seems like Japan is less affected by this. I know I've seen major Japanese companies advertising on sites like Pixiv and Misskey, which have both had some trouble with American payment processors. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've seen Ubiquiti ads when browsing Misskey. I guess the anglosphere Internet is somewhat impacted by the presence of more "puritan" influence than some other global packets of the Internet. Not 100% sure what to make of that.
• bdangubic 1y ago
  I disagree :)
• shjfbs 1y ago
  > The entire Internet now is a giant confirmation bias machine Then why does it seem that millennials share more opinions worldwide than any prior generation? Also, doesn’t anyone find it odd that we’re commenting on a post about stopping commenting, without addressing that?
  • dehrmann 1y ago
    > why does it seem that millennials share more opinions worldwide than any prior generation? Not to doubt you, but is this actually the case?
    • thepryz 1y ago
      I’m old enough to remember BBSes and the early Internet. I’d argue that while there were fewer people on the internet, those that were online shared way more than what most are willing to today. There was a certain level of naivety looking back with hindsight.
  • jchw 1y ago
    > Then why does it seem that millennials share more opinions worldwide than any prior generation? That seems sort of tangential to me. > Also, doesn’t anyone find it odd that we’re commenting on a post about stopping commenting, without addressing that? Not at all. I used to comment in a variety of different places across the Internet: discussion forums, image boards, random blogs, Reddit, Digg, etc. The vast majority of places I used to comment have deteriorated significantly or are simply significantly less amenable to actual discourse than they used to be. Hacker News is weird because it feels like an exception. Not the only exception remaining, perhaps not even the best depending on your tastes, but certainly one of them.
    • thepryz 1y ago
      Enjoy it while it lasts? sigh
  • opan 1y ago
    >Then why does it seem that millennials share more opinions worldwide than any prior generation Do you mean "share" as in they're in agreement with each other more often, or share as in they post their opinions online more? I assumed the former initially, but as I read other replies I started to question it.
• afpx 1y ago
  Everyone is A/B testing everything blind. KPIs without Human feedback leads to dystopia.