Hacker News Reader

Comment by redeux | Hacker News Reader

People aren't leaving X because of polite disagreement. They're leaving because ideological extremism and hate not only run wild but are actively promoted by the platform.

Here’s how I see it: imagine you like going to a restaurant for dinner fairly often. Recently, a group of rowdy patrons has started coming in, getting drunk, and making all kinds of noise. Strangely, the restaurant seems to encourage their behavior. You don’t love this—you’re just trying to enjoy a nice dinner and some casual conversation. So, you leave and don’t come back.

You can’t force the restaurant to calm down or kick out the rowdy patrons. They should be allowed to serve whomever they want. Luckily, you’re also not forced to endure their actions.

View on HN

> People aren't leaving X because of polite disagreement. They're leaving because ideological extremism and hate not only run wild but are actively promoted by the platform.

I disagree. I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things. And that's part of the problem. The rhetoric has become so hyperbolic that we're having a hard time coexisting.

The answer is for us to walk that back, and encourage actual dialogue, not run into our own safe bunkers.

You can talk to the people at your table in a restaurant, and it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same.

> I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things.

The definitions of hate and extremism are inherently tied to personal values. Many people perceive much of the speech on X as hateful and extremist because it directly contradicts their core values, not because they're arbitrarily expanding those definitions.

> You can talk to the people at your table in a restaurant, and it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same.

This analogy only works if everyone abides by a social contract. that’s often not the case on X. It’s like if the people at the next table overheard you, didn’t like what you said, and decided to come over and spit in your food. That’s the experience many people have on X.

> Many people perceive much of the speech on X as hateful and extremist because it directly contradicts their core values

People disagreeing with you is not "hate and extremism".

It's not the back and forth, it's the original content that gets posted that you find objectionable, and in which the comments / reposts become quite toxic thereafter with people disagreeing

There is most definitely original content that is hateful, racist, and/or extreme on X that goes beyond the difference of policy or ethical opinions

https://x.com/NickJFuentes/status/1854015641218355621

It's not even arguments. They are saying the quiet parts out loud.

95M likes. This isn't some niche extremist circle to push under the rug.

> I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things.

How about we just go dictionary definition:

>denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.

can you really argue this past week, month, year. That you have not seen any dictionary-definition hate spread, promoted, and cheered for on the platform? Some by the owner himself?

Twitter isn't a commons. it's an amusement park and Musk is the manager. You don't bother trying to change a manger's mind unless you have millions to start the talk. Abandon Disneyland and try to see if Knott's or Six Flags or Funland fit your vibe more.

> it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same.

Not when they are slinging their food at me. Experiences and atmosphere are well known to alter your sense of taste. Not just smell (which is obvious, since your nose and tongue are basically connected).

It's very hard to moderate an online forum that allows political content without succumbing to your own political bias. I don't like the trolls on X, but if X started moderating against hateful content, it would just end up censoring news and opinions like they used to do beforehand. There is just no way around that. I am not going to name examples because it would start a flame war, but there are enough recent examples.

Also, maybe I'm from a different generation, but the trolls can be very easily ignored. What do I care is some no name account is posting some stupid content somewhere on X? I already know which people I want to follow. The rest I don't care about.

> I don't like the trolls on X, but if X started moderating against hateful content, it would just end up censoring news and opinions like they used to do beforehand.

They censored cisgender as a slur.[1] They are not avoiding moderation to avoid bias.

> Also, maybe I'm from a different generation, but the trolls can be very easily ignored. What do I care is some no name account is posting some stupid content somewhere on X? I already know which people I want to follow. The rest I don't care about.

Signal to noise ratio is not a generational issue. Muted users and phrases not being muted is a common complaint. Less signal and more noise after the changes favoring paid accounts is a common complaint. And finding new accounts to follow was part of Twitter's value to others even if not you.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/on-elons-whim-x-now-treats...

>maybe I'm from a different generation, but the trolls can be very easily ignored.

if you're a no name user who barely comments, sure. Trolls have evolved beyond mean words in the last 20 years, though. They are NOT easily ignored anymore, and it only takes one doxxer to ruin your entire online presense. Or even physical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com