The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers.
I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.
My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession.
Consider A:
-Earth is flat
- it is not, earth is round
- ya it is, john doe proved it
- ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john doe said?
Or B:
- earth is flat
- yo momma's butt is flat
Yes B, loses the battle for the one mind, but when you consider the readers, you are simply avoiding platforming an idiot and playing a dumb strawman to boot.
I guess it all comes down to whether you view the internet as the greek agora or the roman circus.
All of this rational debate and usage of latin phrases for fallacies brings back memories of teenage years of online debating. I get that it's election time at the homeland and some people are campaigning, but you get more votes making a strawman of your opponent and making a thread viral than going one by one changing minds. Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? Ha!
That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the venue into baying for a fight. I sometimes wonder if it is even possible to build a sustainable internet platform which somehow rewards cordial good faith discourse and penalises the mean and intolerant (and by sustainable I mean immune to the tendency for these platforms to eventually pivot to maximising profits above all else).
Or
Something something LinkedIn.
I suppose both approaches have their own problems.
These site - twitter, facebook, etc... they aren't dividing humans per se by way of intent. They are black mirrors to human nature. The algorithms say, "human, what entices your attention?" "Drama!" "Fights" "Polarizing topics that people 50/50 disagree/agree on" . And so the algorithms delivered what the humans attention recommends - polarizing topics. And so we are now more polarized.
Because this is rooted in human nature, and you can't change human nature, the solution is something needs to be legislated. You can't ban free speech. You can't ban how long people spend online, also freedom, any more than you can ban gambling or alcohol or drug addiction. So then it comes down to something like recommendation algorithm ethics (hah! can you imagine? But why is that not a thing?!? we have an intense AI ethics community but that other AI that is the recommendation AIs that powers sites, it's all crickets as far as rules and ethics). Well, we all know why, money. But "medical ethics" while being a field is also legislated as to unethical medical practices lead to severe consequences, perhaps a "tech ethics" type field would help improve such algorithms, or "tethics" for short. Congress grilled Mark Cuckerburg for all the suicides his tech stack causing, I figure if we're talking literal deaths here maybe have a bit more regulation>?
In the contrary, deplattforming, doxxing and all the things people came up with are now an integral part of the rights toolkit.
Point is: when I talk to people on the street I get the impression Thant what most of them desire is just boring politics by upstanding people.
Maybe it’s time to change the way we discuss.
My takeaway from your comment is not so much that we need to change the way we discuss, but that we more regularly need to remind ourselves that computers and people are not the same thing. As you suggest, when people have discussions it usually goes well, with all parties more or less wanting "boring" discussion that goes somewhere meaningful. It is when people have discussions with computers but confuse them as being people when it all goes off the rails.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
> "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it" - George Bernard Shaw
> “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.” - Shannon L. Alder
Of course on the Internet, no one ever thinks themselves an idiot, no matter how ridiculous their position is.
The best summary I've ever read about the internet
When considered in its entirety? No. Not at all. Within the curated segment of Twitter I have established? Yes! It is probably the most rational place on the internet that I know of. Those within that curated circle seem to genuinely want to share information in a productive manner without the silly vitriol.
That's the beauty of "the algorithm", I suppose. You can tune it to leave the garbage out.
Reading the comments around this blogpost here on in other places, I feel like I'm almost alone in not trying to convince anyone when I argue with strangers online (most of the times), neither the other person I'm discussing with, or others who might be reading.
I mostly reply because there are unanswered questions that if answered, might teach me something new. Most of the times I'm just seeking understanding from both sides, not convincing the other.
Do most people argue on the internet with strangers in order to convince others of something? If so, how does your success rate look like? I probably feel like aiming for that would be futile at best.
Rhetoric, dialectic, sophistry, trolling, slap fights, agitprop.
To the OC's point, while the affordances of hot mediums like social media and message boards tend towards juicing dopamine, with some investment they can also be used for discourse. As OC Defender advocates. As moderators like u/dang facilitate.
--
My meager "yes and" contributions to Defender's post are...
> how to make the world a better place
Since at least Socrates, humans have been arguing about what it means to be a good person, how to live a good life, what is true and beautiful. aka moral philosophy. I praise and appreciate Defender for continuing this distinctly human tradition.
> This shows a genuine interest in understanding because it cannot be faked.
TMI: Maybe 6-7 years ago, I heard the advice
"When something (or someone) doesn't make sense to you, get curious."
> Yes, this is a lot of work.
True.
--
PS: affordances in the Donald Norman sense; hot/cold mediums in the Marshall McLuhan sense.
Exactly.
Correia’s Law: "Internet arguing is a spectator sport. You argue to convince the undecided and give ammo to those on your side. Do not expect to change your opponent’s mind as you cannot sway the willfully ignorant. Internet arguing is only worth it when there is an audience. The contestants do not get a vote, the audience decides who wins."
You may have convinced the audience, but you ended up with a solution that doesn't work and is divorced from the real world.
Is it worth it in the end?
I dont think it is possible to have a debate in good faith without putting the opponent first.
This also applies to any _public_ offline argument, doesn't it?