Hacker News Comments on
This Video Will Make You Angry
CGP Grey
·
Youtube
·
23
HN points
·
113
HN comments
- This course is unranked · view top recommended courses
Hacker News Stories and Comments
All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.People haven't shown the inclination for more critical assessment so far; why would that change all of a sudden?And AI fakes are still in their infancy. For example, they haven't learned to push emotional buttons yet. But they will soon, because it's not all that hard, and it drastically increases the virality.
Now, with that in mind, watch this video, and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
I don't like the turn this thread took, but weighing in here narrowly with something hopefully interesting...The memes themselves needn't be "adversaries" for it to be to the benefit of one of them to inspire rage against the other. "X makes people angry at people holding Y" can help X spread because people like talking about things they're mad about, and the presence of Y actually makes that more effective; the memes themselves are, to a degree, symbiotic within the broader society even as they maybe do bad things to the people in that society.
For one particular perspective on this, I enjoyed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc - relevant stuff starts around 3 minutes in.
Incendiary topics draw more attention, thus more likes / reshares. Feed algorithms can amplify this effect, but it's always there, unfortunately:
⬐ lazideLikes and reshares are often consumed via feed like interfaces though?I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.
It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
20 years ago I’d have agreed.Now? Now my gut feeling is that climate change is mostly going to be OK — bad stuff will still happen, but I don’t expect catastrophic variation from what would’ve happened otherwise, because PV is rapidly growing in quantity (literally exponentially) and batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.
Plenty of other unsustainable things about our economy besides greenhouse gases of course.
But I’m more worried than I used to be about journalists and propagandists both separately A/B testing their ways to the most potent methods to effect specific emotional affects, at which point we all go to war because of something which despite being objectively stupid is also something which enough people feel is a fundamental truth of nature they’re willing to kill and to die for.
A more extreme version of https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ gueloWhy would you go with "gut feeling" instead of IPCC AR6?⬐ ben_wThe elevator pitch summary of IPCC AR6 is “It is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made”.I am saying “I think those cuts are extremely likely to happen, and soon”.
⬐ GekkePrutserSoon is still a lot later than immediate. And they won't be that large because even cheap PV needs time to be manufactured in large enough quantities to matter.⬐ ben_whttps://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PV_cume_semi_log_c...An order of magnitude every 5 to 10 years is faster than I think you’re giving credit for.
I’m expecting the peak capacity of just PV to exceed world electricity demand this decade, and actual output (rain, night, being put on cars parked in shade) to exceed current global electricity demand early next decade as more stuff gets electrified.
I expect a slowdown in growth after that point, but I don’t have any intuition about when exactly.
And of course we need so much reduction that the long term goal is “everything everywhere in every sector except half the livestock methane” or “everything in really all sectors worldwide except for North Korea”; yet halving output doubles the time available to make the next step, so even there I am optimistic.
> I don't understand what the payoff is
This is basically a less-polished exposition of GGP Grey's excellent video [1], which he also mentions in the talk
⬐ teddyhSee also The Toxoplasma Of Rage: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... and You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I think the problem with saying something was made up is that it becomes blaming. I would hope people don't vote you down because I think that blame is justified, because I questioned how it was presented, on Twitter. I think if it was something related by a friend or close acquaintance to me, then I'd believe it. That it is being disseminated on Twitter in the way it was, I have a tendency to suspect there is more to the story, given I have no idea if I can trust the individual making the claim.This seems pretty obvious that this will happen and not necessarily something that is surprising or adds to the story, other than them claiming it happened to them and horrible that is...and maybe an indication everyone should make a big deal out of it.
⬐ seoulmetro>I think the problem with saying something was made up is that it becomes blaming.What's your point? Blame is not a thing to be avoided.
⬐ threatofrainSaying that somebody made up a story is not blaming. That is an accusation of lying, which implies that wrongdoing didn't even occur.
Agreed, what people fail to grasp when they're frothing at the mouth about how their opponents are evil (which is reflected back at them by people on the other side) is that this state of extreme division is the fuel that perpetuates the problem. Your participation in "putting the other side down" is the very thing that fuels a mutually beneficial relationship that is best characterized as symbiotic not oppositional.The only out is ending the symbiotic relationship at the place that fuels it and breaking the duopoly. And not giving in to cynicism.
"This video will make you angry" - https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Radical as in pushed to the extremes, not radical in thought to the general population. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc&t=1sThat I've been DONT MENTION ARROWS ON HN on this post is a good indication we're not close to solving this by a long shot.
This video will make you angry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
There's a reason why this kind of content is going to dominate any online discussion platform.
My attitude is to vaccinate and to continue to maintain reasonable precautions.You are very extreme, and people like you are exactly why many people take a polarizing view on the other end of the spectrum.
This is a nice video on polarization:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
My own estimate is that the vaccine is about 50% effective for delta. That's cuts R0 in half, which is huge, but not something you can in any way, shape, or form rely on in isolation. It will likely be even lower for future mutations. Aside from the antivaxer movement, another outcome of extreme pro-vaccine stances, to the level of people lying, is that many people take NO precautions once vaccinated. That's a lot of what's driving some (not all) of the current delta outbreaks.
And on the anti-vaxxer side, once scientists get caught fabricating data, they're not going to be trusted even when they're right.
Here is an awesome take on this subject: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informati...I’m going to suggest that unless you work directly in the news media industry yourself, you too should be paying absolutely no attention to the news.
“It is all Bullshit”, is what Mr. Money Mustache says, “You need to get the News out of your life, right away, and for life.”
The reasons for this are plentiful, from the inherently sucky nature of news programming itself, to the spectacular life benefits of adopting a Low Information Diet in general. But let’s start with the news.
News programs are, with the exception of a few non-profit or publicly funded ones, commercial enterprises designed to turn and maximize profit. Many of them are owned by larger shareholder-owned corporations, most notably Rupert Murdoch’s News corp. The profit comes from advertising, and advertising revenue is maximized by pulling the largest audience, holding their attention for the longest possible time, and putting them into the mental state most conducive to purchasing the products of the advertisers (which turns out to be helplessness and vulnerability).
Another great perspective on this: This Video Will Make You Angry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
reddit can be incredibly angry as well. Downvoting has advantages, but a disadvantage is creation of echo chambers where people feed off each other to get more and more angry, only hearing the worst from those who disagree.
⬐ city41I agree, but I think that mostly happens in mainstream Reddit. I still feel like smaller subreddits are still a nice oasis in this current era of the internet.
There's a scientific explanation for all the outrage on the Internet:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc - "This Video Will Make You Angry" by CGP Grey
Be aware that the video goes deeper than you'd expect from the beginning.
I dont really believe the altruism model will work myself, at least with our current society and the power memes have over people.CGP Grey's, This video will make you angry really gives a lot of insight into the nearly biological nature of memes and the selection process that goes into the ones that we end up seeing.
CGP Grey made a great video on the self-perpetuating cycle of outrage back in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
There is some flaws and limitations to the AI story, but we already have self-improving thought germs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
It's honestly not too different than the pandemic we are living through. But instead of a biological virus, it's more of a thought virus. There's a lot of discussion in this thread about whether information should be more or less open, but if anything I think this past few years has shown how ideas such as antivaxx, antimask and election fraud can spread extremely effectively online and infiltrate millions of minds. Reminds me a bit of CGPGrey's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ cercatrovaDawkins coined meme to mean just such a cultural piece of information that disseminates. Just as a gene wants to get to as many people as possible (ie natural, sexual selection) so too do ideas. In this case, the internet has vastly sped it up such that ideas can travel instantaneously.⬐ kazinatorUnfortunately, bad ideas also, like that meme should refer to a low-effort combination of some stock picture and some caption conveying puerile humor or a subcultural circle jerk.⬐ ehsankiaIt's not only that that ideas travel, but also how they evolve and adapt like a virus to be in the most potent and engaging version, not too dissimilar from natural selection. It also is true that they are much easier to spread than to cure (debunk).
I don't think social networks are "evil" because of malice. They're evil because of our flaws as human beings. Of our biases. Social networks just amplify and exploit the way we think so mostly negative thoughts and emotions get amplified in an ever-expanding echo chamber [1] We get angrier, more polarised, more isolated in our tribe and cliques. If there has ever been an instrument of the Devil himself to sow discord on this planet, this is it.
> A September report by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 80% of Trump and Biden supporters said they had few or no friends who supported the other candidate.As someone in the other 20% there are some weird things going on that are kind of new, for example, I can see that the caricatures of "the other side" are pretty inaccurate. "Both sides" care about different things, they weigh different things differently, the thing they don't like about the other side isn't what the other side weighs heavily or actively thinks about at all.
Yes, whatever side immediately came to mind is different from what someone else immediately thought of.
No, I'm not saying "both sides are the same".
Yes, there are some things done the same and it is weird that people tune out as soon as "both sides" was said in any context whatsoever, as if there is a better word to convey the same message.
Yes, someone on the other side was just as quick to say the exact same thing to convince me that both sides are not remotely similar and cannot be mentioned in the same context. How original and unique.
Yes, it's weird that you all aren't talking to each other and don't even realize you're both doing the same things to maintain cohesion and temporary power by vilifying everyone that's not putting your party on a pedestal, whether they actually are on "the other side" or simply not repeating the stances verbatim.
What's new is the ability to quickly spread information. In pre-social-media age, we had "fake news", but outside of newspapers and TV, any rumor would have to spread by word of mouth - and even with phones, it places a significant upper limit on the number of people one person can spread it to.But with modern social networks, a single mouse click can send it into dozens of feeds; hundreds, for some people. And then you get this effect magnified manyfold:
> People saying such have in mind some caricature of 19th century Freudian analysisArticle mentions Freud's desire for death.
Freud theory is bunk. It's unprovable, can't be verified, useless and outdated model. If psychology as a whole has a replication issue. Freud psychoanalytics has a deeply existential issue.
> Which basically means "the final state the clickbait economy moves forward as its inherent tendency is fascist kitsch".
I know what it means. In the end you didn't explain much, just explained what telos is.
Let me help - Clickbait economy is a rage generator.
> other words, if we talked down to his audience, assuming them to being half-illiterate Joe Sixpacks.
I read my fair share of philosophers, I understand what he's trying to say. However it's all been said better and more eloquently by CCP Grey in his video on memes.
Any halfwit, pompous, rudderless, telos lacking humanities reject could have written, a long, detalied, baroque word salad if the whippersnapper in question was so inclined - much like this sentence.
Real artistry isn't saying as much as you can, but saying as much as you can in as few and understandable words.
To quote a poet "Brevity is the soul of wit".
⬐ coldtea>Article mentions Freud's desire for death.Yes. Which is not the same as a caricature of Freudian analysis.
>Freud theory is bunk. It's unprovable, can't be verified
Not everything has to be verified. This tendency of Anglosaxons/Analyticals to want to "verify" everything is bunk. Heck, it's itself unprovable and can't be verified (you can't verify the need for verification -- in the end you always get to some unverified tenets you need to begin, e.g. utilitarianism).
>To quote a poet "Brevity is the soul of wit".
To quote another poet: "I have heard many people say, "Give me the ideas, it is no matter what words you put them into.... Ideas cannot be given but in their minutely appropriate words".
⬐ Ygg2> Not everything has to be verified.Not everything can be verified. However a self proposed science that isn't verified is just philosophy. Hence, my four elements from Aristotle.
What Freudian psychoanalysis has is a semblance of science. It reminds me of quacks selling quantum energies to cure your back problems. Only instead of quantum its Phlogiston.
> Heck, it's itself unprovable and can't be verified
An unprovable science is just philosophizing.
As for verification can't itself be verified. Purely theoretically - yes. However. Purely theoretically you could use a rock enchanted by your local witch doctor to send me this message.
Are you using such device (not based on science, and verification but magical powers) to communicate?
My point is, verification is based on things working in the real world, which psychoanalysis for the most part doesn't.
⬐ coldtea>Purely theoretically you could use a rock enchanted by your local witch doctor to send me this message. Are you using such device (not based on science, and verification but magical powers) to communicate?No, but that's probably a coincidence more than anything else. Other cultures have used such methods, and were satisfied by them!
We might say "sure, but they were ignorant, those methods didn't work", etc. -- but if they had no qualms about them at the time, our objection is somewhat moot...
⬐ Ygg2It's not coincidence. If you want something to work reliably, you need science. Regards of underlying system.
The part about memes and the self-reinforcing cycle of anger reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc "CGP Grey: This Video Will Make You Angry"
Along these lines, CGP Grey's video about Anger Thought Germs is an excellent breakdown of why anger spreads like nothing else:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
You combine that behavior with social media, especially Twitter, and the symbiotic relationship with the news media. It's a non-stop anger generation machine. Rapidly iterating on these thoughts, packaging and surfacing the most potent, viral version. Any nuance and context long ago removed.
The problem is that memes themselves undergo natural selection, which favors the "bad" ones overall.
⬐ AbrahamParangiI don't think this is true in the long run, any more than genes which favor their propagation are bad in the long run. In the short term, viruses, cancers, shitty memes, doomsday cults and other low-sophistication replicators are favored.But long term you get things like multicellularity, complex nervous systems, the scientific method, civilization and art. The road may be rocky but I see no reason for it to be any different here.
⬐ int_19hIt's "bad" for us as individuals with our cultural background. It's not necessarily "bad" for the memes themselves, especially since the ultimate score in this game is to have an entire civilization proactively spreading the meme to others. Christianity, Islam, and other proselytizing religions are a good example.⬐ AbrahamParangiI suspect that the old, successful memes are good for their hosts by many definitions of good.
> In Vedas, Puranas and Tamil classics> The term māyā occurs 70 times in Rigveda and around 27 times in the Atharvaveda; and in all these places Yaska, Sayana, Dayananda Saraswati agree the term means Prajñā, jnana-vishesha (specific knowledge). The term Asuri-Maya in the Yajurveda at one place was translated by Uvvat as the "knowledge of the vital air". With regard to the usage of the word Maya in the Rigveda, Radhakrishnan opines it was only used to signify might and power. Maya as the cause of illusion or as the sense of Avidya (lack of knowledge) has never been used in the Vedas. According to Monier Williams, Maya meant wisdom and extraordinary power in an earlier language, but later the word came to mean illusion and magic.
So, depending, "Maya" can mean "illusion" or "mirage", but the original meaning might be closer to Prajñā, which means "non-discriminating knowledge" or "intuitive apprehension". According to Chan and most Zen lines, those "states" of consciousness are obtained by practicing non-clinging discrimination in a given moment. Maybe one way of thinking about this is not adding to the observation of something that has been discriminated already.
Chan texts mention holding vexation and the polar observations of the vexation (good vs. evil or light vs. darkness as examples) without "adding" to the metaphor. The "adding" is the part that can be considered important (to not do). Consider the highly polarized topics that result from unfettered discourse on the Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
"Sitting with the rock is wet" without wondering how much longer it is going to rain.
Or, observing an imagined (in mind) scenario without "adding to it" in the moment that it is being perceived.
⬐ LargoLasskhyfvhttps://dict.leo.org/german-english/Klar⬐ kordlessagainYes, and maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia⬐ LargoLasskhyfvThat is not clear to me, since i can't imagine that :)edit: by that i mean having that "neuroarchitecture" which just percieves, but can't imagine anything(visually). Reminds me of the relatively recent (6 months to a year ago?) discussions about not having an internal voice while thinking, which was obviously new to a large set of people, while my whole state of mind revolves around thinking without vocalizing. Alas, i digress...
⬐ kordlessagainHardly a digression when discussing the path to cessation of suffering.Liberation of vibration (sound) must occur before liberation of form (images). Nobel effort spans lifetimes.
⬐ LargoLasskhyfvI think i wrongly described what i meant with while my whole state of mind revolves around thinking without vocalizing. and you thereby understood it as i'd try to achieve that. That isn't the case. I simply don't have it! While i have that whole "Palace of the Mind/Method of Loci" thing, that's not the whole thing either. I'd say it is on a lower level, and even below that is the language, and whenever i need to write or speak, there happens to be some sort of hyperdimensonal self-solving Tetris in fast-forward mode which gives me the words in the languages i happen to know in an instant, readily formed to write or speak. But without an inner voice speaking them first. I can't do it any different. That would be exhausting.
Teaching. In all the fields, both the popular and unpopular ones.Epidemiology and Public Health. The capability for disaster response hasn't increased with gains in technology. Clearly, the way technology has increased the dangers of contagious disease has far outstripped the technology driven capacity for containing outbreaks.
Discourse and News Media. Right now, the incentives and technology align in such a way, that Social Media becomes an outrage spreading and viral amplification machine.
(Obligatory link. It's practically my personal religion by now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )
It turns out the Internet isn't for raising human discourse and encouraging brilliant thought. It's for preventing good thinking by fomenting interfering emotions and replacing actual thought with its doppelganger, ideology. And what's big tech's response to the above? Things which aren't technically censorship, but which insidiously have the same effect. Clearly, something is wrong with this picture.
⬐ cameronbrownUntil teaching salaries are as good as what you can get in law or software, it will not happen. Smart people require incentives unless they're dedicated to the cause (and those types are rare).⬐ KKKKkkkk1Teaching has existed for thousands of years. Teaching on the Internet for decades. Why is it in need of innovation?⬐ nsgiThere are already more people who want to be journalists than there is work. I imagine it's the same situation with funding for public health research. I'd imagine that's the main limiting factor.⬐ stcredzeroThere are already more people who want to be journalists than there is work.That is part of the problem. The tech giants created infrastructure that 1) has enabled a cottage industry of independent journalism and 2) has completely disrupted traditional news business models. Then, the same large companies proceed to ink sweetheart deals with the dying large media companies, while jerking around the small independent journalists. Just as in the music industry, the endless supply of new aspiring media stars, combined with their control of the technology and their lobbying for favorable laws, has gained them carte blanche to say, "my way, or the highway" to the emerging independents. All the above basically sets them up to control most all future societal discourse -- particularly by less than completely transparent means that strangely resemble censorship.
The tech giants control the newest, best conduits for future information and media. Given what we've seen of their stewardship, citizens should indeed be concerned.
More on this analogy from CPG Grey
CGP Grey: "This Video Will Make You Angry" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
I have seen the theory that the most optimally emotional ideas are the ones that go viral: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ perl4everEmotion is adaptive, but only if the emotion is revulsion at the idea of skepticism.
Angry thought germs spread like nothing else.
It reminds me of a CGP Grey video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc. In that video (okay I'm interpreting a bit...) society itself acts as Scissor, "breeding" some ideas to become maximally controversial.Which, if you take SA's story too seriously, is actually good news: it implies that we've probably already seen just about the worst scissors possible, because society's been trying to produce them all along!
⬐ drak0n1cLike any invention, not everything that can be invented has been invented. The current culture war has only been going for around 5 years. Things can change and new divides erupt all the time.⬐ pjc50⬐ TeMPOraL5 years? Lots of it can be traced directly all the way back to the Vietnam war, surely? Certainly abortion has been a scissor issue since at least 1973.> Which, if you take SA's story too seriously, is actually good news: it implies that we've probably already seen just about the worst scissors possible, because society's been trying to produce them all along!I don't think we did. SA's machine learning based scissor generator is to what you described what engineered bioweapons are to natural evolution. The latter can produce nasty stuff over time, the former is about taking the latter, refining it, and improving on it much faster.
CGP Grey's "This Video Will Make You Angry"[1] makes this point well. Opposing ideas will generate a lot of discussion/activity but mostly within the opposed groups instead of between them. That further drives polarization as the opposed groups mostly believe their own caricatures of the other group (which further disincentives cross-group discussion).
With the internet, they can build self-reinforcing “communities” on the basis of hate, intolerance, or really anything.As you say, such "communities" existed before the Internet. It's just that now, they can better organize to affect the real world. I think Forrest Gump's observation applies here. Even 8chan had some sort of ideology justifying what they said and did. Even the worst scoundrels of history used words like "love" and justice." (And yes, Godwin's Law comes into play if we go down that rabbit hole! So let's not.) If we are to gauge how toxic a group is, I think we need to go to first principles and measure how driven by viral outrage an online group is.
It's natural for people to come together because they are outraged. However, when continuing the cycle of outrage, driving more attention, driving group membership, driving more outrage continues for its own sake, there is a problem. It shouldn't be outrage and attention driving a group. It should be higher principles.
Unfortunately, outrage is a fundamental fuel of virality in 2019. Today, we need to be skeptical of actors who lean too heavily on the cycle of outrage, whether they're openly reprehensible, or if they merely dress their movement in high language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
In 2019, the world has long known to be skeptical of religions gone wrong, which we call cults. We need to develop the same kind of skepticism to groups actually ruled by outrage, not principle.
You might like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJcIt makes life a lot more pleasant when you realize that most upsetting things you see online are just a meme symbiotic system with a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
...aren't trying to spread discourse, but trying to create an outrage and play off of that (evidence exists of the malignant intent).Playing off of outrage is heavily rewarded by our current societal systems. It happens at all points of the political spectrum, but happens more at the extremes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
The portland professor was being brought up based on academic dishonesty, human experimentation, process, and ethics
It's a hoax. It's a time honored means of expression, particularly when the subject heavily deserves ridicule.
Lack of data, cherrypicking stark examples, and the reuse of the same events over and over again
There's a list of well over 600 incidents of violence, vandalism, and threats, instigated by the far left. If you do some searching, you'll find over a hundred with just a bit of sincere effort, and in pretty short order. There's also the father and son republicans who were chased down by black block demonstrators. There's the time when a mob was calling for Tim Pool to be chased down and beaten. There's the Florida local news video crew attacked, his smartphone knocked out of his hand. The bike lock professor. That's all just off the top of my head. True, such things are also done by elements of the far right. All of it is bad.
In any case, it's certainly not the case that there are only a few cherry picked examples from the Far Left. There's an epidemic of political harassment and assault in 2019, and a majority of the incidents up to the level of vandalism and minor assault comes from the Left. If anything, there's a bias against talking about that in the media.
Reminds me of this video by CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
When we talk about whether or not deplatforming "works" we necessarily have to define our goals. If your goal is, for instance, to be able to find as much hateful content on your platform of choice -- deplatforming absolutely doesn't work. If your goal is to allow fewer outlets for hateful groups to recruit new members (this is my goal), it's working fantastically. Almost better than any other tactic right now.You are revealing your biases and the distortion of your particular information bubble. Many of the people being name-called and deplatformed are not hateful and are not parts of hate groups. If you could transcend your particular bubble, you'd see that many people who are simply normal Republicans, libertarians, centrists, and independents are being caught up. There are huge numbers of people who are essentially being lied about -- in the most transparent fashion, supported with circular references produced by biased activists that ultimately don't go to any documented facts. What this abuse of "moderation" is actually doing, is fanning societal outrage and destroying the credibility of the Left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuX87JFzLFc
The extremists, both the Far Left and Far Right, gain in the short term from this, because it gains eyeballs and membership through this reinforcing circle of outrage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
The dying legacy media naturally joins in on this spiral of outrage and clickbait.
"Incendiary" is relative to tribal group though.Such things have existed for quite awhile. The difference over time is that they are becoming more common and more frequent, while disseminating them got easier and easier. Still, we only rarely saw quite the same kinds of viral common conflagrations of outrage as we have today versus what we had in the cell-phone camera and viral emails era. The structure of the social media of today is vastly different and omnipresent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Technologists recognized the addictive power of games, applying those dynamics to social media. We tried our hardest to increase engagement, and that drew technologists into combining gamification and viral discovery to amplify outrage on social media.
Now we're in 2019. Looking back on it all, is it really any surprise? Now we're in 2019, and it seems like society is ready to let multinational corporations who have access to tremendous amounts of information about us, to monitor, censor, and censure us for "wrongthink." What could possibly go wrong?
So now the idea is to make it so that the only algorithmic pathsways to information are to the sanctioned ideas? That's dangerous! Basically, in 2019, you don't have to burn books. The powers that be can bias the power of discovery and viral spread towards the ideas they like and away from the ideas they don't like. You don't have to suppress, just make the ratified ideas orders of magnitude louder. Or, that was the theory. Now they have to resort to mislabeling and mass deplatforming. This mental control scheme is failing just like the Soviet's control over official media failed: People will eventually see through the manipulation and stop believing it.That's not to say that damage won't be done in the meantime. What's driving society crazy isn't some single percentage slice of economically disadvantaged under-educated fringers with theories just about everybody knows are crap. What's driving society crazy is the meddling in the free market of ideas. It's the breakdown of discourse itself. It's all of the perverse incentives to communication and other manipulation perpetrated by big tech firms that may or may not be monopolies. It's the meddling with people's speech by entities that aren't governments, but have more power and more tech savvy than most of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
These big media/technology companies have been amplifying outrage, amplifying outrageous behavior, bubbling people into echo chambers to further amplify the outrage, and aiding and abetting the toxic mislabeling of ordinary views and formerly protected forms of discourse -- which just adds even more amplification in the form of outrage.
The problem is not the single-percentage fringers without access to economic power, the halls of power, and the ear of those who control the newest forms of media technology. They are merely a symptom. Look instead to the politically skewed access. Remember: power corrupts!
Look at the magnitude of how crazy society's gotten in the past several years. Who has the wealth, algorithmic/technological power, and reach to do all of that? The answer's simple. Look for the tickers with the multi-billion dollar valuations!
All society needs to fix things, is to actually have Free Speech and a level, non-manipulated free marketplace of ideas.
it can be a healthy discussion if spoken about maturelyKnee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." The normalization and acceptance of such reactions is what leads to toxic community atmospheres and the "social epistemological catastrophe" of a witch-hunt mentality.
In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later" is against the stated policy around these parts of the Principle of Charity. Just look around the Internet, and tell me what you see in this regard.
I'm obliged to link this again, for the good of all:
Exercising the principle of charity != Promoting [X]If we all started calling out everything that might possibly be [X] without being absolute certain, then this stance to accept false positives would result in far too much noise in the form of one of the harshest accusations in 2019.
This sort of stance, where the Presumption of Innocence is sacrificed, to prioritize catching all the guilty, the innocents be damned, is also the stance that leads to the witchhunt mentality. It's a social epistemological catastrophe, where everyone suspects everyone and accusations for ulterior motives cannot be detected.
In 2019, it seems as if this stance is designed to and deployed to cause a social epistemological catastrophe over social media. I suspect this is actually being done!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
This is precisely why Blackstone's formulation came to be, and why it's necessary to avoid toxic and tyrannical societies.
If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents.We've seen precisely this happen on YouTube. "Unfortunately," from their point of view, the way it worked out went against the political narratives of the people who run YouTube.
People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments.
But onlookers who are normal, sensible people do.
They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure.
This is the POV of people who don't believe in objective truth or meritocracy. They think everything is a rigged game, and they think to win, it's just that they have to rig the game their own way.
What you call "exposure" is actually discovery. Biasing discovery by refusing it to certain people is tantamount to censorship in this day and age.
They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic.
Actually, it's very easy to turn Moral Outrage into viewers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
It's funny, but here you are actually precisely describing some of the groups who were discredited and saw their engagement drop on YouTube -- in exactly the opposite situation to people like Sargon of Akkad. His opponents in the "SJW skeptic" circles dropped off, while people like him prospered. Then, instead of arguing, the SJW crowd resorted to namecalling, mis-characterizing what was actually said, and de-platforming.
YouTube is losing credibility to the people who are paying attention, precisely by deplatforming people who are popular (whose political views they don't like, even though they are not extreme and fairly mainstream) and by trying to pick and promote their own "winners" that people do not like.
In the end, it just amounts to dishonesty. In the end, people will be able to see this, and I hope YouTube eventually pays the price for it.
I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw you in to read more and more of it.
⬐ 1two1oneCan you add some context for those who don't want to / are not able to watch the youtube video?⬐ stcredzeroTim Pool was falsely tarred by the SPLC as a speaker at a Holocaust Denial conference. The only citation given by the SPLC for this was an unvetted web page from a white supremacist website. Turns out, this was (yet another) bald-faced lie.However, it's his words as a commentator in this video which I find the most informative.
Discernment is a skill that can be learned when we are cognizant and vigilant and conscientious about paying attention.Google, YouTube, and much of the current web is very easily manipulated by small but sizable and highly motivated fractions of the population acting together. It greatly over-represents the opinions of the extremes, particularly the voices which generate the most outrage.
Fear is the mind-killer. But we never knew the extent to which this could reach until it was combined with viral outrage. (Monetized and politicized viral outrage, to be precise.)
might not be the technical term for the bigotry involved.If you look at the signs, there was a black man concerned with the identitarian nature of Black Lives Matter. Are you trying to tell me that he's bigoted? Rather, I think he's concerned with bigotry masquerading as activism.
aside from the fact that the person who asked him to "bless" the statue
Again, this is weak "guilt by association." I have no idea if that other party is a bigot or not. It doesn't matter. Again, it's narrative generation, with the purpose of effective silencing by tarring.
Silicon Valley is largely encased in a bubble produced by and consisting of accusation, name calling, and narrative pushing. The purpose of this is to gain the power to demonize and silence people. The devious thing about it, is that more outrage is generated when the accusations are false, and that fuels more noise and breaks down discourse even further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
sure, if you say so, dude.
In history, there have been many examples of arrogant groups who achieved economic success and power, became arrogant, and got trapped in bubbles of perception.
http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...
They all had disparaging names for outsiders/underlings and thought of themselves as "betters." Most of the time, they thought of themselves as benevolent and benefactors. History is pretty clear about the lessons when those groups start imposing their misguided will on the people.
⬐ tptacekIf you think agreeing to appear in a video with a white supremacist and joking about his "kek" statue doesn't paint at least part of a picture, and that suggesting otherwise is "guilt by association", that's on you. To me, it's more telling that your best, leading example of a place where the media got its facts wrong is Shiva Ayyadurai is also telling, and also paints part of a picture (not one I've described on the thread so far, just to be clear).⬐ stcredzeroIf you think agreeing to appear in a video with a white supremacist and joking about his "kek" statue doesn't paint at least part of a picture"Paint part of a picture," Is just another way of saying "Narrative."
To me, it's more telling that your best, leading example of a place where the media got its facts wrong is Shiva Ayyadurai is also telling
So it doesn't matter that they got the facts wrong, because the people they are getting the facts wrong about are "bad" people. Sorry, but that's morally bankrupt. That's the classic moral stance to justify propaganda. Who in the past took actions against people they thought were generally bad, facts be damned? You appear to be in an epistemological calamity. You seem to be trapped in a bubble, where proof invalidating the bubble is sequestered through unsupported narratives.
also paints part of a picture (not one I've described on the thread so far, just to be clear)
So then you threaten to tar me by association as well? Again, it's this pushing of a narrative with no proof.
(Just to be clear, all identitarians are in the wrong. All politics by violence is bad. All politics by intimidation is equally bad, as is disdain for facts and the truth.)
⬐ tptacekI am simply going to point out again that your best example of the media getting its facts wrong is a video in which "Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai,PhD(M.I.T.) Inventor of Email" --- a repeat InfoWars guest! --- complains about a BuzzFeed listicle-grade story that is itself at pains to point out that the (very few) attendees of an anti-left demonstration in Boston were not all white supremacists.As you've no doubt surmised: not many people are interested in following you down "Hard News Network" video rabbit holes, for the same reason that even though the big-bad-scary-media reports it to be so, we're also not all that interested in what Alex Jones has to say about the Sandy Hook victims or the effectiveness of vaccines.
As I said, the picture you're painting of yourself is not the same picture Shiva Ayyadurai has painted of himself.
But I can sum both up as: "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
⬐ stcredzeroyour best example of the media getting its facts wrongYou say "best." It's just one example. You are implicitly admitting that it is an example of where the mainstream media got the facts wrong:
a BuzzFeed listicle-grade story that is itself at pains to point out that the (very few) attendees of an anti-left demonstration in Boston were not all white supremacists.
Furthermore you are also admitting that the mainstream media narrative ran 180 degrees counter to the truth.
"Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai,PhD(M.I.T.) Inventor of Email"
Then you cover it up by spinning a narrative. None of that is relevant. Also, thanks for demonstrating the mechanism of pushing narrative once again.
As I said, the picture you're painting of yourself is not the same picture Shiva Ayyadurai has painted of himself.
The point is not to convince you. The purpose for me is for 3rd party readers to see. So long as someone speaks out against the narratives, other dissidents will see that someone, somewhere understands.
But in the interest of hope, please pay attention to exactly what it is that you are saying. You have admitted that 1) the mainstream media got the facts wrong, 2) the media narrative was pushing in a deceptive direction in the opposite direction from the facts, and 3) nothing of the factual accuracy of the media, or the fidelity of its pushed narrative matters to you because the targeted people are reprehensibles.
Isn't this the attitude of every arrogant, out of touch elite, unknowingly doing injustice in history, ever? In what moral universe, is it alright that the news sources are so wildly wrong, and the narrative is so contrary to the truth, but it's alright because the subjects are so disliked? I know of extra-legal organizations from just a few decades back who didn't care too much about who exactly was guilty of what, or the facts, just that the people they were acting against were thought of as "reprehensibles" in their world view and also had the "correct" external attributes to be their appropriate targets -- in short, to fit their narratives. I've had such actions taken against me, personally, by such people. Such actions are particularly unjust, at root precisely because of the epistemological disconnect. When I engage in such discussions here, it's this very disconnect which most strongly motivates me.
Please pay attention that you are taking, in principle, such a stance. If your attitude is at all representative of SV CEOs in general, then that doesn't bode well for society at all.
⬐ tptacek⬐ tptacekI'm neither in silicon valley nor a CEO. Are you sure you're alright?By the way: it is my understanding, a personal, subjective understanding based on reportage and accounts from other people that I have read, presented here as a statement of my own opinion and not a relation of specific facts, that the claim that Shiva Ayyadurai invented email is laughable.⬐ stcredzeroBy the way: it is my understanding, a personal, subjective understanding based on reportage and accounts from other people that I have read, presented here as a statement of my own opinion and not a relation of specific facts, that the claim that Shiva Ayyadurai invented email is laughable.I wouldn't disagree with that. None of that is really relevant, however.
⬐ tptacekIt's not relevant whether the source you presented for your claim that the media got the Boston right-wing rally wrong is himself (a conclusion I've drawn from sources and reporting and, to be clear, a statement of pure opinion and not of fact, and I will remind you: opinion about a very public figure) habitually dishonest?
With today's media motivated by virality, ad clicks and eyeballs, most seem more interested in reporting this as dramatically as possible.In 2019, we need to wise up to these shenanigans. Fear isn't the only mindkiller. It turns out that Outrage Virality is very synergistic with fear. Our society needs to become very skeptical and notice when something is evoking that particular emotion. We need to view people hawking outrage like we now view medicine shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
EDIT: If someone has gotten one to really hate a person, really want to harm them, and wonder if they're really sentient, or wonder if they're looking at the same reality, or wonder if they're really human -- this is a big red flag. This is precisely the state of having those in-group/out-group instincts tweaked. Word to the wise! Expert tip: It even counts when one is shocked at someone else's groupthink! Perhaps especially so.
Oh I think it’s more about what’s being said than who is listening to who. For better or worse, human discourse is optimized for face to face interaction. It seems that widespread, anonymous speech turns even the most mild mannered individual into a raging maniac.On a similar note I recently watched this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc and completely agree with its premise.
I think "Fox New dominated" is the headline because the research it is reporting on shows that Fox News dominates the rankings in feeds.edit: also I did respond to the top level, but with a link to something which I felt contributed to my understanding of this topic:
CGP Grey has an interesting video about anger-inducing content and engagement:
I feel obliged to post this:
Reddit has been rife with brigading and manipulation for years. At this point, it's been this way for longer than it was an idyllic place to discover cool nerdy stuff. This is precisely why there are so many very active and hyper-strict moderators now. Not all, of course. It depends on how much "heat" the community contains and how much the subject matter attracts. They have to act like police in bad neighborhoods, because that's just the reality of the place.Throughout the 20th century, the Eastern Bloc had to deal with western media eroding the narratives of their society. Now, it seems that the tables have turned through social media. But instead of creating images, stories, and music of the wealth and richness of life brought by self determination, it's far more effective to simply sow chaos and jam our society's means of information exchange.
EDIT: We are in years numbered such that they appear widely in science fiction. In objective terms, we are doing better than we ever have in all of history. In 2019, we need to embrace the normal. We should be suspicious of the lurid and the outrageous. We should be skeptical of the accusation and the conspiracy theory. In 2019, these are all the viral pathway to easy money and influence. We need to start looking at these things like we now look at the products of medicine shows. Not all of these things are necessarily bad. However, we always need to be mindful of the incentives.
⬐ 52-6F-62There are still some good ones, but they tend to be smaller and rarely political. For instance, r/homelab is still pleasant. (Though it might inspire negative effects on your credit cards)⬐ superfrank⬐ CharlesColemanIn my years on Reddit, I've found the magic number to be 10k. At around 10k subscribers the community is big enough to be found by people who actually care about the subject matter, but small enough that it's not worth it for people who are just looking for karma.Obviously this is just a guideline and not a rule.
⬐ chapiumSmaller subs are still awesome. I avoid large subs like the plague because they start to enforce group conformity through either downvotes or over moderation as the sub grows. I think this begins at around 2000 users, but thats a subjective figure.⬐ JustSomeNobodyr/selfhosted is pretty good also.⬐ 52-6F-62⬐ stcredzeroOh thanks for this. It's like a treasure trove!⬐ penagwinAnd r/datahoarder . I mean they're cool subreddits if you remove the addiction therapy, loss of relationships, and eventual crippling depression.Totally worth it though! :D
⬐ ozzyman700/r/sysadmin might be the most depressing job related sub besides maybe /r/consulting⬐ bloopernovaThere's a lot of burn out and bitterness that goes along with being a Sysadmin. The stereotypical "shouted at that you are incompetent when things go wrong, shouted at that you are lazy when nothing goes wrong" comic is very true./r/sysadmin reflects that thankless nature of the job. I'm lucky to have gotten through my ~20 years of being one without any major health issues from stress.
Conservative readers might be surprised at this, but I find /r/stevenuniverse to be quite tolerant and accepting. I've even called out sexual-orientation based identity politics there and had some substantive discussions. Other times, I've been downvoted to oblivion, though. There is some activist brigading there, but the general culture of the place seems to reflect the culture of the show. (Politically left, but if you are a good person who accepts others, we will accept you. You won't be judged by how you were made, rather by the quality of your relationships.)⬐ yyyymmddhhmmssFor those interested in discussing how to make the rest of the world a toletant place, join us at /r/stupidpol⬐ PharmakonIsn’t Steven Universe some American cartoon? Why would the sub for it be relevant to discussions of any kind of politics? What am I missing?Note that I haven’t seen the cartoon, but from adverts it seemed pretty banal rather than political.
⬐ stcredzeroWhy would the sub for it be relevant to discussions of any kind of politics? What am I missing?The show has been pointed at by conservatives as an example of gender/identity politics. However, the ethos of the show is that we really should accept people no matter how they were born, and judge them on the quality of their relationships. What's more, this isn't transmitted by saying it, rather by showing it. IMO, more careful observation shows that it's actually the opposite of identitarian media, despite surface appearances.
Occasionally, some identitarian rah-rah comes up there, and I feel the need to point out that we're all in this together, and isn't that what the characters show us?
from adverts it seemed pretty banal rather than political.
It transcends the political, like all good, honest art should.
⬐ PharmakonHuh... well I live and learn, thanks for the detailed answer.⬐ stcredzero⬐ bloopernovaThere's one episode that on the surface, or to a child, would be a completely banal story of a kid helping his dad clean out the garage. There's of course, an emotional subtext of people thinking about the past, and past relationships, and people they've lost. Then, there's another subtext, invisible to a child, where there's the story of a widower who has an affair with the friend of his dead wife.It's one of those cartoons that's one thing on the surface, but has other things for the adults.
I recently started watching this with my wife, we're up to episode 30-something. I've been enjoying it very much so far, due to the deeper messages and "grown-up" subplots. The exploration of its themes of acceptance and personal growth very much resonate with me. Thank you for bringing it up in a thread like this where there's a lot of anger, fear and hate below the surface.> Throughout the 20th century, the Eastern Bloc had to deal with western media eroding the narratives of their society. Now, it seems that the tables have turned through social media. But instead of creating images, stories, and music of the wealth and richness of life brought by self determination, it's far more effective to simply sow chaos and jam our society's means of information exchange.That's not new. Even in the 20th century, Eastern Bloc countries were working to "simply sow chaos and jam our society's means of information exchange":
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-d...
They've just updated their techniques for the web, where it turns out they are much more effective.
⬐ anthony_romeoIt honestly wouldn't shock me if, taken as a whole, over half of reddit comments and posts are either paid shills, bots, or propagandists.⬐ dontbenebby>This is precisely why there are so many very active and hyper-strict moderators now.It's my understanding that moderators can't see votes though. They can stamp out antisocial behavior, but it's my understanding that looking at the data to detect brigades/manipulations is the purview of the admins. (A much smaller set of people)
⬐ pessimizer> This is precisely why there are so many very active and hyper-strict moderators now.Or because shills make a focused effort to become mods as soon as they start posting in a sub.
⬐ wutbrodo⬐ raldiWhat does the word shill mean exactly? I know what it used to mean, but it seems like the last decade of internet culture has made it similar to the word "cult": most of the usage I see just means "person at the median of intellectual honesty whom I disagree with"> This is precisely why there are so many very active and hyper-strict moderators now.Actually, the reason moderators moderate now is that moderated forums outperform unmoderated forums on just about any conceivable metric, and always have. The subreddits that don't keep up have all their membership migrate to ones that do.
Who wants to drink at a pub that won't throw out rude patrons?
I forget where I heard this, but one approach is to simply lag behind the news by a week or so, on the premise that anything meaningful to you as a citizen/voter will continue to be relevant a week later. (Obviously there are exceptions for policy makers, or when some news is otherwise salient to one's profession.)In practice, a significant portion of the news habit is a sort of FOMO, a desire to be included in water-cooler conversations, complete with intelligent opinions and "hot takes". Which is fine as far as it goes; but, it does come at the cost of the emotional rollercoaster of a highly manipulative news cycle (not to mention tribal battle lines[0]). Those who focus their water-cooler game on relative trivialities like sports and pop culture might actually be on to something.
Think about any movement out there at present -- MeToo, conservative agenda, liberal agenda, organic produce, gentrification, almost any major movement. If you really get into the issue, you find that the symbol of the thing is actually a very, very small almost non-representative case of the situation as a whole.Also, sometimes the symbol becomes the focus, instead of the actual underlying value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ
As always the rare, incredible threat dominates our minds so much more than the mundane everyday threat.
It can also more easily go viral. Here's how ordinary, regular people can help. When people start being extreme and a bit divorced from reality and engaging in violence, unsavory almost-violence, and untruthful agenda pushing, people need to call it out, and also call it out from their own sides. It's a failure of calling out one's own side which reads as tacit approval and most strongly gives the false impression to others that the extreme represents the median. Understanding this is one key to understanding why the views of reality diverge so strongly between groups in society in 2019. The tricky part of this, is that to be able to do this, you have to poke your head out of your "side's" information bubble. (If you think your side is 100% in the right, you're not poking hard enough!)
There are forces in society who claim to be championing human rights, but then throw out fundamentals like due process, paint entire groups with a broad brush based on surface characteristics, and engage in the same sort of tactics that the Westboro Baptist Church and the people in the past who tried to exclude Jewish people, blacks, and homosexuals from the mainstream and most valuable parts of society. It's just harder to see, if it's being done on behalf of your own "side."
The real conflict in 2019 is the mainstream vs. the extremes. The extremes actually don't have the same values as the mainstream. The extremes have the advantage of stealth, by re-framing everything in terms of "us vs. them." What they really want is to create more outrage to roll the dice and increase their own power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Stop believing so much in symbols.
Start "following the money." Start examining what's happening in terms of how media uses a basic emotion like outrage to go viral. Who benefits?
⬐ stephenbez> Here's how ordinary, regular people can help. When people start being extreme and a bit divorced from reality and engaging in violence, unsavory almost-violence, and untruthful agenda pushing, people need to call it out, and also call it out from their own sides.I've done this before on Hacker News (on a different account). I've pointed out that an asserted fact was untrue and linked to a PDF compiled by a government agency and pointed out which data table to look at. I agreed with the conclusion the original poster had, but not the facts he used to support the case, and I didn't mention what my political views were.
All I ended up with was a lot of downvotes and lots of comments accusing me of supporting evil policies and that I should read certain books and I'd get my eyes opened. No one even discussed what I said. The funny thing is that I had read the book that was recommended and had it with me in my bookshelf. I was thinking of taking a picture of me holding the book and posting it with the comment saying: "Hey HNer, I'm on your side! But when people use incorrect facts to try to push an agenda, it causes the whole side to lose credibility. There are enough reasons to support policy X that we don't need to make stuff up".
It opened my eyes that people don't engage with the actual content. They just make assumptions of a posters point of view, and then argue against stereotypes.
⬐ rabidratI wish you had done that :) But in actuality I agree, I don't think it would have helped. In today's climate, disagreeing with your 'side' signals that you are on the other 'side' and makes you a bit more of a pariah each time.⬐ MirioronI have run into the same situation that you described so many times. It's one of the most off-putting points about discussing the world with people. I wish people understood that basing an argument on bad facts makes it easy to "disprove" the argument in the mind if the person you're trying to convince.
A somewhat related video: "This Video Will Make You Angry" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJcScript: https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/this-video-will-make-you-angry
Linked Paper (from video description): "What Makes Online Content Viral?" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528077
⬐ tiloleboHow dare you!
How important is this privilege if I can maliciously control how you vote?Now imagine the good we can do with real electoral reform (Democrats idea of repealing citizens United is a meager start, but weak lip service to real reform)
What we have now - First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
Electoral reform is just step 1, something we can all come together for. Something no one could possibly be against.
How about if I control who can be voted for?
Of course it matters - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ
bonus video:
This video will make you angry -https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
I miss the days when I could mostly read news that played on awesome, not outrage.
> [...] notions of etiquette, self determination and even hygiene [...] will find it kind of gross and embarrassing to be caught up in somebody's disinformation.This reminds me of the CGP Grey video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ evrydayhustlingQuality video! I hadn't heard the points about mutation of ideas and forming complementary controversies.⬐ electricEmuWhat’s quality about it? The title “This will make you angry” doesn’t instill confidence.⬐ FiveSquaredIt’s actu really good, just clickbait, it’s like expensive coffe shops, terrible pricing, good quality⬐ evrydayhustlingThe parts I mentioned about why popular ideas discover more potent forms through mutation? Also the title is a self referential joke. Added my comment exactly because it doesn't look like quality at first glance.
Relevant: "This Video Will Make You Angry" (CGP Grey)
⬐ hjekNot sure I understand, sorry. In what way is this video relevant? It seems to suggest that spread of anger is always a bad thing, so are you suggesting that we should dismiss the concerns of angry people?⬐ namuolI'm suggesting we should be wary of inflammatory/controversial, trending content. Usually the attention content receives is proportional to how polarizing it is, not how nuanced or important it is. This is a legitimate problem, and the video does a better job explaining it than I could, which is why I linked it in this thread.
This article talks about an epidemic not limited to America. It's brought on by social media all over the world.The terrific CGP Grey did his best video on this topic: the viral spread of anger on the internet.
It'll be interesting see which countries navigate this new world best. Will Chinese censorship of such be more successful in keeping a productive society? Part of me is afraid the answer could be yes.
Elections are supposed to be bloodless revolutions. If you can't effect change through the electoral system, then the non violent solution is to revolutionize how we vote.Relevant videos (IMO)
First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
Bonus video
This video will make you angry - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ boomboomsubbanI hate to be a downer, but that would require an amendment that drastically hurts both parties. Just try and imagine it passing, remembering that you would be asking your elected representative to give up some of their power.⬐ idontpostNo it wouldn't. Voting methods and how presidential electors are chosen are entirely up to the states.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
CGP Grey has a shortish(7 min) video with some great insights into this phenomenon[1]. Highly recommended.
CGPGrey has a great description of this problem with his video "This video will make you angry":https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
The gist is that pithy, low-effort strawmans of an opposing tribe are highly attractive and contagious memes.
I don't think it has anything specific to do with Twitter. You see similar issues everywhere: Facebook, Reddit, and of course meatspace. It's a human problem.
Twitter and the short character-limit may magnify it a bit, I'll admit that. But the actual problem can't be solved on Twitter or Mastodon. Each individual needs to be aware of this human problem and to constantly make an effort to notice and counteract it in their own brain (which is very difficult and error prone). Perhaps if enough people start doing that more, then cultural change will take place. I don't know.
⬐ AgentME>But the actual problem can't be solved on Twitter or Mastodon. Each individual needs to be aware of this human problem and to constantly make an effort to notice and counteract it in their own brain (which is very difficult and error prone). Perhaps if enough people start doing that more, then cultural change will take place. I don't know.Twitter has a profit incentive against people solving this problem. Places like Mastodon at least have the possibility of designing against the issue or somehow encouraging education about it.
Can't think of a better explanation than this video by CGP Grey, titled "This Video Will Make You Angry", [7:26].
As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying their insults instead of exposing their motivations. Again and again, we have escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation.Why? Because it generates views. Because outrage is the easiest way to make something go viral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Politicians of a certain bent encourage this behavior as well, because it's the perfect way of cementing a highly loyal "base." This happens more at the farther ends of the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right.
Great TED talk on the original twitter kerfuffle referenced in the article:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI
CGP Grey's take on how outrage is used to exploit us through social media: (Yes, I link this often, because the message is valuable.)
memes are not really based on realityWe should take this back to the original formulation of "meme" by Richard Dawkins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Origins
Maybe it's the opposite.
Memes, in the academic sense, are just ideas that can propagate very well. Ideas don't have to be true to propagate.
Mayonnaise is the most popular sauce ever; yet the meme is that it's "disgusting".
Disgust is a very useful emotion to aid in the propagation of an idea. Outrage is another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
https://hbr.org/2016/05/research-the-link-between-feeling-in...
then "love to hate" with increased utility but adsThis is the best one-phrase summary of the decay and toxicity of Facebook I have ever seen!
> Isn't it far better to encourage bad ideas to come out of the shadows, where those who espouse them can do battle (and face defeat) in their name?In an ideal world I would agree. However, we are in a far from ideal world and our experiences since the Internet began show that this rarely happens in the real world.
CGP Grey did an excellent video on how the dynamics of speech tend to play out on the Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc tl;dw: we self-segregate and our "tribes" rarely end up interacting in a meaningful manner. The consequence of that is allowing hate speech to exist in a space invites more hate speech in a self-reinforcing cycle (probably the best example of this is 4chan).
We've also seen what happens when hateful speech is banned. When reddit banned /r/fatepeoplehate the amount of anti-fat bullying on the site dropped precipitously. Does this not point the way forward on how to deal with hateful speech?
⬐ UncleEntity> Does this not point the way forward on how to deal with hateful speech?Yep, private entities should have every right to do (or not do) business with whoever they choose. One could even argue this was the intended meaning of "freedom of association" (if they wanted to get modded down in an practical display of this theory in practice if they were so inclined I suppose).
The main argument I usually see from the "pro-free speech" folks is once you give the government the power to ban "bad" speech then there's nothing stopping them from using this power against your "good" speech.
That line of thinking strongly reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJcAs a counter point, I think maximizing controversy is a short term optimization that reduces the number of users over time. Most people drop things at one point or another, and people are more reluctant to go back if their memories are stressful instead of fun.
⬐ CM30It's definitely a short term thing with unfortunate long term consequences. Indeed, I've seen tons of communities founded on drama and hate for something else, and the vast majority will die in a matter of weeks or months. That's because people get bored with bashing the same things all the time or trying to kill each in other in an online flamewar, and the community will need to either build a real focus or accept its defeat.Also, the more drama a site or service attracts, the more good members it'll inevitably lose. People with the kind of personality you want in a community aren't the kind to get into cat fights or attack people for months on end, and those you do attract with such 'content' tend to be the worst kinds of people.
So yeah, it's definitely a short term optimisation which can blow up in their face further down the line.
CGP Grey has an interesting 7 min video on how this might work [1]. Not so easy to summarize but the main part is that opposite sides of an issue are really part of the same meme that need each other to grow. The more polarization the better.
I'd relate it to the strong emergence of rage politics. Rage seems to transmit and spread much faster than any other type of meme.
> When putting these media ecosystems to political purposes, various tools are useful. Humour is one. It spreads well; it also differentiates the in-group from the out-group; how you feel about the humour, especially if it is in questionable taste, binds you to one or the other. The best tool, though, is outrage. This is because it feeds on itself; the outrage of others with whom one feels fellowship encourages one’s own. This shared outrage reinforces the fellow feeling; a lack of appropriate outrage marks you out as not belonging. The reverse is also true. Going into the enemy camp and posting or tweeting things that cause them outrage—trolling, in other words—is a great way of getting attention.This reminds me of this CGP Grey video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ TeMPOraLSee also: The Toxoplasma of Rage - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ - which is a great discussion on the topic.
"Rage porn" is a whole lot easier to sell than happiness. CGP Grey covers it pretty well in this video
The trouble with these echo chambers is that they nullify efforts of the society to promote meaningful debate and discussion.I saw this coming years ago. So did others:
I am not qualified to analyze the rest of the comments, but the last/first sentences strikes dear to me. In succession they were:> > > The idea that Cloudflare is a public space requiring the protection of the first amendment from a company's policies is laughable. The idea that I'm seeing any of these comments arguing to the contrary means HN is already infiltrated by /pol/ and other Nazi sympathizing groups.
> > The last sentence is the main reason why the world is so fucked up today. "Unless you agree with my radical leftist agenda you are a nazi/racist/<some_imaginary_word>"-mentality and the complete unreasonability of the left is the reason why normal people are fed up with all this crap and are voting for Trump, Brexit etc.
> The [previous citation] is the main reason we are so fucked. There's literally nothing radical or leftist in what I said. Nazism is literally responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths world wide. Fact.
The radical part of your first assertion, Akujin, is that it is hard to interpret your statement as anything else than "person A saying that Cloudflare is a public space requiring the protection of the first amendment from a company's policies implies that A is a Nazi sympathizer". These kind of statements are highly polarizing, hurtful and anger-inducing, because they deny A to have any rationally positive reason for their statement and instead generalize A to belong to an undesirable group. Notice how arguments structured in this way will never convince anyone that is not already of your opinion and will increase the outrage of those readers that are already of your opinion. I would call this radicalizing.
Mildly relevant video from CGP Grey "This Video Will Make You Angry": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ k__I Akujin is right. Often I have the feeling we moved from the left-right spectrum to a triangle, where the "middle" from before has become its own extreme, that is touting the "free speech for Nazis" over and over again most because they fear of taking any sides.⬐ hycariaAgain I'll provide a real example of how hard it is to draw a line : is discussing the number of casualties resulting from the Nazi agenda during WW2 (discussion which you can for an example find in this precise thread) considered pro-nazi or not ?Should this discussion be shut down ? Some people are convinced that discussing a number is just the foreshadow of radical negationism and therefore should be banned speech.
These are (in my opinion) really hard questions.
⬐ PigoI haven't heard any touting from the middle in support of any agenda. But the free marketplace of ideas doesn't work if there are exceptions. Dumb ideas should be loud and clear so everyone has the opportunity to hear how dumb they are. If you think an idea is so dangerous that just being heard will convert people, then I think you should be concerned about how you feel about that idea.I really think BLM supporters, for example, fear this white-supremacy propaganda because it's so similar to their own tactics and agenda. Their goal is to sweep across the country by taking hold of the narrative, so they think this garbage has the potential to sweep the country too. But the average person is at work and paying bills, trying to live a peaceful life, and sees all this stupidity for what it is.
⬐ k__I don't think the tolerance of intolerance is the way.⬐ PigoThat's a nice infographic and all, but we're not talking about that level of tolerance. Tolerance of a website that has some words and pictures on it, or tolerating someone saying something you disagree with on a college campus, is a lot different than tolerance of Germany invading Poland. We have laws against violence, harassment, and even defaming in some areas that cover when these things go past just talk. At that point everyone is onboard with enforcement because it's gone too far.
I'm going to spread this link as far and wide as I can!Also:
CCP Grey video on this topic, but from a slightly different perspective
would put a dent in the profits of some of the wealthiest, most powerful,This is most certainly factual.
and most soulless people in the world.
This is a factually unsupportable adhominem. Sentiment that contributes to outrage on social media is a form of cultural pollution. People use it for short term gain, but it's a kind of externality which is tearing society apart. (FWIW, I dislike this situation as well.)
(Yes, this is obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )
⬐ jorjordandanOutrage is a form of cultural pollution? So no one should ever be outraged by peoples actions? Or only in the right circumstances? Who gets to say when its justified, if ever?⬐ thanatropismAll of those questions apply to air pollution.⬐ None⬐ stcredzeroNone⬐ jorjordandanThat's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. It's only 'pollution' to those who don't agree with the outrage.⬐ thanatropismHere's a primer on intellectual hygiene you might enjoy.https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/03/02/the-limits-of-epistemi...
⬐ stcredzeroThat's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphorCO2 is the best analogy. There needs to be a certain amount for the utility. Too much and too little are detrimental.
Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value.
This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. It's the amount produced which is the issue in the analogy. In reality, there are also finer grained quality issues.
To further demonstrate the application of your fallacy, I would agree that there are problems with under-prosecution of certain crimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMGbtGGdbQ
However, when the outrage which has reached a fever pitch such that people start calling for abrogation of Innocent Until Proven Guilty based on inherent characteristics, something has gone wrong. Our culture has known, since the times in which the Magna Carta was written, that the protection of the individual from arbitrary imprisonment and prosecution is essential to prevent totalitarian abuses of power.
Outrage is easy to over use, its over-use is readily rewarded and such over-use is clearly everywhere, even despite the fact that it's only the excesses of the "other side" that are easily discerned.
⬐ jorjordandan>This is an all-or-nothing fallacyNot really. Pollution is uniformly unwanted by definition (without you changing the goalposts to CO2, which is naturally occurring, and the naturally occurring CO2 would not be considered as pollution, whereas human created CO2 would). In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition:
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
Outrage, on the other hand, may be very much wanted, or even required. I'm not defending ALL outrage. I'm defending that some outrage may occasionally be warranted. You saw an all or nothing fallacy where there was none. To recap -
Argument: Outrage is cultural pollution.
My Response: All pollution is unwanted, some outrage may be occasionally wanted or warranted.
Your response: Saying pollution has no value is an all-or-nothing fallacy!
The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy. Because the person making that claim should know better.
⬐ stcredzeroIn fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition:"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
This is either an honest mistake or a pedagogical trick you're pulling. In the general point, I mean pollution in the sense people mean when they say something like "noise pollution." "Pollution" in my analogy (which isn't the same referent as above) would be excess CO2 -- in large enough quantities this is a bad thing, and everyone should know that fact. The validity of the underlying point really has nothing to do with your nitpick. Just substitute "bad thing" for that word in your head. Your whole argument vanishes, and my point remains.
Your response: ... is an all-or-nothing fallacy!...The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy.
You do have an all or nothing fallacy, and your falsely claimed refutation is actually an irrelevant language nitpick. However, I don't find that a quarter as disturbing as the seeming attachment you have to outrage as some kind of tool for convincing others. That's not convincing. That's coercing.
Outrage is a form of cultural pollution?On the 21st century internet, an alarmingly large portion of it is. Some outrage is justified, clearly. However, the incentive structures online are so extremely skewed in favor of producing outrage, we need a new form of skepticism. I was once outraged by the notion, "Pics, or it didn't happen!" But on reflection, I realized that the new incentive structures made the rewarding of internet fakery far too likely. Young people, realizing this, reacted in a rational way!
As with "pics or it didn't happen" this is going to be hard for many to hear, but there needs to be a more rational approach online. As it is, the lowered bar for producing online commentary and media has meant a general drop in quality, and this extends to commentary and media produced for activism and activism itself.
There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues.Therein lies the big disadvantage of the politics of outrage. Any movement that can't organize itself to make the tactical climb onto the moral high ground will continue to wallow in the lowland quagmires of outrage. The most unreasonable of one side will anger the most unreasonable of the other in an unending cycle of recruitment through the viral nature of outrage on social media. The "leaderless" movements of the 21st century are just this, and are just doing this.
(Yes, I am seemingly obliged to repost this. I will repost this as many times as I can manage! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )
There's nothing that involves subtlety and sophistication to understand which is going to benefit from "discussion" in a state of outrage. Racism and sexism in the 21st century are two topics which fit this. For example my "lived experience" tells me that racist micro-aggressions exist, they often coexist with forms of sexually charged transgressive psychological warfare. However, my lived experience also informs me that going around in a militant, accusatory state to combat such things is like emotional carpet bombing -- in that there is an almost complete certainty of hurting your own cause in the long term in several ways. (By causing collateral damage to innocents, for one.)
So is there a point to getting upset about Y Combinator's list? No. Just about anyone has bigger fish to fry. It's also a good idea to steer clear of both such controversies and the broken individuals who might seek to exploit such controversies. If someone is upset about such a thing, it probably means there's some kind of magical thinking going on and there's a need for some introspection. (Y Combinator isn't an oracle, pg and everyone involved are just ordinary human beings, and your feelings of security about the world shouldn't depend on a world view that requires woo-woo thinking.)
(tptacek -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think this is the right place to say these things.)
EDIT:
Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different.
tl;dr -- If one doesn't think YC has their head in the right place, one shouldn't be doing business with them.
Stronger social safety nets are the answer.They would be, except for the fact that our modern media makes it a cottage industry to gain eyeballs/power/money by using viral outrage to degrade the social fabric and public discourse. Because of this, democracies will lack a voting populace cohesive and informed enough to handle such a society. As de Toqueville predicted over two centuries ago, democracy will end by everyone voting themselves pay raises until the economy is wrecked, then we'll start to blame and kill each other over it.
⬐ steego> As de Toqueville predicted over two centuries ago, democracy will end by everyone voting themselves pay raises until the economy is wrecked, then we'll start to blame and kill each other over it.You made some good points about the modern using viral outrage to degrade public discourse and parts of our social fabric and how it affects how informed and cohesive the voting populace participates.
However, then you took what I thought was a very disconnected turn that betrays your first premise. Let me ask you, how does a fractured and misinformed populace vote themselves pay raises?
It seems to me special interest groups have done an incredible job of making sure people are divided on just about every important issue and then hijacking the legislative process for each of those issues. If you look at health care industry, you will notice they give to both sides of the aisle and have played a big role in shaping both the ACA and the repeals of the ACA.
While the changes in policies in health care policy will have a big impact on us (either in increased costs, or reduction in coverage), the health care providers and insurance companies will benefit from both the ACA and any law that repeals the ACA because unlike us, they are not divided in their objectives.
I see the world as a number of possible futures, and I don't dismiss de Tocqueville's prediction, but I don't think that's reflected in the current landscape. I think people are entirely too manipulated to be smart enough to vote themselves a pay raise, and I think special interests have done an exceptional job of influence government policy to maximize their interests.
I too suspect we might crush the economy with a tremendous amount of debt, but I think it will be the special interest groups that will figure out how to bleed us dry before people vote themselves a pay raise.
It could also be a mix of both scenarios.
⬐ stcredzeroLet me ask you, how does a fractured and misinformed populace vote themselves pay raises?Let's set aside the question of how we'd get something like Basic Income in the first place. Let's assume it exists. If something like that exists already, then people could well be united in wanting to increase their income. In that case, the utterly fractured discourse would guarantee that rational voices explaining why this is a bad idea would be completely drowned out, leaving the issue to be decided by people's short sighted self interest.
I think people are entirely too manipulated to be smart enough to vote themselves a pay raise
I think people are entirely too manipulated to think clearly about voting themselves a pay raise.
I too suspect we might crush the economy with a tremendous amount of debt, but I think it will be the special interest groups that will figure out how to bleed us dry before people vote themselves a pay raise.
It could also be a mix of both scenarios.
It will be a mix of both scenarios, and a fractured public unable to discuss anything rationally will enable the pathological government decision making.
Extra Credit's episode about Sesame Credit:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI
So, where else is there a widespread system of social media scores used to enforce conformity? Right here! The only difference is that there is a greater diversity factions influencing this in the west. From what I've seen, we are all being very effectively conditioned to hate "the other."
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
<rant>There is no fucking way I'm getting a neural implant. Musk, Zuck and their likes can go fuck themselves for even daring to put money behind these ideas before working on the larger problem of understanding how the Internet, and then intercommunications it gives our brains, has negatively affected us as a society[1]. Being aware of our brain's weak spots is critical to preserving a rational society. I would extend that to the infrastructure that connects them as well. </rant>
⬐ MichaelMoser123but think of the business potential! advertising and propaganda can be streamed right into the brain, no way to block this information, this feature alone must be worth its price in gold.
> This is exacerbated by not having the luxury of taking cues from facial expressions, body language, smiles and the context of the situation.This is caused by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy. This is, in fact, the very idea of irrationality, who's concept indicates additional work must be done to determine outcome of choice, either by individual or by group. Note that I did not disagree with your assertions here, but simply seek to restate them in slightly different terms so they may be visualized by others more effectively.Trolls may encapsulate irrational ideas, which may be visualized as memes, inside multiple illogical statements which may be designed to directly conflict with each other's truths. Evaluating one of these statements as a "truth" may cause the other statement to evaluate to false. Trolls may utilize statements in which evaluation of truth is not desirable to the entity visualizing the truth. Any attempt by the recipient to evaluate truth or non-truth of these statements may lead to additional work being conducted to achieve a desirable outcome, such as "winning an argument".
Additionally, these "double bind" memes, or internal visualizations, may effectively spread the irrationality to other actors if they are constructed correctly. These viral memes take root and spread when the new irrational actor posts more irrationality in the form of similar or modified logic patterns.
This process, manifests as a viral meme (or what I hypothesize as an entity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Trolls remove choice from individuals and groups by causing the individual and groups to work against each other. The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious.
My primary suggestion for combat trolls in a quick and easy way is to simply not visualize removal of choice for another in your own internal frame. In other words, visualize choice for yourself in the future if you must, but avoid visualizing the actions of others! Stating your refusal to be illogical, or irrational, is usually enough to send the trolls scurrying away.
Note: A double bind and a double BLIND are two different concepts. Double binding someone has been likened to "crazy making" due to its effect of blocking decision making processes from occurring in a given entity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
⬐ kartan> It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy.Unless they are well paid state-sponsored trolls. They still don't have infinite time or energy, but neither we do.
> The only way to prevent this is to educate people on the concept of double bind statements, their use in removing choice for others, and the possibility that these concepts may spread virally, on their own accord, in a population which may or may not be conscious.
Education is the solution. And I hope that we chose it.
⬐ frik⬐ maxericksonState-sponsored and company-sponsored trolls with near infinite money are a problem.Look how much more you expended than the person trolling you though. If you are willing to be manipulative, you can hassle people into wasting their time with pretty short comments.⬐ kordless⬐ YCodeVisualize other's truths at the expense of your own.⬐ JarwainWhat do you mean by this?⬐ kordlessNot the "if you are willing to be manipulative" statement. That is what defines a troll. A "troll" is simply an entity (of race human) who is willing to remove choice from others by tricking them into removing choice for themselves.So, what is choice? I hypothesize it is work. Work done and saved on one hand. Work to be done on the other. Some of our choices are based on what has come before regarding the choice we must make. I like German beer, so I drink one each day. Some comes from other humans, however, who choose to remove our choice for us. Advertising does this, for example. Sometimes choice is removed from use of logic, or rationality.
It is my belief that our choices are, in part, governed by our visualization systems. I'm talking about that thing in your head that allows us to visualize images similar to what we see while using compute devices, such as this monitor, graphics card, computer I am typing on now.
If someone else, besides you, can get you to visualize something, I'm asserting that this is actually a choice of removal of choice by yourself.
Some examples would help illustrate your points.⬐ kordless⬐ pdelbarbaBe spontaneous, is the quick and dirty example. ;) It's hard to have intent to be spontaneous, given it's the inverse of intent.Other examples of internally held double-binds would be jobs, or relationships. Holding a job you do not like in order to live in a place which makes you happy is a double bind. Quitting the job can be imagined to increase happiness, but cause loss of place to live, which itself makes you happy. Loss of happiness is not desired, so quitting is not an option given moving may result in loss of happiness.
Let's look at a troll's use of a double bind, with intent to spread the double bind:
> Only by enlisting the full potential of women in our society will we be truly able to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain - @potus
This is a recent tweet by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump presents two concepts, which are both shown to be irrational: 1. "We" do not enlist the full potential of women in society, and 2. "Our" society, America, is not currently great. Linking them together is achieved by saying "only", which implies that #1 must evaluate to truth in order for #2 to evaluate to truth. i.e. If women, as a group, do not attain their "full potential", and do so by choice for all of us, America will not be great again.
"Enlisting" is considered engaging someone in their support of a cause, by either willing or unwilling removal of choice. This statement is, technically, unwilling removal of choice from the group women AND unwilling removal of choice of an individual woman, given she is a member of group women. In this case, the removal of choice is actually done via the hypothesized, and forced, attainment of "full potential" of a woman and women, by "us" (which is really Trump speaking for all of us at this point). This is an impressive play on Trump's part, given this statement, in and of itself, is a double bind. Women, or any other entity or group for that matter, may only achieve their full potential by having internal choice for themselves. No other entity may speak for the potential in another without applying judgment, or removal of choice, from that individual AND be capable of staying rational while doing so.
By tacking on the idea of "making America great", any dismissal of the first concept, which again is itself a double bind, enables the use of blame for not wanting to make America great again. As with potential, America is only "great" if people think it's great. If it is to be made "great again", that implies it is not currently great, which itself is an irrational statement.
⬐ YCodeThanks! I suppose that makes sense.I think the counterpoint here is that it's much easier to make a script to automate the process of spreading misery than it is to make quality contributions to an online community.⬐ wvenable> It is an irrational belief that trolls have infinite time and energy.Infinite is certainly a hyperbole; but trolls typically have more time and energy to devote to destruction than you do. I have experienced it. Some trolls are mentally ill -- I have had to deal with that as well.
I honestly don't know what else you're trying to say here but you did use a lot of bytes to do it.
⬐ kordlessIt's what I call rational irrationality. ;)
Two videos that are (IMO) relevant:
> I want to illustrate the point that we intervene less, not more, when judgments about ourselves are involved.Given "ourselves" is all of us here, a way to illustrate that in a trustworthy way would be to expose the meta data around the story. Which articles were flagged and removed, who flagged, how much it mattered, etc. If not in real time, due to possible exploitation for ranking tweaks, then perhaps in an acceptable offset of time.
I also recommend implementing a cost of suffering flag type for articles which use negative emotional responses to spread the information in the article, especially when it is dissonant and viral in nature. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc for context.
This article seems reasonable, but here's one indication it's flirting with recursive irrational behavior:
> I have to admit that I found it a bit comforting that I wasn’t the only one who thought this all seemed a bit fishy.
Confirmation bias is still a bias. Making an argument with bias prevents exploring other explanations, such as errors in HN code, activity periods (lunch for example) and sharing of stories within other aggregates which elicit a negative response (a large company monitoring the comments may not agree with post, and consensus there effectively moderates it down).
⬐ burger_moon>Given "ourselves" is all of us here, a way to illustrate that in a trustworthy way would be to expose the meta data around the story. Which articles were flagged and removed, who flagged, how much it mattered, etc.Publicly pointing out who flagged a story seems like a bad idea. I think the data should always be anonymized. I just think it will lead down a bad path to ostracize people for specific votes or flags.
I do however think it would be interesting to see some data after the fact for some stories say ones that reach 500 points or greater.
⬐ reitanqild⬐ tokenizerrrPublicly pointing out who flagged a story seems like a bad idea.Possibly better idea:
Moderators could take a look at unfairly flagged stories and silently adjust flag weights for flag-abusing users.
This is of course based on my unscientific thought that the majority of interesting (IMO) stories flagged of the frobt page are removed by competitors (political or business-wise) rather than moderators.
⬐ walterbellAnd commercial reputation management / PR firms. See the book Grassroots for Hire.⬐ detaroUnless I'm completely mistaken, the mods already do that (at least they've said "we'll take flagging privileges away from users that abuse them")As a regular user, I have no interest in being witch hunted because I flagged a story. Votes and flags should be anonymous as far as other users are concerned.⬐ kordlessThis is highly irrational and speculative in nature. If an entity flags all articles by another entity or group, they should be held accountable for their actions, which could be shown to be biased. Further, a "witch hunt" would be driven by irrational decision making processes in the "hunter" aggregate, which is the point of exposing the meta data in the first place. Stopping recursive irrational thinking is the goal here.⬐ tokenizerrr⬐ throwaway743824If a user flags incorrectly it is up to the moderators to moderate. Not for other users. Note that I said 'as far as other users are concerned'.⬐ kordlessIncorrectly indicates agreement on concensus of the aggregate. I agree with your assertions. Moderators, as infrastructure currently stands, serve an important role in shielding users from the truth of things.It has to cost something to hide good content if you expect people to take the time to produce or submit quality content and engage with the community. Otherwise you'll end with the things no one cared much about.⬐ kordlessIf I got paid a revenue split whenever someone paid to get public data that involved me, I'd be OK with it.⬐ tokenizerrrAnd to engage with the community you use a throwaway account?⬐ throwaway743824I'm more of an example of the latter.
CCP Grey does a wonderful video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc) on mind germs and how they make us angry and how they spread. Its a short but interesting look at how these stories spread.
⬐ dredmorbiusQuite excellent, yes. A fave.
Can I share a video that (IMO) is relevant?
⬐ dtechMore relevant: this is the theory of memes [1], which the author avoids because that word has a very different connotation because of the internet.⬐ gukovHumor is the best way to learn. One side learns about the world by seeing memes, the other side by watching SNL. One thing is grassroots, the other one is paid propaganda.
CCP Greys discussion about thought germs is extremely interesting look on how and why misinformation spreads. I much less rigirous look at the topic but very accessible.
I looked back at your story a couple of times but couldn't figure out how the outraged attacks are being rewarded. I do feel like you might be on to something in how critical comments are often the most discussed. Think about how the single like "thank you" or "thanks for that" comments are hidden as being empty of thought.I don't have any solutions but have you seen this CGP Grey video called "This video will make you angry" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc which says that outraged ideas are the quickest to spread.
That all sounds pretty bad, but there is a lot that makes San Diego a really great place to lives as well:- _Beer_: If you're into beer, San Diego is a REALLY great place to be. There are new breweries popping up constantly, a great selection of beers on tap at nearly ever restaurant, and a decent bottle shop on nearly every corner.
- _Dogs_: San Diego is an INCREDIBLY dog friendly city. There are numerous dog parks, restaurants with outdoor patios that cater to dog owners, and even a Dog Beach.
- _Petco Park_: I grew up going to the Oakland Coliseum and (later, when it opened), what was then PacBell Park. For the price of tickets, it's hard to beet a game at Petco Park. The food selection, which features local restaurants, is excellent, beers are semi-affordable, and nearly all the seats are great. The Padres are historically terrible, but since most people seem to be transplants, they all just go to games when "their" team is in town.
- _Balboa Park_: Balboa Park, to me, is the crown jewel of the city and one of the major reasons I moved to Hillcrest--I'm just a few blocks north. It includes some great museums, the botanical building [13], and the Zoo which does some pretty altruistic work, is also a gigantic botanical garden, and has sky buckets you can ride on to get a view of the entire city.
- _Political Mixing_: I didn't realize how myopic the Bay Area was until I left. I still have family and close friends in the area who pride themselves in the political openness of the Bay Area. That only really seems to be true if you agree with the dominant views. Disagreements seem to center around pedantic details or characterizations of the "Political Right" or "Big Business" [14]. San Diego, on the other hand, is really more of a cultural salad [15]. A typically night out at a North Park or Downtown Bar will land you in the company of hipsters, yuppies, hippies, military cadets, punks, gays, Cholos, etc. Some of this depends on venue, but you never really know what you're going to get--it can be very diverse which encourages everyone to be polite and occasionally reconcile or challenge their own political views and preconceptions. A lot of the ska music coming out of Southern California which talked about conflict, tolerance, etc. didn't make sense to me until I moved down here.
- _Food_: San Diego has great Mexican, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and East African food. We're lacking quality Chinese, don't have nearly enough quality Indian, and really only have two or three good Italian places in Little Italy. Greek could also use some work, although there is an old dinner on University in North Park that's tasty and affordable.
- _Trails_: I'm a trail runner and we have a LOT of really well-maintained local trails in the city. If you want something more substantial, you can get to the PCT in about 45 minutes and run north (or south) to your heart's content.
- _Music_: Due to our proximity to LA, a lot of big acts come through San Diego on week nights and play smaller venues for almost nothing. I frequently attend shows at the Casbah for $13. Unfortunately, LA also seems to suck up any of our local talent since the industry is so much larger there.
- _Neighborhoods_: Coming from the Bay Area, there are lots of neighborhoods that, even with their Southern California cultural heritage, offer refuge and tend to share my cultural leanings. Some favorites include Hillcrest, Normal Heights, University Heights, Mission Hills, Golden Hill, North Park, and South Park. Unfortunately, to live in this area, I have to commute every day to Poway for work. Apparently Barrio Logan and Logan heights are also getting better, but I haven't spent any substantial time down there.
Sorry, that was a good bit longer than I anticipated. I'm happy to answer any questions about the area although questions related specifically to the start-up scene, securing VC funding, etc. should probably be directed elsewhere.
[13] http://www.balboapark.org/in-the-park/botanical-building
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_%28cultural_idea%29
⬐ CalRobertThat was fantastically thorough. If I still lived in SD I'd ask if you wanted to meet up for a pint. We even share an alma mater (Cal Poly SLO).I couldn't have put it better myself. And thanks for pointing out that climate change is an issue. I got really, really tired of people saying "gee, this sure is an unusually hot summer. Just like the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that" and yet thinking of climate change as unsettled science. Before weatherspark got rid of their dashboard I could show them that summers in SD ARE definitively hotter than they have been in ages (though there was a hot stretch in the late 70's).
I think you are mistaking the resulting meta-consciousness created from the game theory in society and government with individual's based consciousness and some internal intent to deceive. While I would agree the government may try to deceive us, it does so by formally rationalizing government individual's actions as needed to "protect" us from threats. There is likely not one or two people "plotting" out what is happening. It's more probable that something like the angry meme phenomenon[1] has taken root in our government and is now attempting to isolate itself from harm. I think this came about because we tend to become fearful about things that may happen if we don't do X, Y and Z to stop them before they happen and those X, Y and Z things are now hard coded into our government and affecting the game theory around it. As a result, you get a meta-govt-conscious thing acting irrationally and making everyone very nervous as a result.Or as Gene Belcher put it, "Everything is randomness and chaos."
⬐ bogomipz>"... meta-consciousness created from the game theory"Could you elaborate on what this is?
⬐ kordlessA Turing machine is a good example of a construct that is able to self reference and take action based on measurements. In a Turing machine, one can model other machines.With human consciousness, this analogy would be applied to a "higher level" of consciousness forming around/on top of the human's interaction with that particular "thing" that allows the thing to take action on given metrics and share it among other consciousnesses which are in communication with it and assist with sustaining it's existence. In a business, for example, the game theory/model would govern the way the business makes money and the processes in which the company provides product or services to a customer which best ensure the future success of the company as an entity.
If the founders/influencers in the company approach building the model with the assumption the customer facing processes are mutable (which itself is dissonant in nature without customer approval), the resulting "consciousness" of the business might focus on building value by marketing means and acquisition (both viral based growth methods). This "intent" is then translated into the day to day processes required for raising additional awareness of the company's product in the market, again at the customer's cost. In extreme examples where such entities can survive long term, such as with the government, these intents may extend well beyond any intent by the individual's involved. I don't think anyone working for the government really wants to violate your privacy, but they are heavily influenced in their need to rationalize it given they wouldn't want the same thing happening to themselves, nor would they want fail at stopping a terrorist blowing up something on American soil. So, they make it "OK" to deal with personally, and the government entity is able to survive symbiotically with the host which is currently being kept in "stable" condition.
Richard Dawkins calls them memes, but they are likely capable of more complexity than we realize, given the somewhat substantiated claims in the video titled This Video Will Make You Angry on YouTube. It would also make a lot of sense if they worked toward escaping attention, given the awareness of them by the host is akin to inoculation.
The part about different kinds of content that get shared reminds me of this CGP Grey video that talks about what causes us to share things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ flushYeah, this is exactly what I thought of too. Searched for "CGP" and there your comment is! :)
Hi Richard, good to have you in SF! Expat here, living in SF for the past 2 years. Throwaway, because America.There are three major things entangled here:
> I thought it was normal to feel apologetic that I may have looked or seemed “threatening” to passersby, if I thought I invoked any feelings of fear or discomfort in my presence.
* Personal observation: people who move to SF, for reasons that I speculate to include _baseline niceness_, weather, and lack of generally bad things happening to them become after a while really socially, self-conscious, and apologetic. This spikes, but never really goes away, until you go somewhere else, and get hit by a stranger.
Except...
* There is a massive homeless problem in SF, compounded with mental illnesses, and visible behavioristic problems. Speaking strictly of personal observation, a homeless of a race do not hit one of the same race, which means all those white dudes? yeah, they've been shouted, and crapped at by persons of color.
* People are also, psychologically, can't reliably distinguish people of other races prior to knowing a few members of them personally for an extended period of time. This is not uniformally distributed. People who care about you matter. The average Joe down the street does not.
This checks the "why" on racism, and judgement. Which leads us straight into...
* There is a structural incentive problem in how information ecologies replicate themselves, and feeds to action under conditions of visible racial differences, that is best summed up here: https://i.imgur.com/yjfiYG2.png . Essentially, ideas which cause anger, and anxiety have a higher delta-replication rate, than every other piece of information any human being can imagine up, ever.
* This article of yours? Yeah, it's essentially tapping into the same reaction by referencing it (as evidenced by the number of comments here). This is counter to your own verbalised preferences. The two most notable summaries of this effect can be found at: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc This Video Will Make You Angry * http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
For this reason, here is what you can, actually, do about stuff:
* Get off the toxoplasma. Unfollow people who replicate stuff, which makes you feel compelled to react to hatred.
* IF you read something, which makes you feel hatred, ALWAYS, always check the source. In case of law, read the original statement made by court. In case of newsreports, why are you watching newsreports? see 1. Not enough? open up newsreports 5 years ago, and determine how relevant is whatever they are writing to the now-you.
* BE THE SYSTEMATIC CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD. Does writing " I felt like I had to say something. Anything" solves problems directly? No. Does it suddenly induces fear into >20K people? Heck yes. Does it also generates you traffic? Yes. (you see the incentive problem here?) But is it quality traffic, that will convert? Only to other fear-inducing things. Is this the sort of system you want to increase? If not, can you take that ~40 minutes of writing an article into planning? If not, can you code, and donate whatever you've made in that same 40 minutes? Both hacks at the joints of the problem, instead of escalating it.
⬐ lotsoWould you tell Ta-Nehisi Coates or James Baldwin to take action instead of writing about their experiences? Writing is a perfectly fine way of taking action.We don't even know what the writer does in his spare time. He might be doing those things already.
Interestingly, this [fn:1] video just explained how emotion-triggering content, in particular anger, will spread the fastest. Clearly, clever marketing/propaganda people have used this technique well.
It's a positive feedback loop, constantly reinforcing itself. There's an interesting video on this[1]. The gist of it is such: Nothing gets people sharing an idea like anger and fear. And the clickbait "journalists" know it.Yes, there's a lot of reasonable people, but most of them are part of the problem because they don't have the time or motivation to do the research. They see something like "Why Donald Clinton is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all cost" and just share it without even thinking about the other side of it.
Can we fix it at all? I'm not sure. The best you can do is distance yourself from the crazy people in "your" camp, encourage your "allies" to give the "enemy" view point a fair consideration and hope for the best.
⬐ onion2kCan we fix it at all?A possible solution is actually what most people who use Facebook claim to want - show users everything their friends post in chronological order. At least that way any 'filter bubble' is of your own making.
⬐ zyx321Which is never going to happen, because the current system allows Facebook to keep charging companies for continued access to customers they've already engaged.⬐ kristiancMy email inbox offers a dumb pipe to companies who have already engaged me to engage me again without filtering. I'll take my chances with the algorithms.
Your reply is demonstrating the parents issues with the discussion perfectly.Anyone not closely following the situtation(such as myself) just sees a enormously heated up discussion (I was reminded of [1]). Every party involved is accusing the others of spreading lies,misrepresenting the situation and trying to take control over the blockchain/bitcoin/protocol.
Based on that, I have difficulties understanding and evaluating the potential technical and political challenges.
Bitcoin (and similar crypto currencies) seem to be a huge risk at the moment: Everything might collapse tomorrow (or not). The market could be split into incompatible segments(or not). One entity could become strong enough to take control of the network and enact unfavourable policies(or not).
Right now,I do not see why somenone would decide to start investing (time and money) into bitcoin while there are generally accepted, scaled up and working solutions for the underlying problem of getting money from A to B (Banks Credit cards, etc). These work fine for most people/companies and their cost and risks can be estimated fairly well in advance.
⬐ rsi_oww"The reports of Bitcoin's problems are greatly exaggerated".There is a small group who seem really good at spreading a message of "Bitcoin is about to collapse". They are doing this either because they control a lot of competing currency (Ethereum), or because they think it will help adoption of their Bitcoin fork.
The reality is, 95% of Bitcoiners are very happy with the team working on the protocol, and the market seems happy too (the price has gone up +68% over the last 6 months.)
But you absolutely should not take some random internet person's word for it. You'll have to invest large amounts of time reading bitcointalk, reddit and the like to make a sound decision. Luckily it's pretty fascinating reading. In time when Bitcoin's future is clearer, it will either be worth much more, or nearly nothing. But I think you can get great insight into where it is going by following it closely today.
⬐ TazeTSchnitzelLook, even without the block size issue, the infighting is a problem.⬐ NoneNone⬐ dwaltripYour 95% number is completely made up, and doesn't match what others are seeing. There are many posts in r/bitcoin that are pro-large-blocks/anti-Core with hundreds of upvotes.
Regardless of their nature, questions are definitely a burden. However, I think the way some questions are put can cause a disproportionate amount of burden when they contain hidden meanings or agendas.If someone is having issues being direct and use techniques to "hide" how they feel about something in a question, they effectively load the question with intent. I think sometimes those questions can be viral in nature, causing angry memes like what they mention in "This Video Will Make You Angry": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Logic would dictate that we should learn to avoid questions which cause excessive amounts of processing with little return in their answers. A simple way to filter on these is to ask if the question conflicts itself when answered in a given way.
As crazy as it sounds (by definition), there's a hypothesis that we get infected with viruses of the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_MindThere's also a video explaining it in terms of funny cat video production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
⬐ oh_sighSee also: Snowcrash⬐ yohaNote: this is a CGP Grey video, and a good one!Another take on this, from Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ .
It is a hard fact there is no "most of them" with which you can have this argument. You can't make a meta group of people holding the same thought virus "listen" to an argument that is an equivalent thought virus. That's why you find yourself simulating what others might say to you if you didn't say it just right:> Otherwise, they just fluff it off as a "whining from a bunch of liberal, elite pansies".
You can't simulate what you might say and then simulate what they might say and make any of it make any sense (or be reasonably efficient in whatever systems you plug that stupid logic into).
Stop the cycle and solve the real problem. That's all I'm asking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
CGP Grey did a great video about this. It's called "This video will make you angry, I highly recommend it.
⬐ greenyodaUnfortunately, the click-bait title of this submission doesn't say anything about what it's about. A more informative title might be: "How memes propagate (and mutate) over the internet". It's a fairly interesting and thought-provoking 7-minute video.
This post is a living embodiment of this CGP Grey video[0].
Related, though less about brands, I really liked "This Video Will Make You Angry" by CGP Grey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc - Thoughts/memes as germs trying to reproduce and spread, battling for attention and thriving when people endlessly argue as part of an us/them dynamic.
⬐ justamanI recommend reading http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mind-The-Science-Meme/dp/1401924... this guy wrote Microsoft Word. One of the chapters is called "How to start a cult"⬐ lentil_soupThis reminds me a lot of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene). That book actually coined the word "meme".Mindblowing book if you haven't read it.
⬐ frogpelt⬐ jacquesmHaving seen this link, many of the responses in this thread make a lot more sense now.I'm starting to see a meme emerge here.
⬐ datashamanSusan Blackmore's The Meme Machine is the book that brought the ideas home for me.Oh, that's super good. I'll definitely include that in the post. The funny part is that this itself is a meme but it's like sharing a vaccine rather than a pathogen. I really like the disease analogy.Thank you!
⬐ PopeOfNope> The funny part is that this itself is a meme but it's like sharing a vaccine rather than a pathogen.No, it's like those informational commercials raising awareness for muscular dystrophy. Just because you now know it exists doesn't mean you've cured it or even treated it. This stuff works whether you know about it or not.
> (is there anything sadder than a political agenda that can be expressed in 140 characters?)Sadder? Or anger inducing? I'm convinced the reason twitter succeeded is that it wound up being an echo chamber for the outraged. A perfect platform for trolls. You can't explain anything sufficiently in 140 characters, so dialectic is out. The fallback is usually rhetoric (appeals to emotion), with anger being the most effective.
The end result is you have an internet shouting match where everybody is trying to piss off everyone else and nobody can clarify anything. It's the digital embodiment of CGP Grey's video "This video will make you angry[0]".
The author is a friend of mine. What I say below is something I've discussed with her.I think the last great frontier for humanity's "waking up from history" is awareness of group psychology, particularly the psychology of the "other." Ironically, as noted by GCP Grey, widespread access to the Internet has actually made such group psychology worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
One of the big problems with an awareness of what Noam Chomsky called "irrational jingoism," is that currently society is made out of it. Our organizations and social norms and structures actually use the natural jingoism built into Homo sapiens in order to increase group solidarity.
The cognitive distortions that come out of such group psychology are a big problem online. It's been noted that if you go far enough in either direction of the political spectrum, things start to look the same. Historically, both extremes become militaristic and convinced of a duty to righteous aggression. I would invite hardy and curious souls to plumb both more militant feminist and more militant Men's Rights groups online, and witness firsthand the degree to which both sides can be eerily reminiscent of each other in tone and self-righteous attitude. (For example: Intolerant "you're with us or against us" attitudes.)
As 21st century citizens, we should already be aware of "bait and switch" tactics. We should also be savvy about the psychology of online groups, and be able to read when a group has started to cross a threshold and becomes driven by positive feedback cycles of outrage to garner more attention. We should recognize when the ideology of whatever movement has been thus hijacked to become hateivism. (EDIT: To clarify, what I refer to as "groups" are small-granularity, as in a few person's social networks, not everyone who identifies with a particular label!)
To clarify: my issue is not with either side of any debate. There are a few ideas on both sides of the issue I would agree with. My chief concern is whether the groups in question are self-aware concerning their own group dynamics. Such an organizational awareness was perhaps the chief accomplishment of Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots, though there seems to be no awareness of this particular accomplishment in the culture at large.
EDIT: I should clarify what I meant by saying "made such group psychology worse." Creating virtual meeting spaces and virtual online groups is far easier and far cheaper than organizing face to face groups, and the same communication resources also make it easier to facilitate such meetings in person. Much good has come of this. However, it has also created far more opportunities for the incubation of distorted mob psychologies. Often these take the name of some cause or ideology but are distorted in a jingoistic direction.
As 21st century online citizens, we should be as aware of such "bait and switch" with the labels of ideologies as we are aware of the same tactics with regards to name brands. We should be as savvy about the intellectual provenance of an online group's teachings and its actual practices as we are savvy about online shopping or choosing which Kickstarter campaigns to support. If just about anyone can set up shop online as an "activist," doesn't this create the same situation that arises when just about anyone can set up a web store? (Isn't this the same economic situation as with travelling medicine shows?)
From what I have seen online, people are often remarkably unsophisticated about evaluating distortions in their particular group's interpretation of ideologies or activist programs, and largely blind to their own group dynamics. This is especially true when "othering," stereotyping, and group hatreds have taken hold. Most importantly: It is just as true online as it is in-person.
⬐ FredNaturalMindfulness is on The Path. The Middle Way seems to support the most rapid passage on this path. At the extremes of this path friction slows everything down to a crawl. At the extremes hate becomes recursive. -YMMV⬐ olewhalehunter⬐ DoctorZeus"If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him. Take off his robes and wear them: now you are the Buddha and must defend yourself against hordes of challengers like that guy in Afro Samurai."You might be interested in the book 'The Righteous Mind' by Jonathan Haidt... he talks about that group psychology, and the importance of having social contexts where those energies can be expressed in a non-destructive way - such as college/city sports teams.Also, do you have a reading recommendation for learning more about that aspect of Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots?
⬐ n0usHegel's Philosophy of History comes to mind here.⬐ fohncMore mindfulness, consideration and empathy would be great, and hopefully stop the endless tidal waves of bile that pours from SJWs who are more interested in being outraged than in actually making society better!⬐ BalgairI agree with the initial thesis and would go so far as to say two of the top functions of 'education' are to create empathy for others and to create self-respect. However, I don't believe that the internet has made things worse; rather it has just uncovered what was already there. Also, trying to argue that our species reverts to the base programming is specious. If that were true, polygamy and murder would be the rule of law, if there were laws at all besides that of the fist. More citations are needed to justify that.I do believe that the internet, like fire, can burn or heat our species. We learn, slowly, how to use this medium. I think that we are slowly bending towards justice, to borrow from MLK, but that it will take a long long time. Also, something that is always lost is the inherent entropy in the system, the chaos that comes to any complex network. Some amount of 'bad' will always be here, if only by the random chance of life. Most 'hatevists' have logical arguments, it's just that the lemmas and starting points are off or they have taken one wrong step that sent them spinning into hate and terror. Fixing those steps is arduous and energy intense, but necessary.
Hopefully, the tech will help us here. The massive amount of data that Google and the NSA collects could be put forth in an effort to study the mechanics of ethics and personalities. That, again, is fire, and in the wrong hands, it'll burn. But discovery is like that, and you have to see through the flames of chemical weapons and siege towers to get to fertilizers and the Hagia Sophia.
⬐ stcredzeroHowever, I don't believe that the internet has made things worse; rather it has just uncovered what was already there.This is another way of saying the Internet has facilitated the appearance of more toxic noise in societal discourse. This is nothing new. Much the same was said with the advent of pamphlets and newspapers. No doubt, this is counterbalanced by the tremendous good it more communication has enabled.
Also, trying to argue that our species reverts to the base programming is specious.
This is a tremendous distortion of what I am saying. I am not saying that our species always reverts to base programming. I am saying that it does so given certain conditions. Are you trying to say that there is no mob psychology on the Internet? No, that would be just as much of a strawman of your position as you (probably inadvertently) just made of mine.
⬐ eseehausen> rather it has just uncovered what was already thereExactly! One of the interesting things that's happened is group discussions that would've taken place in private now often happen in very public places. Imagine, for instance, who would have access to the equivalent of Hacker News 100 years ago. Now, for better or worse, the community's discussions are out there and available for analysis not only by its own members but also interested outsiders.
⬐ krstck⬐ chippyI kind of hate Twitter for this. For all the good it has done, it's made the more unsavory viewpoints a little too accessible and that allows people to construct whole narratives based on 5 tweets. Whereas those people's voices should be drowned out and lost in time, clickbait groups amplify them to spread outrage and make money.> rather it has just uncovered what was already thereI would disagree a little on this part (agree with the rest), by giving the example of "The Left". The Left Wing was primarily socialist and communalist. It emphasized the similarity between people, races, countries, sexes. What we have in common is more important than what separates us.
The Internet and the stcredzero's thesis says is that the Internet shows what defines groups as being different, as being the other. The Left has, along with the Internet and along with many of us here who may see ourselves as supporting social justice, focused on the differences between people. The group of persons is more and more defined, the individuals within a society is more and more defined. The differences between people and groups are more and more emphasized with the Internet.
The Internet has not led to an increase in communality, it has not led to an increase on people feeling like they are more similar to others. The Left used to and socialist used to work against a trend of group psychology to bring together peoples into a whole, to reduce differences. The successful politicians recognize the important of group thinking. In the recent UK election, the party who ran with the ideology of "all in it together" and "the party of the working people" was the right wing Conservatives! (They won)
Social justice cannot happen if we focus our energies as to what divides us.
⬐ BalgairWhat is social justice anyways? I only ever hear it in a negative way, that of Social Justice Warriors.Here in the states, the republican right has historically been the people's party too. Part of their appeal is being the 'party of Lincoln'. Really, both of our parties have made good appeals to being a 'people's party' in their history. But trying to say that the international left was historically a party for all peoples is tough too. Russian reds started as an all inclusive bunch, but became quickly co-oped by anti-Semites, racists, and nationalists. Still, I think you can very well categorize them as Left through and through.
I still really believe that the internet has cemented our commonality. White folk in America are now seeing the daily interactions of black folk with the cops, and how unjust that is. And they are going out and protesting with them now. Cries of 'we are the 99%' are being made by all of us now. The treatment of women in Tech and elsewhere is at the very least, known to be a problem now. Say what you will for solving these issues, but the Internet has incited just communal outrage in it's short time in our lives. I say give the internet time to work itself out. There are still congresscritters that boast about not using email and we are just now raising an internet-always generation in many countries. This, like all things human, takes time.
I think came across as too aggressive in my reply, I apologise. Just yesterday when the news story broke, we saw people dropping the "gamergate" name randomly just to score some points on whatever they were arguing.The name is extremely toxic, especially when there is a massive misunderstanding between people pushing for news stories which are less biased, written in a neutral point of view... and media spinning it as an anti-women movement. Wtf.
I'm of the belief the lack of neutrality in media is severely lobotomizing certain countries. I've lived in several european countries, each with strikingly different styles of media, and none of them are as shockingly bad as the american media.
Just like Pepsi and Coke, there's a symbiotic relationship between various media outlets where "rivalry" just helps drive the views up. Instead of having a handful of neutral stations where the reader can do their own research and form their own opinion (something which most readers are not interested in doing anyway), they divide their readership in camps, willingly driving away one camp while cultivating a soundproof echo chamber for the other. And within that space they'll do whatever it takes to get as many views, clicks, purchases as possible.
CGP Grey has two distinct really well written entry-level pieces on the subject; I'd recommend anyone to take a look if they aren't familiar with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-...
Not only that, they should recognize that yes one use pattern of reddit was to get the word out of things you think other people ought to here. This attracts users that have something to say; and that attracts users who want something to read/hear etc...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
This too can drive growth. If the community gets the impression that they don't drive the content then reddit loses all the magic.
The truth is, the users haven't driven the content of the front-page since the fall of /r/reddit.com following Occupy Wall Street.