How to have better arguments online

This also applies in the real world. The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community.

Over the last few decades we've seen a trend of this privatisation and segmentation or what Michael Sandel called 'skyboxification'. Everyone sorts into their own group, often commercially, rather than having shared experiences with people from different walks of life.

The promise of the internet was that it would be easier for different people to have these interactions. It's sad that in reality it has devolved into a shouting match (it should be noted very often between people who are actually alike and engage in some Girardian terror of small differences, rather than between genuine strangers)

Everywhere else I run a plug-in that removes all comment sections from the web and I don’t use social media.

I've found this to be less true than perhaps it used to be, particularly in places like HN. I don't think you'll change anyone's minds overnight on a big issue like climate change or racism, but I regularly see people share insights and perspectives in a reasonable way. Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread.

You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme. At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult.

And even cult de-programmers-- people who know the "creation myth" of a cult, know its tactics, know its adherents, and are skilled and patient enough to "snap" cult members out of their stupor-- know not to physically put themselves in the midst of a cult for any extended length of time. Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone.

There's something creepily similar about the people who helped build online bubbles outright banning their children from using the devices/social networks they helped to create. They do that because the systems they built are quite literally the opposite of self-selecting.

You self-selected to be here on hn, just like the rest of us did. In a sense, this is a bubble of a certain kind of thought and perspective. But it's a really big bubble that has some diversity.

I think the key is to avoid situations where you're constantly exposed to vehement disagreement. On hn we mostly respond to posts individually and get into various disagreements along the way. I think this is far preferable to something like a political discussion site, where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again.

I'm not sure I've ever changed anybody's mind online, but I try to always keep in mind that that is not my goal. When others disagree I try to make sure my opinion is understood, and I try to understand their opinion too.

One benefit to online argument over in-person is that it's easier to take time to reflect on my own reactions to others. I can take time to decide how to react. In-person it's often impossible to do that.

I agree with most of what you wrote - I like being able to choose when to be "in the bubble" and when to not be in. I think we'll really benefit over time as people learn how to use these different forums better.

Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides.

The sanity to which you speak is actually just passivity, In the hostage negotiator analogy, it is what happens when the hostage negotiator hangs up before the negoatiation is over. In the bridge analogy, it is what happens when one of the forces acting on the bridge stops acting on the bridge.

Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable, or at least mutually unsustainable with existence.

Consider that it might be to the benefit of the reader to hear all the different possible ways of expressing the different arguments and counter-arguments, even when the participants themselves don't budge.

Also, I often find that while I don't usually change my opinion in the middle of an argument, it still helps me to have the weakest areas of my opinions highlighted so that I know not to invest too strongly in those aspects as time goes on. After reading a compelling counter-argument online and then seeing first-hand evidence of the strength of that counter-argument later on, I think I'm much more likely to change my opinion.

During an argument I think it actually benefits all participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and weaknesses are fairly represented.

What tools do you use for sentiment analysis?

This seems a rather arbitrary limiter of the content you're willing to expose yourself to. What makes you think a high negative sentiment percentage in comments indicates a video that will make you unhappy?

A specific video's commenter base is nothing like a representative sample, that could be used to make predictions.

If I decide to watch a video, I use youtube-dl.

Why? Youtube comments aren't put in your face. It's very easy to watch a video without watching the comments.

I simply do not go to pages that take my emotions for a spin. I have found that social media always makes me unhappy, ultimately.

It's your life and I won't attempt to tell you how you should live it, like many others here will.

As for me, I think being sad and even angry is part of the human experience, part of being in touch with reality, and I wouldn't sign up for a "keep you happy 100% of the time" machine.

In a sense, I'm serving a higher (less immediate) happiness.

1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence, poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such as knowingly false appeals to popularity.

2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them, which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to build tribal factions of echo chambers.

3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don’t care about any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are social as necessary for resources.

4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in the ass to the sheep and wolves.

5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an original contribution, but it’s rare.

6. The final 10 people are comedians.

Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of any subject.

Which makes sense in some circumstances. Like, when the whole group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power.

This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to respond to all of that. So you see something that was said, publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent nor power.

On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are sufficiently obsessed with the topic.

Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Another possibility would be to design online interaction so that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50 people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is little financial incentive to explore this, because companies optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.

I'd suggest, too, that two of your points combine: people rationalize to themselves that they're on forums to have fair, intellectual conversations, but actually unconsciously are looking for that opportunity to blow off steam.

The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."

“We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that is good community management, and the reason we have been in this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this way.”

I guess the name of the game is “comments supporting our journalism and from which we can extract value from without incurring liability or bad publicity”.

It’s a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP Scott, and it’s more about sticking to the truth than publishing other people’s opinions:

> A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenar...

> In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair".

  they fear dissent

It also serves as a litmus test. If the other person isn't even willing to take an agreeable tone to something that's not controversial, then I know I'd be spending my time more wisely by doing something else.