I have a theory that, individually, people fundamentally disagree less than they think they do. And in real face to face meetings, they are willing to disagree about a topic without killing each other. They talk around points of disagreement. Eg: me, when I'm talking to my grandmother.
The problem is that online people tend to polarize into factions during complex discussions. The more heated the discussion, the more polarized they become. Eventually it becomes impossible for either side to be self critical, or to cede a point to the other side no matter how true it may be.
"B" says "the sea is made of saltwater". A moderately reasonable "A" agrees. Mistake! The "A" group accuse them of being pro-B or anti-A. Suddenly, the idea that the sea is saltwater becomes an "B dogwhistle". A cunning trick! At this point, the "A" group adds 'saltwater sea' to their list of unacceptable opinions, and the policing of everyday language and opinion is in place. That's when the notion of defending free speech gets questioned. How can you police language if people defend free speech?! It won't do! So now free speech is a dogwhistle too. Add it to the list! There is no possibility for constructive dialogue, no matter how sensible, kind and cool-headed it tries to be. Disagreement with dogma or talking to the opposition are offences. New rules: "Don't follow an A on Twitter". Guilt by association. Next up: let's use the abuse/reporting system to ban individuals. Eventually, online systems that were supposedly designed for communication and conversation have become tools for suppression and virtue monitoring.
While anonymity itself will help people to own up to an opinion that they might be otherwise afraid to voice, unless there are no usernames at all it will be possible to track an individual across the system and figure out "which side they're on". Then you'll be able to figure out if their comments are acceptable or hatespeech without having to properly consider them.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this happen, but I think it requires a lot of work. Deduplication of points made, automatic detection of logical fallacies via natural language processing, personal dictionaries with auto-translation of terms (eg: an acceptable word to you might be a slur to someone else - if the word has a genuine meaning, auto-translate to a non-slur). That would avoid having people point and scream and claim moral victory because of a word infraction, instead of hashing thing out properly.
Another theory is that people disagree more than they think they do, but their actual actions are not as disagreeable as their opinions. So, two people will often hold opinions that the other considers abhorrent but will be able to get along in practice (as long as they don't learn of each others' opinions) because their actual actions will usually be acceptable to each other.
> I don't get involved because these platforms simply encourage the worst in us.
In-person, I've found I can meet and talk with folks who believe and say most anything. In fact, I enjoy it. As long as we're trying to get along, we can have powerful and dynamic conversations. I can learn things and we can challenge one another.
Online, there's none of this "trying to get along". Some person types something wrong. Other people pile on. Pointless argument ensues.
People agree on most things! That's the crazy thing about it. But if we only interact online through text, we're raising an entire generation that doesn't grok that fact.
In your opinion, what is it that distinguishes your grandma from people in online discussions? I've been thinking about it a lot lately - that the facelessness of it makes it more difficult to employ empathy? That there are too many people online and connections with them are too ephemeral to form emotions necessary for kind discussions? That the anonymity makes some people lose inhibitions? What else?
I suppose you have to get along with grandma. You have a shared family group. Imaging taking to your mom, and saying "I've cancelled grandma because she thinks that Napoleon was no better than Genghis Khan, so no more family meet ups. If you don't cut ties with her, you're blocked and cancelled too."
There's also the fact that you've known grandma your whole life, and you think that she's 90% adorable, 10% a product of her generation. So you're willing to change the subject, or maybe just roll your eyes, when it comes Napoleon.
Pretty sure we don’t disagree on truth in a vacuum type information, but what axiom is most relevant to start from in a given moment in time.
I blame old social habits for work forcing us to continue to huddle into “flocks”, aka companies, to collectively funnel our output upward for validation.
Our biology as a literal thing has to then constantly contend with validation seeking. We minimize allowable results to narrow what is valid output. It’s economical they say, back in the day they would say this narrow lane of validity is most pious band likely to get you the reward of Heaven.
“They” of course are elected officials who we can watch flaunt they social rules they tell us to teach each other.
Given the literal mess we’re making it certainly does not appear to have “economy” in mind.
The problem is that online people tend to polarize into factions during complex discussions. The more heated the discussion, the more polarized they become. Eventually it becomes impossible for either side to be self critical, or to cede a point to the other side no matter how true it may be.
"B" says "the sea is made of saltwater". A moderately reasonable "A" agrees. Mistake! The "A" group accuse them of being pro-B or anti-A. Suddenly, the idea that the sea is saltwater becomes an "B dogwhistle". A cunning trick! At this point, the "A" group adds 'saltwater sea' to their list of unacceptable opinions, and the policing of everyday language and opinion is in place. That's when the notion of defending free speech gets questioned. How can you police language if people defend free speech?! It won't do! So now free speech is a dogwhistle too. Add it to the list! There is no possibility for constructive dialogue, no matter how sensible, kind and cool-headed it tries to be. Disagreement with dogma or talking to the opposition are offences. New rules: "Don't follow an A on Twitter". Guilt by association. Next up: let's use the abuse/reporting system to ban individuals. Eventually, online systems that were supposedly designed for communication and conversation have become tools for suppression and virtue monitoring.
While anonymity itself will help people to own up to an opinion that they might be otherwise afraid to voice, unless there are no usernames at all it will be possible to track an individual across the system and figure out "which side they're on". Then you'll be able to figure out if their comments are acceptable or hatespeech without having to properly consider them.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this happen, but I think it requires a lot of work. Deduplication of points made, automatic detection of logical fallacies via natural language processing, personal dictionaries with auto-translation of terms (eg: an acceptable word to you might be a slur to someone else - if the word has a genuine meaning, auto-translate to a non-slur). That would avoid having people point and scream and claim moral victory because of a word infraction, instead of hashing thing out properly.