4 ms·

You had responded to my other comment with a comment I 100% agreed with, and I was going to write a substantive response when I had the time. Maybe you deleted

You had responded to my other comment with a comment I 100% agreed with, and I was going to write a substantive response when I had the time. Maybe you deleted it because it was a little ranty? I'd go further and say it's not just social media optimizing for engagement, though. I think part of it is the utter lack of social context for internet messages, which is usually a moderating factor. In meatspace interactions, you can signal disagreement without getting into an overt argument. And you can even maintain the relationship afterwards, as there are other dimensions to it that you do respect. Whereas online the sheer majority of the context is the comment you're responding to itself, and one generally dives right into pressing fully-fleshed-out arguments. Additionally I'd say there is a different dynamic whereby there are a lot of valid rightist criticisms of leftist extremism, and valid leftist criticisms of rightist extremism. Which then make perfectly reasonable people and reasonable comments appear to be from "the other side", and presumably held with extremists views of the other side (see the above lack of moderating context).

api 8mo ago
Yeah, I did delete it. I’m wary of talking about politics online, especially making any point that directly criticizes either the far left or far right. I’ve had run ins with unhinged obsessives from both sides. Criticizing both sides won’t save you. Recently I’ve noticed even greater ire toward those who dare depart from the duality, either by arguing that the old “middle” was not as broken as people think or by adopting an entirely different view. I agree with most of this, and context collapse is a great point I did not bring up. I’d also add that these nutty ideas tend to be context collapse friendly. Their arguments can be compressed down to slogans and memes and often rely on no context besides invoking a common grievance. Other ideas, including those that might actually help address some grievances, require essays and context to explain. The social platforms tend to push low depth populism.

api 8mo ago

Yeah, I did delete it. I’m wary of talking about politics online, especially making any point that directly criticizes either the far left or far right. I’ve had run ins with unhinged obsessives from both sides. Criticizing both sides won’t save you. Recently I’ve noticed even greater ire toward those who dare depart from the duality, either by arguing that the old “middle” was not as broken as people think or by adopting an entirely different view. I agree with most of this, and context collapse is a great point I did not bring up. I’d also add that these nutty ideas tend to be context collapse friendly. Their arguments can be compressed down to slogans and memes and often rely on no context besides invoking a common grievance. Other ideas, including those that might actually help address some grievances, require essays and context to explain. The social platforms tend to push low depth populism.