4 ms·
Ask HN: What explains the ad hominem rampant in online discourse?
Dear HN,
I was recently bothered by a thread here in which there was a glee in attacking someone and their idea. There seems to be a noob tendency to compare HN to Digg or Reddit whenever a post doesn't fit some people's eyes of HN quality (even as there's a clear, and easy, mechanism for dealing with submissions of this type). A primary reason I never wade into the comments of Digg or Reddit is because of the rampant ad hominem. So when I start to see that here, I worry, but I also know that pg will never let that happen.
Still, with how big the internet is, why do some folks seem to take delight in ad hominem? Is it as simple as folks who have bullied, or been bullied, regressing in these semi-anonymous spaces?
Don't get me wrong. Honest criticism is extremely valuable. But as soon as it becomes personal it loses any importance it may have. I'm truly interested in deeply dissecting ideas and products. But if you attack me or my ideas, then I'm almost immediately uninterested in whatever you're saying. Disagree without being disagreeable.
With how easy it is to find alternative content online, why is there this rampant negativity? Take HN for example. There are hundreds of posts each day and thousands of comments. If you don't find something to your liking, or without good feedback to add, it's trivially easy to ignore it and move on. So why do some folks linger long enough to throw feces from their cage?
I think comments may be a big part of it. They fit nowhere else in the real world. Heck, someone simply commenting in a movie theater is soon met with glares and are at-risk for being ushered out. But while comments may make it easier to trash people and ideas, that doesn't explain the ubiquity of the ad hominem.
Can you help me understand this phenomenon? Of course, if there are extended treatments, I'd love to read them.
Thanks.
- jacquesm 17y agoAnonymity. If you look at the people that go off on rants like that invariably they do not have a profile that allows you to identify them. As soon as people are out in the open with their name and/or other identifying information they usually are a lot less abrasive.
- rbanffy 17y agoWell... As far as anonymity goes, I am doing my part. There are already very few Bánffy's in the world and, AFAIK, no other has a first name starting with "r". It's remarkably easy to google me. I also tend to use "rbanffy" wherever I can, so, it's easy to relate my various on-line personas. But the other day I saw something commendable: a public apology as a "Tell HN" article. This makes me believe this place is slightly different than Digg and Reddit. Slashdot allows anonymous comment but there is a lot of very clever people (and clever nicknames ;-)) around there.
- jacquesm 17y agoI note that the email address of the person doing the apologizing is publicly visible. That doesn't make it less classy, but it does underscore that people that are less anonymous tend to behave better.
- furyg3 17y agoObligatory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoThe one about the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory", ie that those online and anonymous become inflammatory, profaninty-spouting morons.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoI've experienced the flip side of that. I used to use my real name online, and then someone took exception to something I said. Net result was a deeply unpleasant episode of cyber-stalking that still hasn't entirely gone away. I'm not completely paranoid, but I won't easily reveal my real-life identity. It's not too hard to find, and a few have found it, but I'm not going to draw a big arrow at my house and say "I live here ..."
- jacquesm 17y agoI'm pretty open about my email, phone number, real name and so on, my physical location I keep somewhat obscured until I've had a chance to get an idea who I'm revealing it to. Too many cranks out there. People with a high profile and their name out in the open attract all kinds of weirdos, especially if they are female.
- roundsquare 17y agoLots of room for misinterpretation online. You type something and you think its clear, but the next person who reads it misinterprets. You don't get a chance to explain yourself before the person gets mad and replies with ad hominem. This is especially true when this happens on a subject someone is sensitive too. Someone sees something that resembles something else they think is horrible and they go nuts. Though its tough to do this all the time, I think the best thing to do online is give someone the benefit of the doubt. If you think someone is suggesting something immoral, ask a clarifying question.
- peterhi 17y agoAlthough pg might not allow it (just quite how I do not know) if the level of abuse rises to a significant level for long enough people will leave. So for example a couple of trolls go on the rampage (and it doesn't require many people, just a few with far too much time on their hands) for a week you could lose quite a few members and when the trolls leave or are banned not all of them will come back. The abusive behaviour needs to be stamped on hard and fast as others might just get plain fed up if nothing is done about a troll and leave. And it is not just abusive behaviour, just imagine that on every post someone posted the (ir)relevant xkcd / penny arcade / dilbert link to go with the post and the discussion gets flooded with chatter about the cartoons. You could completely ruin HN without a single swear word or sexist / racist / whateverist remark.
- DanielStraight 17y agohttp://xkcd.com/481/ http://xkcd.com/481/
- anamax 17y agoMany people live in like-minded tribes. One of the tribal activities is slagging "the other". In fact, there's often a competition along those lines. However, since said other isn't present, they're really engaging a caricature that they invented. As a result, their arguments are weak. When they run into said other online, they're basically cued up for battle. However the reality doesn't behave like the caricature, so all of winning arguments fall flat. Rather than acknowledge that they're lame, they lash out.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoIf someone resorts to an ad-hominem attack it seems that they don't have a logical comeback, or at least not one that can promote the verity of their argument over the others being proferred. Ad hominem attacks very rarely take the form of genuine criticism of the person or indeed a criticism of the characteristics of that person pertinent to the argument at hand. Most of it is just "bad mouthing". Personally I don't have a problem with people questioning my character if it's pertinent to the issue. I presume it's one of those role-playing things. People act out against what they are restricted in doing in real life - you can't just rant and rave at people without repurcussions when you're off-line. Online behind a veil of pseudo-anonymity you can try out your best swearing and put downs and make a game of attack those who seek logical conclusions by being simply inflammatory. One very weak example (though I've had people on HN tell me they feel all my kind should be murdered!):I was having a mathematical block picturing a particular plane and asked in response to a story if someone could post a link to an online 3d function plotter; the response was along the line of "you moron that's the simplest possible plane to imagine" followed by 2 other helpful responses. For one I don't see asking for help to be moronic, not all people have the same skillset, some of us have specific learning issues. For another the assertion that it was the simplest plane was plain wrong (no pun intended!). So why did the guy attack me with vemon and false assertion - in this instance I feel he wanted to exert his intellectual superiority by attempting to belittle me. Others would then jump on this and vote him up and he gets a happy "I'm the dogs-bollocks" [that amazingly is a good thing! it means "supreme in this field"] feeling all day. My tuppence.