It’s a video about why the Internet and society itself is so divided nowadays.

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn this couldn’t have come at a better time for me. I’ve been thinking a lot over the past months how it used to be that when you disagreed with someone, you’d still have something shared with them. Not quite the same as the social media aspect, but when TV was all broadcast on a few channels, you’d probably find a show in common. When the only news was national newspapers and broadcasters, you might both be reading the same paper but disagreeing on the articles. My thinking was going down the lines of “this meant everyone had a shared truth” which is kind of like the social media bubble that the research seems to disagree with, but also down the lines of “this meant everyone had, to an extent, a shared identity” at least within a large group like a country, linguistic or ethnic subdivision.

    There was something special about the old internet. The idea that the acrimonious disagreements might have been less bitter due to their nature is tantalising. There’s also something to bear in mind for Lemmy: the old internet, as much as the interest groups it spawned, was united by a shared interest in the internet specifically - and technology in general. The internet wasn’t as necessary and ubiquitous, so most people there had to have some other motivation to be on it. That itself was a shared interest that allowed people to find commonality. Lemmy is the same: people here are a subsection of the internet, brought here because they’re drawn to openness not provided by unfederated platforms. That is its own commanlity, and it won’t exist if Lemmy outgrows those other platforms.

  • You’re a {slur} for believing such {op’s source}.
    Real {imagined good guys group} like me know the truth and we’re better than {punching bag other group}.
    {slur} {slur}!
    Others are always in bad faith, but not us, duh.

    At least that’s how it looks like looking at the reports I get.
    So many people talk at each other rather than taking to each other.

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea of talking to each other is flawed anyway. The fact that there are 2 sides to a discussion doesn’t automatically validate both sides. Sometimes, many times one side is just objectively wrong.

      • QHC@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s also a third audience most people don’t consider: everyone reading the thread that isn’t engaging directly.

        You might not convince the direct ‘opponent’ in an internet debate, but can still make an impact on others that might be more open to listening to a new perspective.

  • idiocracy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    entities with interest want to sway public opinion for their own goals. they’ll play the “us VS them” card, and its super effective.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Rising prices, stagnant wages, impossibility to own a house, governments run by idiots who only listen to the richest assholes. Is it really any wonder why people are pissed?

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nowadays? Was it not divided when some were forced to drink from different fountains? Was it not divided with literal slavery? Civil War? Only wealthy landowners making all decisions? Only the clergy had ability to read?

    Which period wasn’t so divided? Since apparently it is nowadays?

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The demographics of the internet users have changed over time. At the beginning it was researchers, then graduate students, then normal University students. Then the affluent civilians, then the metropolitan civilians, then everyone.

    Each of those demographic changes, includes a shift in the average discourse. The way researchers disagree with each other heatedly is going to be different than the way the common person disagrees with other people.

    I would argue the state of the internet discourse, is a commentary on the state of direct democratic discourse. Many people are simply not equipped to have a constructive debate.

    Of course the algorithms in their pursuit of engagement, just magnify this effect ensuring that the most outrageous of commenters get seen by the most people.

  • Prater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For some people, all semblance of rationality and respect for others disappears once they realise they’re anonymous and behind a screen, causing topics with nuance and complexity which deserve to be debated and discussed properly, to be reduced into morally black and white issues. Instead of making any logical arguments, groups of people will just say “If you disagree, you suck” and so it spirals.

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some valid points, but then they haven’t offered any solutions and promoted the same platforms who use algorithms that are the cause of the problem by their own research.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless the solution was in the Ground News ad section, then they didn’t. All they said in the “Something More Positive” was going back to the internet 20 years ago, which is not a solution…

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you think their offered solution is unworkable? That’s different than them not having offered one - maybe you could say more about that?

          • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Solution requires a resolution. Unless you have a time machine, that’s not a solution. We can’t go back in time.

            • the_q@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, but we can revert to how things were within a system. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t invalidate it.

              • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are plenty of solutions to improve the situation or change the direction, reversal is not possible. Neither from technological side nor societal side.

                • the_q@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Reversal isn’t possible… You poor bastard.

                  Edit: Autocorrect typo.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did offer the solution to break off into smaller subsets instead of shouting your opinion into the void so it can be heard by the entire world.

          How that is achieved is more complicated and depends on the person.