3 ms·

> the mass social media is trending sharply towards being a 100% troll mill I agree. It's one reason I still come to HN and it's one of the few places I bothe

> the mass social media is trending sharply towards being a 100% troll mill I agree. It's one reason I still come to HN and it's one of the few places I bother to comment (and the only place with more than a few dozen users). The moderation and community culture against trolling makes it a generally positive experience. I do still need breaks sometimes, though, for a few months at a time. I'd love an online community where everyone was having discussions only in good faith. Zero trolling. I can dream.

9rx 9mo ago
> I'd love an online community where everyone was having discussions only in good faith. That's already readily available outside. The whole appeal of online 'communities' is that it is not that.
- rootusrootus 9mo ago
  The appeal of an online community is having members who participate in bad faith? That's an angle I hadn't expected.
  - 9rx 9mo ago
    Sure. Outside already satisfies good faith discussion. There is nothing gained in duplicating the exact same thing online. Use the right tool for the job, as they say. Online discussion is a compelling in its own right because you can stop being you and take on someone else's persona to try and discuss from their vantage point. This gives opportunity to understand another side of the story in an environment that provides the necessary feedback to validate that you actually understand another side. Too often people think they understand other angles, but one will also want validation, which online discussion provides. More often than not you'll realize that you actually didn't understand it at all, so it is a valuable exercise.
    - rootusrootus 9mo ago
      Thank you for explaining your position. I don't know if I would have described that as bad faith, more like good-faith-in-disguise, but I understand what you are getting at.
      - 9rx 9mo ago
        > Thank you for explaining your position. We're on the internet. Is it my position? > I don't know if I would have described that as bad faith, more like good-faith-in-disguise It is good faith from the author's perspective, but bad faith/trolling from the reader's perspective. It, as taken from an expectation of replication of what is found outside, is deceptive. There, of course, can be no such thing as bad faith/trolling if you remove trying to see it as a reflection of outside. So, as the earlier comments are taken from the reader's perspective, it is what is labelled bad faith. But I too get what you're saying.

9rx 9mo ago

> I'd love an online community where everyone was having discussions only in good faith. That's already readily available outside. The whole appeal of online 'communities' is that it is not that.

rootusrootus 9mo ago
The appeal of an online community is having members who participate in bad faith? That's an angle I hadn't expected.
- 9rx 9mo ago
  Sure. Outside already satisfies good faith discussion. There is nothing gained in duplicating the exact same thing online. Use the right tool for the job, as they say. Online discussion is a compelling in its own right because you can stop being you and take on someone else's persona to try and discuss from their vantage point. This gives opportunity to understand another side of the story in an environment that provides the necessary feedback to validate that you actually understand another side. Too often people think they understand other angles, but one will also want validation, which online discussion provides. More often than not you'll realize that you actually didn't understand it at all, so it is a valuable exercise.
  - rootusrootus 9mo ago
    Thank you for explaining your position. I don't know if I would have described that as bad faith, more like good-faith-in-disguise, but I understand what you are getting at.
    - 9rx 9mo ago
      > Thank you for explaining your position. We're on the internet. Is it my position? > I don't know if I would have described that as bad faith, more like good-faith-in-disguise It is good faith from the author's perspective, but bad faith/trolling from the reader's perspective. It, as taken from an expectation of replication of what is found outside, is deceptive. There, of course, can be no such thing as bad faith/trolling if you remove trying to see it as a reflection of outside. So, as the earlier comments are taken from the reader's perspective, it is what is labelled bad faith. But I too get what you're saying.