Hacker News Reader

Bingo. This is why I pretty much stopped using facebook and twitter. Total waste of time services.

Since then my productivity has improved and my mental health has improved as well.

Now I argue on HN instead.

No I don't.

Yes, you do.

I see a Monty Python reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

An argument isn't just a series of contradictions.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't!

As soon as it appeared, when I was like 16 and an adept of philosophy, classic theater and general litterature which were, with video games, big escapes at the time, we were all talking around me about this network of people looking at themselves yelling in the void.

A few years pass by and everyone is addicted to facebook for news so much that my parents became fascists, my sister went through communist then populism and now post stuff like the EU is going to steal our savings, my friends are either gone off of it or completely vain selfying their vacation to no one in particular.

And now I post yet another comment to myself, marvelling at my english and smiling at my little twist. You're right, we don't talk to each other at all we just show our best angle to ourselves while raging jealously at other people's better angles.

"every discourse on the internet is by definition completely a subset of the ego of the single individual."

Much different than non-internet discourse? Definitely feels different(shared experience), but unsure if it is - 'fundamentally'.

The reasons for the difference as pointed out by the parent comment are valid and are what is making the interactions different, but I think it might not be "fundamentally". I can also choose which comments I respond to, which conversations to interject in, although it is a markedly different and easier experience to do so - online it's as easy as closing the tab or scrolling to another comment. Offline I need to not only ignore a comment/person, but also keep in mind a variety of other factors which don't exist online. Something that will always be lacking offline though is the infinity of possibilities.

> Therefore, the choice of which conversation, which comment, is entirely yours.

It's not that simple though. You're likely to be part of a broader community and simply deciding to leave that community, and all of your friends, over the actions of one person, is not very reasonable. Often times we are forced to be around people we don't particularly like. When that person does something valuable, they get a level of protection from being reprimanded for their bad behavior that isn't afforded to outsiders of the group, so kicking out such people often becomes difficult as well.

Yes, but reasonable to leave over the actions of many people.

That's a neat idea but what about people who only see each other in real time chats (voice or text)? You can stop reading but AFK you can also walk away and it's pretty much the same.

I think texts/video calls/etc. isn't social media, it's much more like conversation.

That's why people (in general) are not nearly as mean or rude on a voice call or a 1-to-1 text chat. When you hear someone's voice or actually engage with a real time conversation (like a text chat, which you can't as easily just walk away from), they develop an interiority to you that forces you to empathize with them. The physical world is the ultimate version of this: seeing a person's body and face forces you to acknowledge their internal life, because the shared physical experience forces it. That's why it's a much higher barrier to bully or be bullied in the physical world.

There are exceptions to this, obviously. Tight knit forums, irc rooms, small moderated communities have an empathetic cost of interaction. But those are not really "social media", imho.

> I think texts/video calls/etc. isn't social media, it's much more like conversation.

> That's why people (in general) are not nearly as mean or rude on a voice call or a 1-to-1 text chat.

This doesn’t have to do with social media per se and is inherent to group dynamics. People are more rude as a rule in many-to-many conversations: where there is a group, there always lurks contention for status. Bullying is the most extreme case and is not the only one. (Speaking of, an insidious aspect of IRL bullying is how a bully can be compelled to be nice to the bullied if they meet away from the watching crowd, causing all sorts of twisted effects on victim’s psyche.)

“All” social media does is adds an element of scale to this.

Yes, I think you're right. It's useful to have the unique label of "social media" because the scale you mention can't really be replicated offline. A difference in quantity is a difference in kind in this case.

I’ll rephrase.

Here’s the part I disagree with:

> seeing a person's body and face forces you to acknowledge their internal life, because the shared physical experience forces it. That's why it's a much higher barrier to bully or be bullied in the physical world.

No, it’s not about seeing a person’s body and face forcing you to acknowledge their internal life. Pathological cases aside, we are fundamentally human and we perfectly understand that we are communicating with a human online as well as offline.

It’s about the group. Is there a watching group? Cue contention for status, in worst cases culminating in bullying. No group? Former bully can be nice to the victim, because suddenly there is no winning of status, and having a cooperating entity is practical.

The barrier to being bullied in the physical world is not shared physical experience. The barrier is the potential of a higher-status person taking the side of the bullied. Absent that potential (e.g., classroom without a teacher), bullying flourishes. Shared physical experience means nothing to the bully.

Here’re some aspects particular to bullying online:

— Unlike real world, bullying online can happen in 1:1 chats, because the bully can be accompanied by people IRL and can be gaining status in their eyes, unbeknownst to the victim.

— In public social media, the bully has to account for the potential of a higher-status person coming out of the blue and causing a separate crowd to take the side of the bully, which can be harder to predict compared to my classroom example. This makes public bullying a bit higher-stakes, especially if real identity is associated with the account; which somewhat balances out the scale.

While I disagree, I have to admit there are tidbits of truth here.

Well, if you are interacting with people who are addressing you directly, it's not the same.

so basically, you are actually me? Cool.

Indeed, that is what I'm saying. Even though I'm a real person, when you read this comment, you do not gain any interiority into my real person.

You read my comment in your mind's voice, entirely with your own biases. And the fact that you choose to read & respond to my comment over any other means that the "conversation" we are having is with the disembodied voice (my voice) in your head with another disembodied voice (your voice) in your head.

I don't know you, and you don't know me; the exchange takes place on your side, within your ego, and only informed by your perspectives and biases. (Likewise, for me!)