How are those two people's lives on social media incompatible? There's a million things they could have in common - a love of tacos, a band to talk about, a shared joke about a dumb celebrity, etc etc.99.9999% of the time different people can and do coexist in the same spaces.
The idea that two wildly different people with different points of view can't even exist in the same social network is nonsense. The only time incompatible points of view are a problem is when one or other person decides to try to invalidate the existence of the other. That's what moderation is there to stop. If people are just tweeting about their life there's nothing to moderate.
There are a lot of 40-60% popular views that invalidate someone's existence according to certain parts of twitter.
If you say gun owners dont deserve to live or that the world would be better without white people, there are way to let it be said and discuss it without heavy moderation.
People are just mad at mad people. That s why it s a frigging jungle online. But if you stay patient with mad people or ignore them if you re not sure, then moderation stays on important things like doxxing
I agree. However I do see this happening. Its kinda crazy. I remember being on the internet as a kid (probably on sites I had no business being on lol) and people would get into heated arguments but I don't think it ever resulted in "I hate you, I'm going to try to get you banned via politics". I was around animation and creative type forums and people would go at each others throats but then like you say, bond over talking about a new software tool or animation lol.
They do not want to learn to engage anybody they disagree with, and as long as they control most of the platforms, along with the academia, the education sector, the entertainment sector, serious part of the government institutions and significant part of the corporate boards - there is no reason for them to engage anyone, as soon as they can just suppress and deplatform whoever they like. Might makes right, at least for them.
Of course, there's no technology on Earth - at least not yet - to make dissenting voices completely silent. But that's not the point. The point is to make them orders of magnitude weaker, so they would not be able to influence anything. You can talk to your friends in your kitchen, if you want, while your opponents will have an access to billions strong audience. You can set up your puny webserver (provided your ISP and your DNS provider do not deplatform you, and your bank does not deny you access to payment systems) - and you'll be competing with the combined powers of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and such. Do you think they would feel compelled to "engage" you, to evolve and change their ways to account for your existence - or would they just crush you like a tiny insect, and not even notice it?
You're assuming good faith from both parties. Harassers and trolls don't act in good faith.
Trolls' game is all about drawing attention, in the form of ire, offense, and and panic. Deprive them this, and they'll cease to bother you much.
This is, of course, easier to do if you are a statue of buddha made of reinforced concrete, but even us living beings can learn and engage in some best practices of communication online.
This is, of course, unevenly distributed. If you’re a white guy you have to work at it to get the same level of resentment in certain circles that other people start with by being female, brown, gay, etc.
GamerGate is well worth learning about as an extreme example of how far it can get beyond the level where blocking works: it started with one person (Eron Gjoni) trying to clinch the “worst ex ever” title by rallying a hate mob against his ex girlfriend with some fake claims, which produced hate spasms for over a year, multiple police investigations, and fed into the 2016 US Presidential election.
Furthermore, some of us actually know the participants involved in a professional and private capacity.
Yes, Gjoni "did a bad thing" by posting all the duplicitous shitty things Quinn did... but therein lies the rub. If you don't want to be called out for being a cheater who fucks game journalists for good reviews... then don't cheat on your boyfriend and fuck game journalists for reviews. It really is that goddamn simple.
What GamerGate really was, was that gamers - the naive idiots they tend to be - found out that their little subculture was NOT immune to all the awful shit that plagues every other human interest. They, however, decided to start fighting back instead of just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Oh well, everything's corrupt and awful, what can you do?"
But the real root cause problem here is that people don't want to accept human nature, almost all people, on almost all sides.
The issue here acdha is that you failed to check.
It was a revisionist lie added 6 to 8 months after the events.
Since you didn't bother to read the articles, there were 2 seperate articles both about Indie games in general. They both had sections on Depression Quest and both used Depression Quest for all the article's images. One of them at the bottom had a single hashtag #DepressionQuest on it. Both written by Nathan Grayson's subordinates.
Obviously, this isn't any different than large publishers giving the gaming journalists huge sacks of money, which they do.
The problem was it escalated out of control into the gaming journalists writing hit pieces on the gaming community as part of their damage control.
I'm sorry acdha but 7 years ago you were duped by hit piece articles.
Spewbots and humans who act like them are nothing new. See a topic of discussion you feel is dangerous or merely not aligned with your core values? Send in the trolls and/or bots to spew hateful nonsense all over it until nothing else remains. Ignoring those trolls is precisely what they want: Ignore them, ignore the topic, ignore everything all the non-trolls are saying, move along, nothing to see here. Nifty little censorship tool if you can weaponize it effectively enough.
DNFTT only works on pathological individual cases who care about what the community thinks of them.
OTOH using explosives is outright violence, and would likely be illegal by US federal laws.
Are you trying to make a more specific claim than your post lets on? Maybe that it’s impossible to moderate without making some concession you don’t prefer? Or it’s impossible to moderate away certain kinds of things?
I would not have used that in my list.
It doesn't boil down to a "concession I don't prefer". The only thing you moderate are those things deemed illegal by the Federal government, anything else is fair game, which brings us a pretty large umbrella of discussion in which to engage. Some people don't want to engage in those discussions because they're hard and/or unpleasant. They not required to, and can freely leave them and ignore them. Allowing whiners who can't stand that people may have a controversial opinion that's at odds with their beliefs to have any power whatsoever is a fast track to failure on multiple levels.
People have block tools; they need to learn to use them.
Why?
It is certainly legal in the USA to be a KKK member as long as you aren't participating in the domestic terrorism. Yet I have no interest in conversation with KKK members and would will choose to freely leave websites where they hang out. So many people agree with me that a website owner decides he needs the traffic of anti-KKK people and starts banning legal Klan members.
Why must the website owner keep Klan members who have not broken any laws? Why should everything besides what is deemed illegal by the federal government be fair game?
I'm guessing you mean the US Federal government, not the Federal government of China, or any of the many others around the world. For a global network, why should the US government's rules be more important than others? Or should networks be restricted to one country only?
They did leave, and then they made the new space where those discussion are not tolerated. We are talking inside one of such places.
Some people don't want to understand that there are discussion places which limit certain topics. They are not required to, and can freely leave and ignore them. They have plenty of other places where uncensored discussions can occur.
Twitter and Facebook aren't such spaces.
They're both based on models of unlimited growth, which means you're going to have unlimited viewpoints, which means you're going to have to #DealWithIt.
What you want, can be done on Hacker News because we're a focused community and most of us all have similar jobs, come from similar backgrounds, etc., or at least, there's enough of us that work in tech and enough of us that went to good schools that we're a more or less cohesive community with fairly similar values.
You don't have that with 5 billion users, sorry.
What I find interesting is that the more you travel for leasure and meet people from other countries. The more that you learn about different view points.
Also the more gross that identity politics and shamming practices over viewpoints becomes. I'm not saying that you should support people you don't agree with. But, there's a heck of a lot of other cultures that are at odds with what's going on.
A group of people talking about sports will reject (or moderate) people who want to talk about latest programming languages.
A group of people talking about computer-related stuff will downvote and flag non-computer news about latest sport game.
The global discussion forum without any moderation does not live long. We can moderate the entire world if we split it into many small parts and give member power to do so.
These platforms are driven by what Eric Weinstein, correctly I think, calls E.G.O.s, or Embedded Growth Obligations. You can't convince a venture capitalist to fund something like Twitter without the promise of enormous user growth, because the model only works if you have an enormous userbase on the platform.
I actually think Zuckerberg's dumbass tag line, "It's free, and always will be." is stupid. Facebook is worth about jack shit to everyone except advertisers, because it doesn't cost anything. Putting up a monthly fee is how you separate people who are willing to shit all over something from people who are willing to build something.
World of Warcraft is, I think, a fine example of this, especially versus a game like League of Legends. WoW's userbase, will still filled with the occasional troll and troublemaker, has far fewer than League. Why? Because you have to buy the game itself just to get started. Then you have to spend $15 a month to play it. You're invested from the word "go". For League, you play the entire game, from start to "finish" for free, only paying if you want to. Hence you see a ton more trolling and shitty behavior, because the vast, vast majority of players aren't invested - its just a way for them to while away their lives with no investment.
I guarantee you, if you had to pay $5 a month for Twitter and $5 a month for Facebook, you'd see a lot more reasonable behavior, because after the first few months, only people who really got "value" from the platform would keep spending the money to use it. And the sad part is, even 100,000,000 users at $5 a month would be an enormous moneymaking enterprise - with almost guaranteed higher quality interactions.
What if neither uses Twitter , but meet at a bar. I've dated liberals and conservatives. People are nicer in real life. Very rarely do people walk up to me hurling insults. Happened constantly online though.
I'm aware that discussing free speech on any platform is a fool's errand, but at some point somebody has to say that making people angry is profitable and facilitated through the US concept of giving anyone a platform to say anything with very little consequences.
And the last four years really showed how far it can go.
> They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another
People never ever learn. Wearing a mask has become a political struggle, people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally, like you software dev and Marine officer would.
And that's fine. If you're going to live in a so-called "free" society, part of that "freedom" means people have to be "free" to make stupid choices, even if those stupid choices kill them.
You don’t charge people with manslaughter violating fire code —- there are separate law for that
Here in Australia we're dealing with quarantine outbreaks by ring fencing. When we have a confirmed case, we isolate everyone that person has been in contact with, and also isolate everyone they've been in contact with as well. So, one confirmed case -> we lock down hundreds of people. This is the only way we've found to keep outbreaks under control without locking down entire cities.
The policy of only wearing a mask when you feel sick is nowhere near enough to stop you from infecting & potentially killing people.
You can’t eliminate risk by restricting people’s rights, at some point the restrictions cause more measureable harm and risk of future harm than they eliminate.
Why should I have to endure life threating extra risk for something that's a trivial inconvenience on your part like wearing a mask?
I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore.
This question can be reasonably applied to any restriction on anyone’s liberty and the answer is that we always have to strike a balance and there will always be people like yourself who are unhappy with where that balance lies.
> I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore.
I’m glad that you sought out a community that strikes a balance more to your liking but you should probably consider that libertarians in the US do not consider the balance between personal freedom and social risk in the US to be representative of their values. The US is a neoliberal country, not a libertarian country. And that’s fine, and that’s also not for everyone, people who find themselves too far from the center of discourse should find a community where they are more at home. The world is a big place.
You can't just subject other people to risk because you want to, since it is the community who is going to pay the price, it is the community that decides how to restrict the rights.
(Granted, the process for making that decision is not always the best, but unfortunately this is the only one we have)
“A good compromise leaves everybody mad.” -Bill Watterson
The values of a Black lesbian female software developer who grew up in San Francisco and went to Stanford will never be compatible with the values of a Hispanic straight male Marine officer who grew up in San Antonio and went to Texas Christian University and has been deployed to 17 different countries.
However, they can and do exist on the same platforms. They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another, even though their existences are completely incompatible and utterly different.
There's no technology on Earth powerful enough to solve for the human condition. We have to evolve our ways of thinking and interacting.