PieFed.WorldHow Big Tech Killed Online Debate
Gobbel2000www.currentaffairs.org/news/how-big-tech-killed…
I saw this article by Nathan J. Robinson on Current Affairs and wanted to share. I do agree with the idea that the twitter format discourages deep conversation and debate. Lemmy is in general much better in this regard, but even still it is affected by the wider internet culture of our time, and a proper debate culture takes effort.
Even on Lemmy I frequently see more nuanced takes being shut down by quick, snarky comments pushing the conversation into absolutes. And yes, a democratic society absolutely requires healthy discussion of difficult issues, not just outrage.
14 Comments
Comments from other communities
LainTrainwhich allows people to avoid formulating thoughts altogether and let the machines do it for them, it seems to only be getting worse.
This is so eloquently and succinctly put.
I think that’s it. That’s what most people ultimately want, the ultimate convenience of non-thinking, of non-existence. They are so offended by the “terminally online” and the “informed” who write their “endless paragraphs” (2 sentences that take less than 5s to read).
Especially the brainwashed boomers turning out for the far-right in droves who actually use AI like this or fall for obvious misinformation for no reason other than they like the sound of it. They killed the world for this.
Especially the brainwashed boomers
Nice example of a non-thinking generalization. Have an up-vote punk.
I’m referencing Marjorie Taylor Greene. https://people.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-maga-was-all-lie-and-claims-trump-is-only-serving-big-big-donors-11898049
Not a phrase I thought I’d ever say but it rings that much louder when it’s someone who was part of this whole taking advantage.
But it’s also not a comment I make unthinkingly, let’s look at the voting intention tracker in the UK:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention
If you select ages 18-24, the Green party (actual leftwing party) is in the lead the far-right party (Reform) is far behind.
If you select ages 25-49, then Labour is in the lead, they are just average run of the mill conservatives.
So everyone between the ages of 18-49, that’s a span of 32 years is at least in more or less agreement that we should not have the far-right in government.
Now let’s take a look at 50-64
A majority by a large margin are voting for Reform UK.
This also tracks for 65+ by an even larger margin.
No other category demonstrates a split like this, not by class, not by sex, not by social grade, not by anything - age is the only predictor that is this reliable and obvious.
So yes, statistically speaking boomers are brainwashed. Or if you think voting for the far-right doesn’t mean they are brainwashed, then that’s fine, I’m also willing to accept that they are fully cognizant of what they are doing, but that would mean that they are just plain evil
Young people are suffering everywhere at the hands of a gerontocratic tyranny they practically institute serfdom by already taking everything they have via rent. It needs to end and it needs to end soon.
I believe that most of the knowledge worth having is found in books, and book critics have a vital function in introducing the public to important books
I agree with the first part, but I have never once read a book review by a newspaper critic. I never find them of value, I’d rather read almost anyone else’s review.
I read a lot of books, but this type of book critic is not as valuable as the author claims.
I miss forums.
I miss times when the majority of the population didn’t have access to the internet.
Something awful is still active
If you have a few dollars, you can engage in the highbrow conversations of SomethingAwful
There’s a time and a place for everything, with apologies to John Lennon.
Lemmy is a great place for longform discussions, but the vast majority of my posts and comments tend to be of the one-line, weary-columnist snark variety.
Much of the news this days is “this is objectively bad,” making attempts at discourse difficult.
Do you think the jump from viewing on pc to viewing on mobile phone may play a part?
On a big old square screen you could look a decent amount of replies fast, phone scroll through 2/3 long posts becomes a chore.
I only use my phone under duress. The screen is entirely too small. It’s a phone. It’s meant for calls and texting.
Its always been somewhat of an issue, but more recently the shut down has also been facilitated by the platforms, as they have an agenda, are concerned by legal issues or straight up want to flex authority.
I personally feel good debate is better in the real world, chat with people and open your mind. Its always a good way to get people practising their critical thinking skills. You can always start the questions..is big tech good or bad? what could be the consequences of letting your device think for you?
IMO verbal debate is a poor substitute for writing, where you can take more time to consider what is being said and look up or cite information. Anonymity also helps a lot in various ways, when in person social considerations normally trump the interest of crafting good argument. Also personally something about speaking and interpreting speech makes it harder to think.
It’s because we’ve realized these people are a completely lost cause.
The rise of these platforms increased the ability of politicians’ ability to disinform and manipulate people ten fold.
Yeah, it’s useless to yalk with bigots
Really hate this, the article focused on other platforms but I want to call out the stuff Reddit and many of its moderators did to actively prevent debate from happening, like generally regarding disagreement as something to be moderated away, the way the updated block feature works, and locking any thread with a contentious topic that people wanted to argue about.
Similar thoughts here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
Particularly interesting is this comment:
This might be romanticizing the early Internet.
I can remember plenty of flame wars in the late 80s and early 90s that were all about shutting down meaningful discussion. Informed debate flourished in niche areas, but it still does today, in a similar volume. What’s changed is the massive volume of social media that’s grown up around it, including many types of voices that were in short supply on the Internet in 1989, and many of which are uneducated and/or tribal in nature.