Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwway120385 | Hacker News Reader

throwway120385

It also explains why there's been an alarming trend over the last 10 years of people just getting more vehement about everything.

View on HN

We started attaching public comment boxes to everything and now everyone thinks their opinion on everything is important.

10? We’ve been getting steadily more polarized since at least the 80s.

Possibly true, but I'm sure you'd agree that it can't really be called steadily since around 2010-2014

There is a straight line through 70s Falwell, 90s Limbaugh, tea party, to MAGA. All fueled by a self-reinforcing rage machine.

Reminds me of this quote: "The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way." -They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45[0] [0] https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm

Reminds me of the Ukraine war. The original intent was clearly a very short intense “operation” and then a quick annexation. Nobody planned to grind hundreds of thousands of bodies through a war machine, but “here we are” and now everyone is “forced” to go through the motions.

Left leaning folks are swept up in rage machines too.

Leaf through the BoingBoing BBS sometime to get a sense for it.

One only needs to observe societies response to Covid to see how “left leaning folks get swept up into rage machines”. People were cheering on cars getting towed from popular hiking spots, skate parks getting filled with sand, crazy people “protesting” beachgoers, etc. if you dared to suggest schools should open you were a grandma killing MAGA hat wearing pariah. Don’t forget the level of censorship, vaccine passes, wishing death upon those who didn’t get vaccinated, etc.

No sir, people of all tribes are fully capable of getting swept into rage machines. At the end of the day we are animals operating on animal instinct. No tribe gets to claim otherwise.

I mean, some people reacted how you describe, but the vast majority did not regardless of political leanings. Are you going to pretend that was the dominant reaction among left-leaning people just so you can be mad about it?

There were indeed surveys showing that a fascist stance (like throwing unvaccinated into camps or taking their children) was, indeed, dominant (60% and more support) among American "democrats". So much for your "vast majority".

And the internet hijacks our brains so effectively; since it became ubiquitous, it is almost impossible for regular users to see how they are being conditioned.

Wait, in my media bubble the American left is the one consumed by rage.

The right is stupid or craven or greedy or just evil, but true righteous fury is reserved for those who saw a woman's rights not getting respected one time.

I find the right goes into rage machines and sees their way of life changing and double down on keeping things the way they have been.

I find the left goes into anger machines and ends up suggesting overzealous steps for necessary changes that take many people aback.

But that’s not new. What’s not new is that now we have social media and mainstream media that wants to fan the flames by giving voices to the most extreme.

They aren't obstructing Congress. That has been ongoing since 1994 when rational negotiation by civic minded leaders was replaced with hostage taking to suit an ideology without regard for public benefit.

I don’t think you understand these groups and their motivations very well. Fear and concern for the future are much more significant than “rage”.

So basically since when cable TV came into mainstream existence.

Turning attention away from each other and toward images of each other

I think you're confusing the issue. Cable TV wasn't coming into mainstream that was the problem. The issue was the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was the starting gun.

- Huge shift in (near-total abandonment of) antitrust enforcement starting in the late 70s, driven by Chicago school assholes. Centralized economic power.

- Fairness Doctrine killed in the 80s, resulting rise of partisan AM radio and, somewhat later, Fox News.

- Media ownership concentration rules neutered in early ‘00s (iirc). More centralization, again in the hands of big capital.

- None of those rules ever applied to the Web, so when its power as a propaganda and agitation tool skyrocketed with increased use by normal folks (rise of Facebook; usable smartphones with the iPhone) that immediately headed bad directions.

Now we have LLMs, which are at their most-useful by far when you don’t care about accuracy or reputation—so, scams and propaganda getting a big boost in productivity.

i remember when Obama took office Rush Limbaugh was worried that he would try to restore the fairness doctrine but it turned out Obama did nothing. Democrats never acted like they were in a battle while Republicans were executing on a media domination plan over decades to dismantle the propaganda safeguards put in place by post war politicians.

That's because despite the right wing propaganda that will tell you Obama is a staunch far-left communist, Barack Obama is a committed centrist, and a representative of the Corporate Party.

He did nothing because he had no interest in doing anything to limit corporate influence or power. They put him in power, after all.

I think human nature dictates that this opens up a literal market for the opposite. People aren't served by exhausting hysteria, it's just a cheap date, a way to grab low hanging fruit. The more that's focussed on, the more an opportunity arises to cover abandoned needs and wants.

The question becomes, is YouTube's algorithm good enough to itself pick up on this new market and serve it? I see no reason it couldn't. It's possible human algorithm-minders might sabotage this instinct by going 'no, this is the big win' and coaxing it towards MrBeast stuff, but surely the algorithm will eventually win out?

> is YouTube's algorithm good enough to itself pick up on this new market

Something I find interesting is that there are good channels producing very high quality (non-extreme or non-intense) content for many interests on YouTube and they coexist with the hyperbolic large channels. I suppose that they make less money, but they do so without a large production crew. I think the algorithm is supporting both types of content (content for myriad mindless viewers, and content for the fewer discerning viewers) and accommodates both scales.

By "human nature", what exactly are you referring to? The statistically most common amount of extremities?

People tire of being poked with an algorithmic stick, even though it ensures a reaction.

Like the seasons and the phases of the moon and wandering of the stars?

and I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that

But come on, that's been going on for literally centuries.

They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition.

See definition 2 here:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...

Literally false: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.

I literally had no idea.

That definition genuinely gives me cancer. I seriously, 100% am going to die now because dictionary editors don't seem to grasp that this is simply a "tone" of ironically over-emphasized speaking similar to sarcasm, and not a new definition of one word. I'm 250% honestly in chemotherapy now because they don't get that. Veritably, indubitably, unarguably cooked now. Thanks, dictionary editors.

The stronger player was handicapped when they gave their opponent a handicap, and yet they still won; they now held in their hands their prize that was the match's prize.

Dickens did it. And people have been doing it since the 1700s.

Not to mention, if you're using the word "literally" to mean "something that actually happened", you are also using the word wrong. Because it means "relating to or expressed in letters".

I also notice people complain about "literally", but they never complain about "really" which also gets used in the same ways even though it means the opposite.

And I've noticed people do it as a substitute for intelligence. They complain about these things to seem intelligent. To seem knowledgeable. But when confronted with knowledge that contradicts the complaint, they try to dismiss the knowledge rather than adjust their point of view. Similar with fewer/less. These words mean the same thing. There are no rules as to when to use one or the other. There was the preference of one guy, who even said that he had no reason for it, he just liked it. And people took that as an ironclad rule. Or the gif debate. People try to invent all of these rules, but get pissy when you point out all the places where English does not follow those rules.

What would you suggest using instead. Actually?

People are generally good at context. Tone, expression, etc, all of these things are parts of communication that do matter. Assume your audience is at least as smart as you are.

When communicating through text only, tone and expression is all but lost which means we need to rely on the literal/actual/exact definition of words to convey our intended meaning. However it seems people dont agree on the exact meanings of words (using literally in this case), and so the intention often gets lost in translation and causes disagreements.

I feel personally this is a big reason why communication across the internet is becoming much more intense and full of conflict.

Truly?

There have been thousands of years of written language, and the worst thing that ever happened was the invention of the dictionary, which enabled generations of prescriptivists to pretend that word meanings can't change once they're written down, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Maybe look up 'hidebound' sometime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com