[1] https://kelleycotter.com/papers/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440198327...

I guess a lot depends on your job: if you work in healthcare or retail, you‘lo have pretty diverse interactions. Software developer in their home office? Not so much.

Reddit popular is a total echo chamber. Almost every sub, outside of focused hobby subs, turn into echo chambers eventually.

The dynamics of reddit, with downvotes totally squelching dissenting opinions and upvotes promoting popular ones, is naturally going to turn into a total echo chamber.

It definitely includes hobby subs too. Like, you may find everyone reciting "never do X", even though it's actually correct to do X sometimes, and that's just an oversimplified rule for beginners.

It's why I keep coming back to Twitter, because it only gives me exactly the people I choose to follow, even if I sometimes have to fight the app to keep that default chronological view with no garbage added.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6q94dkimrk75xr7/FT%20H%C3%B8ring%2...

His opinions are based on claimed research while yours are based on intuition. I’d sooner trust his opionions compared to yours because he at least could be exposed as a liar if it turns out that the research doesn’t back up his opinions. You on the other hand would at worst be called naive.

As an analogy, my g/f and I recently went grocery shopping. As we got out she was fuming at how old people completely ignore COVID rules, whilst society is largely making sacrifices for them.

I was part of the whole experience, and two people ignored the rules. One did not have a mask, another did have one but ignored social distancing.

There were probably some 200 people in the store. So actual reality is that almost everybody complied. But it takes just one or two that don't, to make a sweeping conclusion like that.

No, research suggests that online hate reflects offline frustrations that make them hateful both online & offline

That conclusion seems completely wrong to me. Sure, there are previous frustrations, but when you feel attacked online, you become hateful as a defense mechanism… and of course, there is always some YouTube channel ready to reinforce that anger.

And this happens with almost every social media since freenode

But it’s refreshing to read about a different view on the topic.

The other problem I see is that a person says what they feel in the moment---and then they move on. But the (emotionally charged) comment from that moment lives on, potentially for years. The "energy" doesn't dissipate with time like it does in "real life".

Much of the hysteria about social media is signal boosted by the traditional media establishment that it disrupted

A very recent extreme example from Ireland: Just last week, there was a horrific murder of a woman out running. Ashling Murphy, a teacher.

The next morning, print and radio media ran the leaked news that a Romanian national with many priors had been picked up by local Irish Gardai (cops).

For a day or two, racism and xenophobia ran rampant - then sure enough, he was found not suspicious and released. The man's life is ruined now.

IMMEDIATELY afterward, print and radio media blamed social media for jumping to conclusions, doxxing the man and ruining his life (social media were actually very good at removing his name). Old media are now calling for regulation of social media and blaming them for the whole thing, projecting and deflecting with impunity.

...

There are countless other examples - Joan Burton in Jobstown, Irish Water protests, Maurice McCabe - every time the government or Gardai or media are caught in a major lie thanks to social media, there are a couple weeks of stories about online bullying and the need to regulate social media.

It's so charmingly obvious, and the lie is blatant, but it works on enough people that they get away with it. The cost to society is extreme, from enabling corruption to slowing progress to dulling and poisoning the minds of the gullible.

Among other reasons, just consider that media suffered as much, financially, from monster.com and eBay, which devastated classifieds. For many local papers, that was the single largest change in the last two decades.

And I don’t remember any campaigns against those companies.

The individual journalist and editor actually writing and deciding on a story also doesn’t hold the grudges you assign to all of “media”. They don’t have the power to affect any change that could ever make the sort of difference needed to come back to them in any meaningful way. And they are unlikely to experience the strong emotions “media’ might have, because they haven’t experienced much of the loss that the industry has: they still have a job, for example. And by now, they are likely too young to know better times pre-internet.

That assertion doesn't hold up when you read the personal Twitter feeds of many journalists and editors of the publications pushing the anti-tech narrative.

3. FB is like a big open club that admits anyone and everyone, and all events take place in the only hall room. Predictably, it turns into a shouting match and FB has to ban some members, and by banning some and not others ideas, the club necesserarily turns into an echo chamber.

Besides, I have yet to see anyone banned from any social media site whose absence makes the site worse. In fact, I blame the various social sites for not banning them sooner.

That's just a sleight of hand. Sure, people may have been hateful before, but social media amplifies that hate exponentially.

Social media thrives on outrage, being addictive, and uses algorithmic ranking to feed it as much as possible.

> The hateful are few in numbers but they are attracted to politics and, hence, are much more visible.

Few in numbers? Have you seen what goes on during election years?

Who hasn't been talking about the January 6th events?

People who still talk about it this far after the 24 hr new cycle has moved on probably have strong emotions around it, so it makes sense that recent conversation is more emotionally charged.