Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

I think the rise of social media, and its vast ability to strip comments/speech of context and so enable dogpiling/offence/etc, has caused a huge rise in personal attacks for "problematic" statements.

I have personal conversations offline with people where we can discuss controversial topics without anyone taking offence or "calling out". I have learned to avoid any such topics on social media because of the social consequences. I know many others who do the same: simply avoid certain topics online.

I'm old enough to remember how we were before the internet, too. It wasn't like this. Discussions were more interesting and less fraught. People had a wider range of opinions on everything. At least, that's how I remember it.

View on HN

There may be an increase in off the cuff rudeness to people you are unlikely to meet, as the internet makes that so much easier with fewer immediate consequences, but (at least here in the UK) we do not have anywhere near the same level of serious personal attacks. You might be more likely to encounter someone on the internet who is willing to be rude to you for your opinion, but you are much less likely to meet someone on the street that is willing to beat you up for it.

Conkface

Shut it, bignose.

It's not social media per se, it's the authorities or people in power.

10 or even 5 years ago, you could have debates on every controversial topic online from abortion to atheism to lgbt to healthcare. In comment threads you would literally see every side of the debate. But something happened fairly recently where social media got weaponized for political reasons. And "blasphemy laws" got established on social media platforms. What's interesting is that the same "blasphemy laws" are on every platform as if a pope or an authority figure sent out a decree that everyone had to obey.

Now there are even well funded "hit squads" to attack or shame people for wrongthink. But I think their time is coming to an end because more and more people are getting tired of censorship.

I think the secular folks in these threads must not see the modern secular analogs to blasphemy, penance, indulgences, and purity. Misguided virtue signalling boycotts and all!

As someone who is pretty secular, why do you think we must not?

I mean, I've posted a couple of John Gray links here and it would be difficult to have read anything of his without having spent at least a little time thinking about the secular analogs to religious practices, as that is one of his major themes.

Because if you really thought about it, you'd realize that you have so much in common with the religious zealots of old (and be so horrified by this) that you'd have to go home and completely re-think your belief system. In the 21st century, people want to believe that they have nothing in common with the Spanish Inquisition.... "Put her in the comfy chair!".

>"Because if you really thought about it, you'd realize that you have so much in common with the religious zealots of old (and be so horrified by this) that you'd have to go home and completely re-think your belief system."

You've just successfully described one of my main hobbies. As far as any secular tradition goes, I am firmly in the Diogenes camp.

i followed your reasoning until you said that you think "their time is coming to an end." IDK. i don't see much evidence of that.

like elements of the crowd that wants to stone a woman for adultery, we're all itching to chuck a rock or two, not so much because we love violence or hate the woman, but because we're afraid someone more powerful will accuse us of failing to throw a stone and we ourselves will become the next target. i don't see any Jesus on the horizon to stop it.

I think it's caused by the rise of advertising as a funding source for these companies. To maximize profits, they have to make sure that nothing appears on their platforms that will piss off the advertisers. This combined with "engagement" as the metric of success.

So they want things that will anger as many users as possible, so that they will stay on the platform and share the outrage with their friends, but not so outrageous the advertisers will leave.

I don't think this is going to end well.

>So they want things that will anger as many users as possible, so that they will stay on the platform and share the outrage with their friends, but not so outrageous the advertisers will leave.

Also known as the 'Daily Mail' strategy. (Which admittedly has had a slight change in tone recently what with the editor being changed for someone very slightly less mental after Lady Rothermere got bored of being teased at parties)

Every salient point concerning social agency and individual responsibility made by Monty Python in "Life of Brian" as well as most of their other films, can be validated by the manifestations of social media.

We are, literally, living the Monty Python moments which resonate so well.

All it takes to demonstrate this is a brief moment of pause before you hit the upvote or the downvote button.

Beyond that point, we are all made of wood and weigh the same as a duck.

> All it takes to demonstrate this is a brief moment of pause before you hit the upvote or the downvote button.

WOW, that was well phrased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com