The internet is making people more toxic

[BurnedOut]

One of the precepts of the internet was free speech. Ironically, people seem to have not gotten over their belligerence despite having the comfort of anonymity and nontangible interaction which should, in theory, greatly reduce people's social anxiety and cognitive biases regarding others. In theory, the internet should have made people more open-minded and sympathetic. But that has not happened. And I make this thread to highlight my theories on why this has been happening. Mob rules even online. There seems to be no hope for humanity to grow wiser. Everything in this world is misappropriated as a tool of catharsis by today's people. Give a person the veil of anonymity and I guarantee you, they will gradually start becoming toxic in their communication.

---

Disclaimer: I still believe in the importance of the internet. Despite all the cancer infected by humans metastasizing, I still believe the internet is one of the pillars of freedom and cannot be denied. It is probably one of the safest place in the world to voice minority. My gripe is with internet group think which is as bad as its real life
counterpart. My case studies focus exclusively on human interaction online and its implications for the humans involved along with some wider implications.

---

Case study 1: Social Media

Primer:

The Link Between Social Media and Body Dysmorphia

Explore the link between social media and body dysmorphia. Uncover social media effects on self-image and learn tips for maintaining a healthy mindset.

online.king.edu

Social Media Use and Body Image Disorders: Association between Frequency of Comparing One’s Own Physical Appearance to That of People Being Followed on Social Media and Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness - PMC

(1) Summary: Many studies have evaluated the association between traditional media exposure and the presence of body dissatisfaction and body image disorders. The last decade has borne witness to the rise of social media, predominantly used by ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Social Media Use and Its Connection to Mental Health: A Systematic Review - PMC

Social media are responsible for aggravating mental health problems. This systematic study summarizes the effects of social network usage on mental health. Fifty papers were shortlisted from google scholar databases, and after the application of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Back in 2007-8 when I first got to know about something known as 'Facebook', I was very excited. This is due to the great solace I felt after knowing that I don't have to be somewhere in person to get a conversation going. All the thoughts of meeting new people and making more friends sloshed my mind. Is it shocking to hear that I joined Facebook somewhere in 2012 and promptly got rid of every trace of myself on major social media websites. The reason for going off it all was pretty simple, it felt like a utterly lopsided real life game. There is an informal ladder you have to climb on social media before you find solace in fake intellectuality and inherent toxicity and closed-mindedness. This part, I shall talk about later.

The informal ladder is based on these precepts:

1. Social Media is not a means to create relationships with a nonjudgemental attitude, it is rather a place to commodify yourself. There are levels of 'commodification' on social media. When someone goes from posting simple pictures of sunset and sunrise to posting pictures with self-help quotes, you know that person has lost their sanity to a good extent.
2. Social Media is a place not for making new friends but to keep an eye on acquaintances and old friends. People are extremely, I mean despicably, harsh in prejudging unknown people on social media. There is widespread distrust and an utter emphasis on noncommunicative styles of communication - memes, 'funny' videos, 'roasting', sentences full of abbreviations, one word replies, etc. In my experience, people use social media pertaining to their relationships in life in one of two ways or both:
   1. Stalk people
   2. Compare
3. Social Media is misused as a measure of somebody's 'worth'. One of the major reasons I am not getting laid is that I don't have an online presence. I have been told by numerous people that 'they could not find me online'. I am prejudged as being a useless suitor because chicks, as I have seen, cannot get over the fact that they have 'get to know me for real' which is a process most of the girls I have met like to skip. By not having a social media presence, they feel insecure, they are unable to make prejudgements about me and it seems like this is a scary thing for today's humans.
4. Social Media is physically destructive. Despite all the bullshittery about dieting and exercising and other 'health' stuff, obesity keeps on rising in this world. The biggest joke is that consumers of this bullshit keep consuming it and end up not having time to actually engage in all those activities. The ones who do think that 'motivating' others is worthy of being a 'full-time' job and the Big Tech has pushed forward for that notion in surreptitious ways. This is leading to a culture of extreme passive consumption of stimulation - not at all encouraging people to get on the move but rather encouraging them to continue eating the stools that such 'content creators' spit out of their mouths in carefuly crafted gimmicky videos. Social Media is worse than TV show because the latter actually engages your human side to some degree - sympathy, empathy, affection for characters, etc. Social Media on the other hand presents itself as reality but in the most distorted form.
5. Social Media robs you of your happiness. Researches have concluded that we hate looking at anyone else's selfies and pictures in which they are present because of envy. But this is exactly what social media is made up of. It is common sense that today's tweens are absolute emotional retards who engage in filthy hide-n-seek crap in their relationships in the form of erratic texting, contradictory social media engagement and lack of physical communication.
6. Social Media thinks it can augment/replace reality. Sadly, disengaging from the real world is not going to lead to actual kind of progress. Inclusiveness is not the motto of social media, it is merely to feed you crap and keep you engaged so that they continue to bombard you with everything they want you to see.

Therefore, I conclude that even moderate social media usage causes emotional immaturity in all of its users. The more users feel aligned with the fact that they have to have an 'ideal online self' that needs to be emulated in reality, the more deranged users will be. This is because their 'ideal online self' is actively changing. People today are clueless about their identity. They are increasingly using material and digital means to 'define' themselves without any kind of cogitation. Comparison is a basis of deriving identity, sure, both so is your self-awareness. Social Media users love to claim that they are individualistic but in reality the kind of individualism that social media causes is simply commodification. 'Originality' and 'Authenticity', the buzzwords to judge people are used completely out of context. It is more about seeming not-like-that-person more than anything else.

---

Case study 2: Reddit, Twitter - Textual modes of engagement

Reddit and Twitter are the two parallel modes of engagement people tend to use alongside predominantly AV modes such as Snapchat, FB, etc. These platforms provide the good ol' veil of privacy. But there is a new problem here. Reddit has an active culture of toxicity and hatred and Twitter thinks that it is an elite form of 'individual journalism' given how it keeps boasting about politicians and 'successful' people engaging on Twitter.

I will give you a simple example for Reddit to show how being toxic is integral to Reddit:

This is a perfectly valid post made by someone who is getting frustrated by getting killed too frequently. The reality is that you will never like losing this much in any game. I have gamer friends who were into professional CS:GO and all of them express annoyance at camping. Camping is abhorred in multiplayer games. Many times CS servers simply kick campers out and it makes sense. I asked my gamer friend lots of question about 'meta-abuse' (which is basically using a weapon that outmatches other weapons to the extent of deeming your skill irrelevant to a good extent) and camping and he simply said that before the internet blew up with this jargon, gamers across the world had an innate dislike for the two aforementioned things although there were not specific terms for it.

In the given example, the replies sort of shocked me. There is guy who approaches the 'community' and the 'community' is doing everything except properly hearing his perspective. Given how we discussed on the veracity of the guy's feelings, the redditors are the ones in the wrong. But you will quickly notice that even snarky toxic comments have upvotes and the thread is essentially just full of contempt and arrogance.

Don't yet buy my point? Reddit has come under fire for exacerbating toxicity via its weird karma system and algorithmic ranking of 'content'.

About Twitter? I think it is kind of like a town-hall gathering where everybody wears their 'personas' and comes over. Then some drama happens and the gossip disseminator is Ms Twitter. From bot infestation to misinformation to smartass 'curt speech' and its' zero contribution to the world really says something about the psychic hold it has on the audience.

---

Case study 3: Entertainment platforms: Youtube

WIP

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think the problem with the toxicity in people is that majority of them are still attached to inflexible forms of identity.

People are too dumb or narrow-minded to view the world in relative or pluralistic terms. They think my religion, my nation, my gender, my sexual orientation, my eco-friendly worldview.
They can't accept the fact that whenever they encounter other people, those people are going to have a different set of hard identities attached to them.

For most religious people, encountering someone of a different religion presents a clash and a threatening question "Is my faith the correct one?". So they go on to:
- Fight the other's faith with arguments
- Join a group of people who use the same arguments to build a safe environment around themselves and for protection against imagined or real threats
- Pretend the other group does not exist or is wrong
- Promote their faith over others

This process is almost the same for science views, national identity and everything else. As soon as someone has a fixed opinion on something, they make it a part of who they are which is a mistake imo.
----

There are, I think, four decreasing levels of identity linkage to ideas prevalent in population:
1. People have firm attachment to their views and it's their identity. What doesn't agree with their identity is viewed as a threat to them. They use aggression to fight other groups with different identities.

2. People have the same link between views and identity, but now they realize that they can't realistically fight with everyone else. So they fall back on the legal system, organizations and accepted forms of political representation to support their identity and fight threats to their identity through politics, media, discourse and so on. It's still the same conflict, but it's now passive-aggressive. It uses civil processes and tools instead of direct violence and hate speech.

3. In this tier people start realizing that ideas and views have an external influence on them. That they can choose the right ideas that lead to a holistic resolution to cognitive dissonances in their identity. They also know that the conflict of ideas is unproductive, it wastes their resources. They begin to think that they are who they are outside of what they think about the world or what their interests and goals are. It becomes apparent to them that other people function in a similar fashion to them and have different views. There is an awareness that only by tolerating and respecting all opinions and expression there can be peace. In this stage people from 3 attack people from groups 2 and 1 only when these groups try to cancel or phase out their views. People in group 3 can revert back to being a group 2 or 1 if they can't control their hostility or fear.

4. Group 4 is when people lose the sense of fighting for ideas. They know what elements of what idea are useful to them. They know that peace can only be achieved in a balanced, democratic environment with strong support for free speech. They are not concerned with the existence of dissenting views or people who are different to them. The main concern of group 4 is protecting the democratic environment and protecting the freedom of every person to speak and voice their opinions or participate in the public discourse.

-----
The basic problem in every country, forum, facebook group etc. is that there are too many people from groups 1 and 2 and not enough people transitioning to groups 3 and 4. Groups 1 and 2 are receptive to populist ideologies, can also be bribed with political promises and favoritism, form information bubbles, view other groups as hostile and perpetuate the toxic environment where discussion is a tool to push one idea over others as opposed to discussion being a tool to protect the freedom of other people and a tool to reach the truth.

I think I'm in group 3. There are things that I unconsciously take to be threats to me that I should delegate to the realm of civil discourse.

 

[washti]

Tik Tok is hilarious. No matter what I like after using it for 2-3 days in a row (with a new account each time) it shows mostly: autism-related content and how to stop procrastinating. Plus some sex wars occasionally. Nice sum up lol.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Camping is abhorred in multiplayer games. Many times CS servers simply kick campers out and it makes sense.

Nah, I think camping is a feature of the game. If someone wants to camp, let them. BUT it shouldn't be too strong compared to rushing or other play styles.

There shouldn't be a ban to camping just because there's a consensus of 95% of players that they hate it. The games I enjoy the most allow for the weirdest strategies and the most play styles possible.

Camping requires reactions and game knowledge and countering camping also requires skill and game knowledge. If camping is too strong then players can get 4 flashbangs or narrower camera field of view or other advantages. Camping is a problem in low skill play because people don't know how to flash, don't know where people camp, don't have reactions etc.

Personally CS never appealed to me because I have niche preferences. I liked rushing with a shotgun, going solo behind enemies and knifing them or shooting through the walls (wall-scanning) and almost no maps supported that playstyle and shotguns weren't a strong weapon. But inevitably whenever my strategy succeeded I was flamed for not playing meta, or not doing what everyone else does. CS requires some camping and stopping and some mobility and rushing. Mostly requires good teamplay and individual contribution to the win is insignificant on higher skill levels.

My favorite memory of the game is when there was a game error that spawned me in the opposite team's area next to them. So I just killed 3/4 of the pub server because they weren't expecting me to be so close right at the start. It hasn't crossed anyone's mind that there could be something hostile so soon and they didn't adapt.

Was it unfair and should it never happen? Nah, it was fun and I got to knife 3 people who assumed crouched camping positions in various corners of the office map. It should happen more often, it would spice things up for everyone.

 

[ZenRaiden]

This process is almost the same for science views, national identity and everything else. As soon as someone has a fixed opinion on something, they make it a part of who they are which is a mistake imo.

So you hate individuals with identity?
But then do you even want people to have identity?
You seem to be describing things in very weird way.
You almost contradict yourself.
For example it seems you are against group identity, but at the same time there is no explanation for what you mean really.
Very much double speak orwellian.

4. Group 4 is when people lose the sense of fighting for ideas. They know what elements of what idea are useful to them. They know that peace can only be achieved in a balanced, democratic environment with strong support for free speech. They are not concerned with the existence of dissenting views or people who are different to them. The main concern of group 4 is protecting the democratic environment and protecting the freedom of every person to speak and voice their opinions or participate in the public discourse.

Why should people with opposing views not have a say.
IN what way.
You are for free speech, but you are not for free speech.
What constitutes dissenting views in democracy? There is no such thing in democracy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Back in 2007-8 when I first got to know about something known as 'Facebook', I was very excited. This is due to the great solace I felt after knowing that I don't have to be somewhere in person to get a conversation going. All the thoughts of meeting new people and making more friends sloshed my mind. Is it shocking to hear that I joined Facebook somewhere in 2012 and promptly got rid of every trace of myself on major social media websites. The reason for going off it all was pretty simple, it felt like a utterly lopsided real life game. There is an informal ladder you have to climb on social media before you find solace in fake intellectuality and inherent toxicity and closed-mindedness. This part, I shall talk about later.

I never liked facebook from get go.
But I stuck around to see what it is about and why people are there.
Then I got facebook second time due to job.
Still did not like it and even more than previous the changes were far worse.
I never had explicit goal on facebook, but essentially I found it more of time sink, with occasional interaction.

Not sure what constitutes intellectual by your standard or what intellectual even means in relation to facebook.

Therefore, I conclude that even moderate social media usage causes emotional immaturity in all of its users. The more users feel aligned with the fact that they have to have an 'ideal online self' that needs to be emulated in reality, the more deranged users will be. This is because their 'ideal online self' is actively changing. People today are clueless about their identity. They are increasingly using material and digital means to 'define' themselves without any kind of cogitation. Comparison is a basis of deriving identity, sure, both so is your self-awareness. Social Media users love to claim that they are individualistic but in reality the kind of individualism that social media causes is simply commodification. 'Originality' and 'Authenticity', the buzzwords to judge people are used completely out of context. It is more about seeming not-like-that-person more than anything else.

That might be true for some people, not for me.
Though I got to say what causes "immaturity"
How is real life interaction more mature?
What is your standard for mature?
Why are real life bubbles with nonsense more mature than fakebook with fake bubble that is the question.
Is me being on internet getting on your nerves or something?
Would you rather I interact with people that are "real"?
How is your fake post and real life fake person real?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This process is almost the same for science views, national identity and everything else. As soon as someone has a fixed opinion on something, they make it a part of who they are which is a mistake imo.

So you hate individuals with identity?
But then do you even want people to have identity?
You seem to be describing things in very weird way.
You almost contradict yourself.
For example it seems you are against group identity, but at the same time there is no explanation for what you mean really.
Very much double speak orwellian.

4. Group 4 is when people lose the sense of fighting for ideas. They know what elements of what idea are useful to them. They know that peace can only be achieved in a balanced, democratic environment with strong support for free speech. They are not concerned with the existence of dissenting views or people who are different to them. The main concern of group 4 is protecting the democratic environment and protecting the freedom of every person to speak and voice their opinions or participate in the public discourse.

Why should people with opposing views not have a say.
IN what way.
You are for free speech, but you are not for free speech.
What constitutes dissenting views in democracy? There is no such thing in democracy.

It's not Orwellian and I'm not contradicting myself. I don't hate anyone.
I'm saying that people with strong identity cause issues when they clash with other identity.
If I'm not making sense then that's because I try to communicate thoughts that are new to me in as little time possible and with as little words as I can.

I'm saying that hard attachment to identity and group identity is a problem. You can belong to groups and have an identity and not be toxic to others. The problem starts when a person's identity is connected to worldview too much and they start protecting ego and identity by fighting other identities with other views because they see opinions different to theirs or opinions critical of their views.

It's very easy to react with toxicity to things that don't agree with your identity because self-preservation is an instinct and an extension of that is promoting your views to eradicate other ideas from the space, effectively trying to claim more space than was allotted to you.

Pluralism of views basically assumes that no individual view is important and that all views are equally important. All should be allowed to exist but none should dominate.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm saying that hard attachment to identity and group identity is a problem. You can belong to groups and have an identity and not be toxic to others. The problem starts when a person's identity is connected to worldview too much and they start protecting ego and identity by fighting other identities with other views because they see opinions different to theirs or opinions critical of their views.

Yeah OK, good.
SO what does that have to do with me?

 

[ZenRaiden]

It's very easy to react with toxicity to things that don't agree with your identity because self-preservation is an instinct and an extension of that is promoting your views to eradicate other ideas from the space, effectively trying to claim more space than was allotted to you.

Oh OK so I suppose allotted space is what?
And how do you know someone is attached to opinion too much as opposed to just authentic or passionate about it.
How do you know that talking about a said opinion is toxic, as opposed a matter of discussion.

Let me put it this way.
What if a world view like Putin has to be defeated leads Putin to launch nukes on people. Is it then OK for west to impose its world view on Putin.
Or is Putin just defending his world view same way west is defending its own world view.
But whos world view is better or more meaningful?
Or are both world views meaningful and they should just coexist.
But how is Putin or Ukraine or the US killing eachother for world view a good thing.
So then maybe we really should not be attached to world views due to ego.
Maybe we should look at reality as is.
But if we look at reality as is is that a world view?
So what even constitutes world view anyway.
Because your world view might include different parameters to what is important.
Does that mean I should not voice my opinion or challenge your opinion.
So what exactly is world view anyway?
Is identity a bad thing though?
Because you seem to be saying that identity is ego defense as opposed to what you are.
So either you are or not your identity.
I certainly don't think I have identity in sense what I say and think is appropriated.
But anyway what constitutes identity according to you?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think text in general is a terrible way to communicate. If it's something academic and you need to write to convey complex information, sure, but using text socially, then displaying it to everyone, is going to be misunderstood in an emotional sense. It's not like the people who read that sort of thing knows who you are, what your personality is or your background or your credentials, motives and so on. The hand also has the propensity to type things out which you would never say in a real setting as well. But at times it would try and convey the emotions or tension the typer has, which can cause more emotional reactions rather than a communicative one.

There's also the problem of the monologue. Text sometimes might not be fit for speech, but rather made in a bookish manner, or maybe even like a monologue on a talkshow.

I think there needs to be a new understanding of what 'comments' are that's fixated on a lot of what internet culture is. Youtube 'comments' for example are not really comments that convey thought, but are more interjections. Think of it like shouting out something during a stand up show versus something like talking to that comic after the show in a one-on-one manner. One is there for the principle receiver of the comment while the other is meant for the entire audience to indulge in as well. I feel like in the future there will be text AI that can help manage and sort out the types of comments so one wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of comments to find one that's informative or insightful.

 

[BurnedOut]

I feel like in the future there will be text AI that can help manage and sort out the types of comments so one wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of comments to find one that's informative or insightful

The AI already exists. Now AV mediums are being analyzed directly. Text is still important but it is quickly being replaced by TTS.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think text in general is a terrible way to communicate. If it's something academic and you need to write to convey complex information, sure, but using text socially, then displaying it to everyone, is going to be misunderstood in an emotional sense. It's not like the people who read that sort of thing knows who you are, what your personality is or your background or your credentials, motives and so on. The hand also has the propensity to type things out which you would never say in a real setting as well. But at times it would try and convey the emotions or tension the typer has, which can cause more emotional reactions rather than a communicative one.

There's also the problem of the monologue. Text sometimes might not be fit for speech, but rather made in a bookish manner, or maybe even like a monologue on a talkshow.

I think there needs to be a new understanding of what 'comments' are that's fixated on a lot of what internet culture is. Youtube 'comments' for example are not really comments that convey thought, but are more interjections. Think of it like shouting out something during a stand up show versus something like talking to that comic after the show in a one-on-one manner. One is there for the principle receiver of the comment while the other is meant for the entire audience to indulge in as well. I feel like in the future there will be text AI that can help manage and sort out the types of comments so one wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of comments to find one that's informative or insightful.

So how do you not communicate terribly?
Does communicating in person still not count as terrible communication.
What if you your communication is not your to begin with.
Lets say someone implants ideas into your head and then acts like that is what you are communicating, but you aren't really interested in communicating about that either.
But in person people insist you communicate about things you know are not true, but are forced to communicate about them as if you care about it, but people keep insisting you are communicating on a topic, even though, they actually aren't really interested in the topic and you are communicating and idea, that they force you to communicate it, even though the idea is not yours but theirs?
Where is agency in that.
How can you communicate anything in that case?
So essentially you are communicating with yourself, and I am just a vehicle of your communication?
But then who is communicating?
Are you talking with yourself?
So if that is by designe your communication and not mine why even talk to anyone to begin with.
Add emotional manipulation and add free will manipulation and you have a hodge podge of nothing.
So if its hodge podge of nothing why do you even care?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yeah OK, good.
SO what does that have to do with me?

I'm not talking about you. I'm saying that everyone falls into one of the 4 baskets, sometimes they're ona transition from one to another.

It's very easy to react with toxicity to things that don't agree with your identity because self-preservation is an instinct and an extension of that is promoting your views to eradicate other ideas from the space, effectively trying to claim more space than was allotted to you.

Oh OK so I suppose allotted space is what?
And how do you know someone is attached to opinion too much as opposed to just authentic or passionate about it.
How do you know that talking about a said opinion is toxic, as opposed a matter of discussion.

It's toxic if it attacks other people, silences them or harms them. Alloted space is the space you get to say what you think, overstepping your space is when you attack the person, shout at them or use political influence to pass laws forbidding someone's freedom of expression.

Let me put it this way.
What if a world view like Putin has to be defeated leads Putin to launch nukes on people. Is it then OK for west to impose its world view on Putin.
Or is Putin just defending his world view same way west is defending its own world view.

But whos world view is better or more meaningful?
Or are both world views meaningful and they should just coexist.
But how is Putin or Ukraine or the US killing eachother for world view a good thing.
So then maybe we really should not be attached to world views due to ego.
Maybe we should look at reality as is.
But if we look at reality as is is that a world view?

To some extent no idea is better or more meaningful than others, even scientific or rational ones. Everyone can have a view or a preference of their own as long as they don't apply it to others. When someone applies their beliefs to whole countries like Putin does to Russia then we have to consider if his approach is beneficial to Russians and the rest of the world. If the majority impacted by Putin's decision does not agree with it we can start saying that Putin is coercive or that he's overstepping the allotted space for his views.

So what even constitutes world view anyway.
Because your world view might include different parameters to what is important.
Does that mean I should not voice my opinion or challenge your opinion.

Everyone should voice their opinion and actually too few people do that. If you're toxic then you increase the likelihood that you will silence everyone else and very few opinions will be shared besides the one that wins or is the loudest. Everyone should be encouraged to voice their opinions even if they are the most idiotic things in existence, we don't know what someone is going to say until we hear it and every perspective contributes something of value.

Is identity a bad thing though?
Because you seem to be saying that identity is ego defense as opposed to what you are.

Identity is useful, maybe necessary for humans . Most people I'd argue don't even know their identity. They don't realize that they are identifying with an idea or a group when they support it. They don't know why they're doing it. People don't know what drives them or what influences their decisions.
People didn't know they loved chunky peanut butter until it was invented and they were immediately on the bandwagon Same goes for political ideas, people go for populism because it promises tasty and chunky yummy stuff and they have no time to think about the consequences of peanut butter overconsumption. And they fight people who prefer smooth peanut butter because they like a different thing.

The way someone can't stop their identity expression from toxic reactions, trolling or aggression is damaging public discourse.

But anyway what constitutes identity according to you?

Set of beliefs and qualities that define a person.[/QUOTE]

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think text in general is a terrible way to communicate. If it's something academic and you need to write to convey complex information, sure, but using text socially, then displaying it to everyone, is going to be misunderstood in an emotional sense. It's not like the people who read that sort of thing knows who you are, what your personality is or your background or your credentials, motives and so on. The hand also has the propensity to type things out which you would never say in a real setting as well. But at times it would try and convey the emotions or tension the typer has, which can cause more emotional reactions rather than a communicative one.

There's also the problem of the monologue. Text sometimes might not be fit for speech, but rather made in a bookish manner, or maybe even like a monologue on a talkshow.

I think there needs to be a new understanding of what 'comments' are that's fixated on a lot of what internet culture is. Youtube 'comments' for example are not really comments that convey thought, but are more interjections. Think of it like shouting out something during a stand up show versus something like talking to that comic after the show in a one-on-one manner. One is there for the principle receiver of the comment while the other is meant for the entire audience to indulge in as well. I feel like in the future there will be text AI that can help manage and sort out the types of comments so one wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of comments to find one that's informative or insightful.

So how do you not communicate terribly?

What are you referring to here, talking and discussing things in real life or by text?

 

[scorpiomover]

One of the precepts of the internet was free speech. Ironically, people seem to have not gotten over their belligerence despite having the comfort of anonymity and nontangible interaction which should, in theory, greatly reduce people's social anxiety and cognitive biases regarding others. In theory, the internet should have made people more open-minded and sympathetic.

Was like that in the beginning.

But that has not happened. And I make this thread to highlight my theories on why this has been happening. Mob rules even online.

When you make a venue mob-driven, then the mob dictate the rules.

There seems to be no hope for humanity to grow wiser.

On the contrary, there are many behaviours we see in some environments, that we don't see in others. This is usually because of the way those systems are designed to operate.

E.G. when the internet first started, it was VERY SLOW, especially uploading. So you didn't post stuff that was trivial, or was just to help you promote your self-image.

Then when forum sites developed, you could post posts, but had to wait for your post to be reviewed, before it would be publicised online. So you didn't post really offensive stuff or things that didn't make sense, as they probably would be rejected.

People who suffer temporary bans, and who enjoy being on the site, and who don't really want to make a new email and login just to evade the ban, will probably be more likely to be more careful about what they post in the future.

But people who suffer temporary or permanent bans, and don't care about being on that site, can just join another site. Others would get a new email and a new login.

Different rules motivate different behaviours.

We choose which behaviours we wish to encourage, by the rules we choose for each site, and equally, by the rules of the sites we choose to visit, and thus also by the sites we choose to visit.

Everything in this world is misappropriated as a tool of catharsis by today's people. Give a person the veil of anonymity and I guarantee you, they will gradually start becoming toxic in their communication.

If you give someone the option to commit a crime like murder or rape and get away with it scot-free, with no comebacks, how many people out of 7.8 billion people would do it?

Anonymity is OK.

But total impunity encourages toxic and criminal behaviour.

Disclaimer: I still believe in the importance of the internet. Despite all the cancer infected by humans metastasizing, I still believe the internet is one of the pillars of freedom and cannot be denied. It is probably one of the safest place in the world to voice minority. My gripe is with internet group think which is as bad as its real life counterpart.

Maybe then stop making site rules that encourage group think?

In any conversation, only one or two people can be talking at a time, or no-one gets heard. So when you have a gathering of 2,000 people, one person ends up speaking to the whole group, and everyone can only listen. An audience response cannot be from just one person. So the group response is the general consensus of the majority of the group, about the things the speaker said.

If you want to have multiple opinions being said at the same time, then you have to have lots of smaller groups, like separate chat-rooms, so that each room can have their own speaker, and so that each group has few enough members that everyone can have their own individual say.

You set rules: You can only read & post on a topic, if you join the active topic room, with a time limit. Once the time limit is up, to continue, you have to re-join. If there are 10 active members in the topic, they are split into 2 rooms of 5 members each. You only get to read and write posts with 4 to 9 other posters at a time.

Once the conversation is over, all posts are deleted, with the exception of posts you requested to be made permanent posts. They can be reviewed at leisure, and if found worth keeping, will be pinned as permanent posts.

Ongoing debates with 2-4 posters are formally structured, just like in real life. Once the debate is over, if it has value in keeping it and letting others read it, the whole debate can be edited for posterity, with the approval of all the posters in the debate.

But you limit the false feeling of omnipotency that you can develop by being able to look at anything on the internet, any time you like, or people start acting as if they can know anything without any effort, when they can't and require effort to learn things.

1. Social Media is not a means to create relationships with a nonjudgemental attitude, it is rather a place to commodify yourself. There are levels of 'commodification' on social media. When someone goes from posting simple pictures of sunset and sunrise to posting pictures with self-help quotes, you know that person has lost their sanity to a good extent.

Yes, but you can make those places, because we used to have those places organically. The rules encouraged the behaviours subconsciously. So we can establish sites like that, and if that is what you want, then that's where you go.

1. Social Media is a place not for making new friends but to keep an eye on acquaintances and old friends. People are extremely, I mean despicably, harsh in prejudging unknown people on social media. There is widespread distrust and an utter emphasis on noncommunicative styles of communication - memes, 'funny' videos, 'roasting', sentences full of abbreviations, one word replies, etc. In my experience, people use social media pertaining to their relationships in life in one of two ways or both:
   1. Stalk people
   2. Compare

Yes, and that's been a big problem, because as social media grew, IRL community gathering places diminished, and so there's not a whole lot of new places to meet new people.

So we need new internet meeting sites. Again, with rules, but rules that encourage acceptance of new people and finding like-minded people to hang with, and links that direct people to such sites.

Maybe we need an internet directory for friend-finding sites, that everyone uses?

1. Social Media is misused as a measure of somebody's 'worth'. One of the major reasons I am not getting laid is that I don't have an online presence. I have been told by numerous people that 'they could not find me online'. I am prejudged as being a useless suitor because chicks, as I have seen, cannot get over the fact that they have 'get to know me for real' which is a process most of the girls I have met like to skip. By not having a social media presence, they feel insecure, they are unable to make prejudgements about me and it seems like this is a scary thing for today's humans.

This is less about social media, and more about society not keeping up with its own changes.

At one time, men wore dresses. Now, men wear trousers. If some man turned up without any trousers, he could get arrested.

Point is, that if everyone needs a social presence, then everyone needs to be taught how to maintain an effective social presence, and trained until it becomes habitual and easy to maintain it.

Otherwise, the more proactive people succeed greatly simply because they're the only ones who get contacted, while the more reactive people get nowhere. The result is a massive economic disparity and a massive relationship disparity.

When a man knows from lots of experience that he can have almost any woman in a club, the man often becomes complacent and doesn't treat the women very well.

Meanwhile, the man who doesn't get any dates because of his lack of an online presence, can become so un-used to dating, that if a woman likes him IRL, it's so unexpected to him, that he doesn't have a clue what to do, and blows it.

So you get a massive disparity in relationships, that makes both men not that suitable for a LTR. So women become unsatisfied with both male demographics.

That in turn affects productivity. The man with lots of dates, thinks he can do what he wants, and sometimes acts that way at work. The man with few dates, can get depressed and become incredibly unproductive.

1. Social Media is physically destructive. Despite all the bullshittery about dieting and exercising and other 'health' stuff, obesity keeps on rising in this world.

You could hook a social media site to your bicycle, so you have to cycle for 30 minutes to be able to use your social media site all day. Be a great motivator for kids to lose weight.

1. Social Media robs you of your happiness. Researches have concluded that we hate looking at anyone else's selfies and pictures in which they are present because of envy. But this is exactly what social media is made up of. It is common sense that today's tweens are absolute emotional retards who engage in filthy hide-n-seek crap in their relationships in the form of erratic texting, contradictory social media engagement and lack of physical communication.

After men started being shown with smooth, hairless chests and bulging muscles, male body image disorders exploded, and soon after that, male demand for cosmetic surgery explodeded.

Simple solution: don't show the selfies publicly to everyone. Put them in a photo album. Posters can show their pictures one at a time, to a few people they select to join them in a photo album room, same as real life.

1. Social Media thinks it can augment/replace reality. Sadly, disengaging from the real world is not going to lead to actual kind of progress. Inclusiveness is not the motto of social media, it is merely to feed you crap and keep you engaged so that they continue to bombard you with everything they want you to see.

I think the issue is that that social media influencers suffer from the same problems as the TV producers: they think that they can replace real life, without actually doing anything that happens in real life.

It's like making a fantastic custom suit for an emperor, out of a new material called "nothing".

Simple rule: site behaviours are the general result of the rules and the things the owners, admins & mods do to maintain & look after the site.

Make a few sites that offer site behaviour ratings, the same way that Trivago compares holidays and other comparison sites work. Let people vote for the sites, the same way they vote on Trivago. Have a few such sites, the way there are a few holiday review sites on the internet.

Then people will be more likely to avoid the sites that encourage toxic behaviour.

Therefore, I conclude that even moderate social media usage causes emotional immaturity in all of its users.

Anything whose restrictions and rules encourage emotionally immature habits, is going to cause emotional immaturity.

Get the rules and restrictions to match the habits you want to encourage, and problem over.

E.G. Scan new posts for caps, or for emotionally explosive words. Too much of the post in caps, or too many emotionally explosive words, and the system won't let you post.

Make an online game out of spotting fallacies in random texts taken from parts of random posts. Make sure the fallacies are verified. Then give bonus points to those spot the most fallacies, in the fallacies that have already been verified in those texts, or when any newly spotted fallacies have been verified. Do it like a gold star system, with bonuses.

Get people looking for fallacies, and they'll start noticing fallacies in their own posts, and in the posts of others.

The more users feel aligned with the fact that they have to have an 'ideal online self' that needs to be emulated in reality, the more deranged users will be.

Then make a site which makes users feel aligned that they don't need to have an 'ideal online self'. Make it a REAL site, with REAL people.

Get different online members to hold speeches and an AMA every week in a different chat-room. Publicise the speeches on the site, so people get to speak to real people directly in chats, and get to know what things are really like for people in very different situations.

This is because their 'ideal online self' is actively changing. People today are clueless about their identity.

They're mostly clear on what they want. They're not very clear on how to express that, or how to get it, because the rules of communication and the rules of how to achieve particular goals, keeps changing.

The language keeps being altered, so much so, that it's become Newspeak. People don't know what to say to express themselves anymore, and mostly say nothing about their real beliefs, except in 1-2-1 communications with people they already know.

The rules keep changing, which favours the children of those who make the rules, and the children of their friends, because they're the only ones who know how to navigate the system from the day the new rules come into play.

They are increasingly using material and digital means to 'define' themselves without any kind of cogitation.

All their culture's info on how to navigate the world and communicate to others, is coming from the digital internet.

The rules are presented as both arbitary and chaotic. So you can't guess what they are, and even when you know some rules, you think you can't figure out what the others are. So it's like constantly being blind, and having to constantly rely on what someone else tells you to do.

Comparison is a basis of deriving identity, sure, both so is your self-awareness.

Comparison is a good objective test. If you are able to drag your leg along at one mile an hour, it seems like you're in good health and should not go to hospital, till you look around and realise that most people are using 2 legs. Then you go to hospital, and the doctor fixes your leg.

That's what is SUPPOSED to happen when you compare.

What actually happens, is you look around, realise that you're different, then ask for help, and the doctor says there's nothing he can do, but give you some pills to tranquilise you and mask the pain.

Then after 20 years, you discover a doctor who informs you that it's easily treatable, and you wonder why you had to wait 20 years to be told that.

Our system favours finding faults, but not actually informing people of multiple methods that would address those faults effectively.

Social Media users love to claim that they are individualistic but in reality the kind of individualism that social media causes is simply commodification. 'Originality' and 'Authenticity', the buzzwords to judge people are used completely out of context.

I heard about that happening with tattoos, years before the internet, by someone speaking about the 60s.

I saw the same happen with organic foods. It just caused the price of organic food to double. So most people, who aren't rich, don't eat organic. Only a minority eat organic.

I am seeing the same thing happen with electric cars. The people who have a lot of money, and the corporations, have electric cars. The people who are struggling to make a living, are driving petrol cars and diesel vans.

It is more about seeming not-like-that-person more than anything else.

Online bullying is extremely common, and not often stopped.

Mods don't mind banning ONE member who steps out of line, but are unlikely to ban 20 members who all join in the same behaviour. Usually, even when the mods act, they just delete the thread, and no-one gets punished. Then someone starts a similar thread, and the same conversation gets repeated, but usually that thread doesn't get deleted.

We need sites to have rules protecting members from online bullying, and restricting them from bullying others online.

 

[Daddy]

The thing about reddit is that you need to get karma in order to post a lot (or sometimes at all) depending on the rules. So a lot of the time you end up with people that are only receptive to one view. And then even when people comment on things, 90% of the comments are like shit-posting and cookie-cutter answers to everything, when all you really want to read are the comments that add to the post and don't just make endless jokes or snide comments and such.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not talking about you. I'm saying that everyone falls into one of the 4 baskets, sometimes they're ona transition from one to another.

If you go online your identity is what exactly?
The information you share or things you say or what?
Does that actually alter your identity and if so is it bad?
As opposed to real life.
What qualifies as identity?
Is Harry Potter and JKRowling the same person and if so, what constitutes the right identity on social media and JKRowling writing a book.
Is her identity and monologue of book her real identity?
I don't expect people to be honest online either, but then again I don't expect much of anything of people.
I don't know, if the person saying stuff is necessarily good or bad either, but I assume that if the person saying stuff makes sense I can test it in real world.
Ergo if they say something like a certain book is good I assume it might have good content. If I trust their judgment I might pick the book up, thinking, hey it might be good.
I don't assume its bad or good book immediately, but I don't go buying the book thinking its bad, entirely.
I do not buy into facebook status stuff beyond mere amusement, and sometimes I just wonder why some people post stuff.
Some information might be new interesting because of novelty and you at least get exposed to new things.
I don't expect online identity to match people in real life, because I don't expect the alphabet to match meaning of words or to match few things online to real identity.
Partially because that is impossible and partially because I assume not everything about someones identity is important to share.

So what do you mean by identity?
The attitudes?
The interests?
Hobbies?
Tattos on someones arse?
How good they are juggling a set of balls.
IS online identity really something of great importance to you that you need to now everything about the person and see if they are always 100 percent honest?
I mean do you really want that? Or do you think its a difference just in communication?
Is having pen pals also matter of identity?
Are you writing stuff to people and telling them stuff and then when you meet them in real life expecting them to be word for word copy of letters they write?
Is the word identity a coherent concept anyway?
But you did not explain what toxic means in this context?

It's toxic if it attacks other people, silences them or harms them. Alloted space is the space you get to say what you think, overstepping your space is when you attack the person, shout at them or use political influence to pass laws forbidding someone's freedom of expression.

Online?

To some extent no idea is better or more meaningful than others, even scientific or rational ones. Everyone can have a view or a preference of their own as long as they don't apply it to others. When someone applies their beliefs to whole countries like Putin does to Russia then we have to consider if his approach is beneficial to Russians and the rest of the world. If the majority impacted by Putin's decision does not agree with it we can start saying that Putin is coercive or that he's overstepping the allotted space for his views.

So you are saying Putin is superhuman that he can coerce entire country to do stuff he wants, without anyone disagreeing.
Is that not what I pointed out the west is doing too?
There is a difference how they do it, but essentially the result is the same.
I did not point this out because I like Putin I just pointed out that I noticed that often people say things of Putin that are also applicable in other situations in west.

Good example is how people say that China has death penalty, but this is said by people from a country in US. So if people in US are bugged by death penalty is it really meaningful to state the same about China?
Its fair criticism though I am not saying its not, but death penalty is not exclusively China problem or problem at all.
Is it really normal for other Asian countries to kill people for trafficking drugs?
Would your rather that I not point this out, because it offends you.
I don't know? I mean well essentially I have no bone in the fight.
I just find it curious that people think its more important to point these problems as if they are exclusive to China and ignore the rest of the world as if the world is made up of China, it seems that people care for well fare of people in China so much more than say people in India or it feels unfair they care more about China than people in Chad or Somalia or even their own country.
I don't think its wrong, but I find it curious why that is?
I assume it has to do with media coverage. But who has so much concern for Chinese people in media to fear for their human rights more so than say someone in some other nations that you can barely read about in news, because these people are somehow less important.
I am not saying Putin is good person, but I say in principal a nation has the right for self determination, and if this principal is part of national policies today in the west then criticizing Putin for being different is like the type of thing you are saying is wrong, but also do it on basis that you think he is wrong.
SO its not that any one idea is good, but people say these things so often that you have to wonder what they mean. Either they mean they just plain don't like the guy which is I guess good, but I never met the guy and I never met you, but you can say why you like or dislike what he is doing.
But you say things that are often very similar to what media say, so I think you are just repeating what media say and I assume your unique take on politics is just the sum of what I read in media, in which case I wonder how much of what is in media true of Putin.

Everyone should voice their opinion and actually too few people do that. If you're toxic then you increase the likelihood that you will silence everyone else and very few opinions will be shared besides the one that wins or is the loudest. Everyone should be encouraged to voice their opinions even if they are the most idiotic things in existence, we don't know what someone is going to say until we hear it and every perspective contributes something of value.

Yes, did I ever stop you or anyone on this or any other forum?
I may voice my disagreement, but I have been convinced when people put out interesting ideas.
I may also agree with something, but necessarily go out of my way to do it in real life, because in real life your idea might work and might not work.
I might also think its good thing and try it and see it does not work or works either way that is no different from real life.
Lots of people said stupid things to me and I ended up believing them in real life.
But is real life toxic?
I cannot also consider all ideas equally or know if all ideas are good on basis of someone saying it.
Someone can saying something that makes sense at the time, and then you might actually do it and see its wrong?
Is that person then toxic?

Identity is useful, maybe necessary for humans . Most people I'd argue don't even know their identity. They don't realize that they are identifying with an idea or a group when they support it. They don't know why they're doing it. People don't know what drives them or what influences their decisions.
People didn't know they loved chunky peanut butter until it was invented and they were immediately on the bandwagon Same goes for political ideas, people go for populism because it promises tasty and chunky yummy stuff and they have no time to think about the consequences of peanut butter overconsumption. And they fight people who prefer smooth peanut butter because they like a different thing.

The way someone can't stop their identity expression from toxic reactions, trolling or aggression is damaging public discourse.

True does that mean everything Id say is toxic or wrong and everything everyone ever said is toxic because its exclusively on social media?
You also have to say what identity means, because opinions are not identity and vice versa us talking is not tied necessarily to identity.
It might or it might not be.
Also peanut butter is not identity, I refuse to say eating is identity.
I agree that its a habit good or bad depending how healthy you are, but I don't consider it part of my identity.
I eat for taste, and nurture alike, just like all people.
If you know your identity how would you describe in words and do you think its important that I know exactly your identity, because if I don't know it I am somehow damaging my idea of reality?

Set of beliefs and qualities that define a person.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, but then people who are open minded according to your definition have no identity and people who are super quick at learning also have no identity.
So your argument is that those who are most conservative and never change are the people who have the most robust identity.
That means a rock has the most stable identity and thus is the non toxic identity.
Should people then even talk or just be quite like rocks and just enjoy silence and be comfortable being rocks.
Maybe that is what they mean about Jesus being the rock and foundation.
He never changes. But if he never changes that means those who never change who they are good people???

 

[ZenRaiden]

Maybe then stop making site rules that encourage group think?

In any conversation, only one or two people can be talking at a time, or no-one gets heard. So when you have a gathering of 2,000 people, one person ends up speaking to the whole group, and everyone can only listen. An audience response cannot be from just one person. So the group response is the general consensus of the majority of the group, about the things the speaker said.

So its like real life then.
Because people do talk in groups as far as I know, and one on one too.
Kind of like online.
I don't think this makes internet worse.
I think what makes social media bad is the actual part where the algorithm is preset to show things in your face.
That is the real culprit.
Unfortunately this means algorithms create bubble that people think they created.
Often time this is kind of identity theft, because what you really want is to talk about something specific and interesting and instead get into a online discussion that makes zero sense.
In real life this also happens, but the algorithm in real life does not exist.
Means you don't get stuff and topics that get shoved in your face, but it also means you end up having conversations that are more random depending on people.
I don't think real life bubbles are that different, but facebook for example really is not a conversation or meaningful platform to begin with.
I tried to use it and I found that its pretty pointless.
But then again I do find that lots of conversations in real life are also pointless.
But then why talk anyhow.
I personally don't like to talk that much, but its part instinctual and part you are expected to talk, and part sometimes you just have to say something.
And of course part because you are surrounded by people who constantly talk so you can choose to listen or talk.
But lots of people say you have to socialize and you have to be out going and you have to get out of comfort zone and network and make friends and be outspoken and stuff.
You also end up in situations where you are bored out of your mind so you say stuff to pass time, because you are waiting or try to take of your mind of stuff that your legs hurt or your head hurts or you just want to think about stuff and talking sometimes helps the process.
But in real life you are also encouraged to find like minded people, because if you talk to people who have different interest and view points you are likely to bore them and they will bore you or maybe you might learn something, who knows.
Maybe they are too different to find common ground to talk to or do stuff, so you kind of assume its easier to just not talk about stuff.
The thing is most times of the day I prefer not to talk, but most people I ever met were talkers, and I think I have simply been conditioned to think its easier to say stuff than be quite.
Not that I cannot be quite, but I think its easier to just get along with people if people say stuff.
Technically though I cannot tell because there are people who just mind their own business and don't talk and they seem reliable anyhow so I don't talk to those people as they seem to know what they are doing and my input would be distracting.

 

[BurnedOut]

any people out of 7.8 billion people would do it?

The whole reddit population.

 

[BurnedOut]

Maybe then stop making site rules that encourage group think?

The problem is that they will never do that because in order to quell group think to a significant extent, all social media websites and forums and even reddit would have to be rewritten from scratch. That is something nobody is going to do so group think is going to keep getting worse as time passes. There are ways of debiasing and people hate it because consumerism successfuly dwarfed our self-awareness.

Everything corporates touch, they destroy. It is like being Midas. You see all that gold in the kingdom and suddenly they turn your balls into gold and you realize that you'd have to cut your own balls to get the monies xD

 

[ZenRaiden]

Everything corporates touch, they destroy. It is like being Midas. You see all that gold in the kingdom and suddenly they turn your balls into gold and you realize that you'd have to cut your own balls to get the monies xD

Why do you care about people balls?
Also algorithms are kind of based around manipulating people, so I don't think these companies care about not showing commercial content in peoples faces.
I mean technically it sound better to just avoid these sites then trying to figure out why they don't function anyhow?

 

[BurnedOut]

I mean technically it sound better to just avoid these sites then trying to figure out why they don't function anyhow?

Come on, 99% of android phone users out there don't even bother to turn off data collection in settings. Why do you think people are going to be aware of all this unless someone raises an issue about it?

I mean people are quite unaware. India's civil services exam actually has questions on trackers, cookies, etc and that is completely new

 

[ZenRaiden]

I mean technically it sound better to just avoid these sites then trying to figure out why they don't function anyhow?

Come on, 99% of android phone users out there don't even bother to turn off data collection in settings. Why do you think people are going to be aware of all this unless someone raises an issue about it?

So?

 

[scorpiomover]

So its like real life then.

Because people do talk in groups as far as I know, and one on one too.
Kind of like online.
I don't think this makes internet worse.

In real life, if you organise a mass gathering place that you make money out of, that has hundreds of thousands of visitors a day, you'll need to get a licence from the government.

If the government thinks that you're causing some kind of mob rule, they'll see that as a way to start a bloody revolution that would bring about a new fascist regime.

Online, you can do what you want.

I think what makes social media bad is the actual part where the algorithm is preset to show things in your face.
That is the real culprit.
Unfortunately this means algorithms create bubble that people think they created.
Often time this is kind of identity theft, because what you really want is to talk about something specific and interesting and instead get into a online discussion that makes zero sense.

Online algorithms have to be written into code. Someone had to design the system to be that way.

Moreover, it's easy to write different code, so the algorithms are not the same. So there's not that much of a good reason for that situation to continue.

I personally don't like to talk that much, but its part instinctual and part you are expected to talk, and part sometimes you just have to say something.

You say a lot here.

But lots of people say you have to socialize and you have to be out going and you have to get out of comfort zone and network and make friends and be outspoken and stuff.

If you want to get on with dogs, to be around dogs a lot without them biting you, best bet is to spend a lot of time playing with dogs until you understand them.

Humans are also domesticated animals. Same rules apply.

So it really depends on if you want to live in places where lots of other humans live, but don't want them to bite you or harm out of fear.

You also end up in situations where you are bored out of your mind so you say stuff to pass time, because you are waiting or try to take of your mind of stuff that your legs hurt or your head hurts or you just want to think about stuff and talking sometimes helps the process.

Sounds like your typical teenager, hanging around with other people, looking for interesting things to do.

But in real life you are also encouraged to find like minded people, because if you talk to people who have different interest and view points you are likely to bore them and they will bore you or maybe you might learn something, who knows.

Are you encouraged to find like-minded people online?

Or are you encourged to talk to people who are very different to you online? Like, people from countries very far from yours?

 

[scorpiomover]

any people out of 7.8 billion people would do it?

The whole reddit population.

Well, I don't know all the reddit forums. But I know there's one for INTPs, that has a lot of INTPs. There are also some redding forums with extreme views, just like many sites on the internet. So it seems pretty similar to the rest of the internet.

Maybe then stop making site rules that encourage group think?

The problem is that they will never do that because in order to quell group think to a significant extent, all social media websites and forums and even reddit would have to be rewritten from scratch.

It only requires re-writing some code. In the history of coding, lots new languages and new frameworks are written and re-written. So this is a very tiny challenge.

That is something nobody is going to do so group think is going to keep getting worse as time passes.

Considering the amount of code that gets re-written every single year, and how so many frameworks have been re-written from scratch, you would have to stop people from doing it, to ensure it would not happen.

There are ways of debiasing and people hate it because consumerism successfuly dwarfed our self-awareness.

So you think that as long as social media gets people to become more toxic, the more money that corporations like Twitter, Facebook and their advertisers make more money?

Then the people who run social media corporations have a big motive to stop the code from being re-written to be non-toxic.

Everything corporates touch, they destroy. It is like being Midas. You see all that gold in the kingdom and suddenly they turn your balls into gold and you realize that you'd have to cut your own balls to get the monies xD

I doubt that most people would like corporations that provide food and make smartphones to disappear overnight.

Maybe you mean that if corporate behaviour is taken to an extreme, then they'll become toxic too?

Perhaps you might need legislation to stop corporations from heading into dangerous extremes?

 

[BurnedOut]

Considering the amount of code that gets re-written every single year, and how so many frameworks have been re-written from scratch, you would have to stop people from doing it, to ensure it would not happen.

That is exactly what I had assumed but it is not the case. With governments across the world clamoring for interop between apps, Facebook brazenly said that it would require a massive overhaul which could span across years.

Personally, though, I think it is a very stupid argument because after the creation of interop spec, it is only about categorizing collected data. I feel that this has got more to do with advertisements

 

[scorpiomover]

Considering the amount of code that gets re-written every single year, and how so many frameworks have been re-written from scratch, you would have to stop people from doing it, to ensure it would not happen.

That is exactly what I had assumed but it is not the case. With governments across the world clamoring for interop between apps, Facebook brazenly said that it would require a massive overhaul which could span across years.

Inter-operability requires common standards that are kept consistent, like HTML and browser standards, which keep changing due to Evergreen browsers constantly updating to the latest versions.

Facebook is constantly updated to those standards all the time, or Facebook wouldn't work on most modern browsers, and no-one could use them.

Personally, though, I think it is a very stupid argument because after the creation of interop spec, it is only about categorizing collected data. I feel that this has got more to do with advertisements

Facebook doesn't want to change the situation, because they are making more money by making people more emotionally unstable and therefore more likely to give in to advertising that plays on their emotional instability to incite them to buy more, which in turn means their adverts on Facebook are more in demand, and thus allows Facebook to up their ad fees and make billions more.

The companies that advertise on Facebook sell more by this, and so make a lot more money, and so like the status quo.

Politicians and organisations who have been bought, bribed or influenced by corporate funding, will also be persuaded to maintain the status quo, as that makes their influencers richer.

Even people who wish to improve their lives by making themselves richer, also want to get on board that gravy train, and so even those who are not rich, but aspire to be rich by imitating others, will want to keep that status quo.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Politicians and organisations who have been bought, bribed or influenced by corporate funding, will also be persuaded to maintain the status quo, as that makes their influencers richer.

Tell me someone who is not?

 

[ZenRaiden]

You say a lot here.

Maybe, or maybe you are talking to yourself?

 

[scorpiomover]

Politicians and organisations who have been bought, bribed or influenced by corporate funding, will also be persuaded to maintain the status quo, as that makes their influencers richer.

Tell me someone who is not?

If everyone was to the same extent, then everyone would be in agreement on keeping the status quo, and to the same extent, and then we'd all be in a system that we like, and no-one would have any problems with keeping the status quo.

In short, conversations like this would simply never happen.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If everyone was to the same extent, then everyone would be in agreement on keeping the status quo, and to the same extent, and then we'd all be in a system that we like, and no-one would have any problems with keeping the status quo.

In short, conversations like this would simply never happen.

What I mean we are all influenced.
Whether you actually agree or disagree with something that is besides the point.
Even if you don't smoke second hand smoke can kill?
SO even if you don't agree with ecology of the state you will pay a tax for it.
Even if the policies are dumb and stupid and amount to consumerism on basis of stupid eco policies you are still paying for it, whether you actually buy a tesla or a hybrid or whether you like windmills or solar.

 

[Puffy]

I try to be careful with what topics I engage with people I know IRL over text or online. Precisely for the reason that the medium escalates things and is more likely to foster tension or misunderstanding in a way that in person interaction doesn't. I broadly agree that these mediums can foster more toxicity than in-person exchanges.

 

[Hadoblado]

Camping is abhorred in multiplayer games. Many times CS servers simply kick campers out and it makes sense.

Nah, I think camping is a feature of the game. If someone wants to camp, let them. BUT it shouldn't be too strong compared to rushing or other play styles.

There shouldn't be a ban to camping just because there's a consensus of 95% of players that they hate it. The games I enjoy the most allow for the weirdest strategies and the most play styles possible.

Camping requires reactions and game knowledge and countering camping also requires skill and game knowledge. If camping is too strong then players can get 4 flashbangs or narrower camera field of view or other advantages. Camping is a problem in low skill play because people don't know how to flash, don't know where people camp, don't have reactions etc.

Personally CS never appealed to me because I have niche preferences. I liked rushing with a shotgun, going solo behind enemies and knifing them or shooting through the walls (wall-scanning) and almost no maps supported that playstyle and shotguns weren't a strong weapon. But inevitably whenever my strategy succeeded I was flamed for not playing meta, or not doing what everyone else does. CS requires some camping and stopping and some mobility and rushing. Mostly requires good teamplay and individual contribution to the win is insignificant on higher skill levels.

My favorite memory of the game is when there was a game error that spawned me in the opposite team's area next to them. So I just killed 3/4 of the pub server because they weren't expecting me to be so close right at the start. It hasn't crossed anyone's mind that there could be something hostile so soon and they didn't adapt.

Was it unfair and should it never happen? Nah, it was fun and I got to knife 3 people who assumed crouched camping positions in various corners of the office map. It should happen more often, it would spice things up for everyone.

Agree with this.

People complaining about the shit that they lose to is heavily over-represented. It's not the fault of the camper that they have found a way to win when they otherwise wouldn't. Designers should expect gamers to do what they are rewarded for.

So if nobody likes camping, and the designers want their game to be enjoyed, the designers should change the parameters of the game. It is the designer's fault that their game is full of campers.

I don't play CS:GO so am unaware of the specifics, but countermeasures to camping should be pretty easy to implement/buff. If it is common, a player should be able to benefit from predicting the behaviour. Vision blockers, explosives, cover etc.

Every game I've played has people in the community complaining about balance. The mindset of entitlement to winning without adaptation is mind-numbingly ubiquitous. Treating this instance on reddit as occurring in a vacuum likely misses a lot of context.

This stuff is the game. If you don't like it, you don't like the game. Play a different one.