My favorite theory comes from an HN comment describing it as the "toaster fucker problem." I'd attempt to re-explain it, but the original comment is great (and easy to search for. Not many mentions of the phrase "toaster fucker" on HN.)
They all basically revolve around one truth I think.
The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to radicalize others. Whether it be for the left, right, or even some weird alt thing.
Penny Arcade even has their own comic strip theory called "G.I.F.T of the Internet".
Theirs is more simplistic though in that it stipulates that the anonymity of the net is the problem insofar that it gives people a fake sense of security to be who they really are on the inside. For better or worse. Usually worse.
I think all of our ideas on the matter basically resonate on the same singular issue. That people were already nuts to begin with. The internet is just making easier to identify which are fucking screwballs and ... the rest.
But then that poses a new problem. Mob mentality even of righteous people is still just as toxic as the mob mentality of fucking idiots.
Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all.
So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.
I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.
It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing.
Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn).
If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs.
To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them.
So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation.
If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation.
If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation.
If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want.
Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.
I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has.
That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet.
All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs.
So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now.
And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us.
So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.
I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media?
Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to.
We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down.
If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process)
There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
These people seem to think that humans aren't at fault for the actions of their creations. They seem to think that algorithms are capable of having agency for their actions... This couldn't be further from the case.
As for the content of your reply however, thanks for being a little more nuanced in it all. Yes, a self contained echo chamber is definitely not going to help things. That said, what you are saying is effectively saying as well "If you proofread your own comments, you are risking radicalizing yourself off your own ideas." But further than that, you are also stating "Those ideas are just half baked".
Well in some people's cases that may be true, but as per the usual problem with most of these arguements; it leaps right past the true actionable agent in the problem and heads straight for blaming X thing that people have little control over. Psychology is one of those things that people have less control over than other people would like to believe. I know this because I have had to literally retrain psychologists over stuff like this during the times they figured they were fixing me. HAH, jokes on them.
(It was always something like "Those people don't control your actions" and I would always reply with "When did the chain of actions and consequences begin in your mind over this subject matter?". To this they would usually start it with 'me', when I would correct them and say "it starts with the person before I, because my actions are based off the consequences of their actions. Therefore while they may not 'Make me' do anything, they certainly do present possible options for me to take, and I tend to take the ones that they like the least; usually due to them being the correct action."
Now, from that little bit of a side story, do you see how your opinion of psychology being the answer might be a bit of problem in its own right? Your assumption basically ignores the fact that there is a chain of consequences for every action taken by every single person connected to said subject matter.
So while the person proofreading their comment might be 'radicalizing themselves' using their own propoganda; you are making the mistake of thinking that just because they have X opinion other than yours, it must be bad. This is a common mistake made by... drum roll please... radicalized people. Especially so in regards to folk who are on the internet far more than they should be? I end that with a question mark because it's mostly an observation so far that I cannot concretely say is for certain the problem and cause to the problem.
And so now we are back to the crux of your point. The half baked idea that gets reiterated over and over again due to be re-read. How half baked is my reply to you? How half baked is your reply to me? Was my original comment even half baked to begin with, or is that just your view of the situation through your own subjective and thus potentially biased viewpoint? Get the point?
The problem is many things DyslexicAtheist. But all of them stem from one single source. Humans. This is why I blame them and not the algorithms or the psychology itself. Why?
Because both are creations of humans. Psychology is just an attempt to understand something we didn't create, so we created a method of understanding it. Faulty as it may be, it has its uses. Algorithms are the same thing in a way. We created the fabric of which they exist, but we still don't understand fully how they operate. Or to put it a better way, we don't fully understand yet how to create them to make them operate exactly how we want. And then furthermore from there, we also do know how to create them well enough to make them do exactly what we want from time to time as well; which has its own problems.
Youtube's algorithm is a good example of the creators only having a partial understanding of how their creation works. (If they are to be believed every time they say "we aren't sure how this works")
Twitters is on the other hand a good example of them making an algorithm to do exactly what they want it to do, and it does it really well. To horrific results.
Both together are my point insofar that algorithms and psychology are only part of the general overall answer. They are not the end all or be all. Humanity is that, in regards to this problem. We are the one factor that if removed, all the problems cease to exist. But we can't exactly go removing ourselves... Well, we can... but that has new problems attached to it.
Meanwhile, the people with the half baked ideas as you put it, are just stating their opinions. You may call them half baked, but who are you to judge others opinions when yours probably aren't that great either to begin with? right?
And that right there is the real source of all the problems. People's ego's.
Once you get over your ego, all of this becomes much easier to understand and accept. But getting a human to do that is fucking hard.
Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.
I for one am happy about all the toaster fuckers who have a place to talk about it, maybe get help if they think they need it. The alternative would be that we all get mashed into an amorphous blob of the same middle of the road opinions that keep everyone happy.
Yuck.
https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/5ofih3/beforeafter_t...
What a time to be alive
It's extremely easy to dismiss all of these as equally irrelevant. In fact many do (not saying you are) - "I don't care if you are black, white or purple. I treat everyone equally". "I don't care if you're straight, gay, or curvy - what you do in the bedroom is no business of mine". These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances. And being asked to be treated equally gets perceived as asking for special treatment until it becomes ridiculous: "Gay people want special treatment by asking gay marriage - they're not being discriminated - they can already marry someone of the opposite sex".
It's easy not to care about race or sexuality when society treats yours as irrelevant.
So, what would you have us do?
I treat each individual as an individual and interact with them based on their individual actions, not based on any immutable characteristics.
I fully support inclusion, diversity, honesty and good citizenship and speak out when I see bigotry, hatred and abuse.
It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly?
Should I, as a middle-aged, heterosexual, "white" male, carry around lots of cash so I can give every woman, POC, differently-abled and LGBTQ+ person I encounter US$20? As "reparations" for the white male privilege that I never asked for, don't want and actively argue against?
This may seem like some sort of anti-progressive rant, but it's not.
So, other than trying hard to be a decent human being and interacting with and about others based on their actions rather than some immutable characteristics, calling out hatred and bigotry when I see it and supporting political candidates who do the same, what exactly do you propose that I do?
I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.
All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances.
What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.
I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?
I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit.
Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way.
My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them.
Others who've read my comment appear to agree.
>Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues,
Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
More's the pity.
Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US.
> Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.
> I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.
I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance.
...a lack of familiarity with institutional or
systemic change made me think you might be
missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's
really common in the US.
I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
> you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.
And you interpreted that incorrectly.
the "stance" I take (in this case, support for the equal rights and equal opporunities of all) is the stance of one who doesn't have governmental or corporate power to directly impact change other than my behavior and my advocacy.
You interpreted what I said to mean that I'm powerless to effect any change. Which is unfortunate since not only is that not true, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
All that said, I suspect we're, in large part, in violent agreement on this topic.
Go back and read the comment[0] to which you originally replied. You'll see that it makes clear what I think.
My apologies for not listing every possible activity. I'll make sure to write a Phd thesis here in future.
As for the rest of your paranoid (and condescending) blather, I can do without it. From now on, I will.
Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that. I do think that treating people differently will breed animosity and it does not solve any problem.
> Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that.
This is a perfect demonstration of the "head in the sand" position that leads to conservatism that I was talking about. The whole point of "black girls code" is that black girls have less opportunity to get into programming, which is a form of systemic racism given that programming is a lucrative career. It's not an identity thing, it's an access thing - it's an outreach program.
It's also absurd to claim that black women never face discrimination in the workplace.
You seem to be starting from a belief that equal opportunity and discrimination based on race are solved problems and then putting yourself in opposition to programs that try to alleviate these problems (which actually do still exist).
I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me.
There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.
The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is?
Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?
Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.
New?
Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"?
I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime.
Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies?
Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"?
Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world?
What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies.
And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to.
So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed?
Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin?
If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.
These position are as non-judgemental as it gets. Gay marriage is a separate issue but many support it because of such positions.
Dominant society in liberal democracies impose almost no values on anything related to that and it is even part of the curriculum to educate people on different sexuality. But I think that problem is solved since a few generations. In many countries at least. Saying such positions would be judgemental is actually moving backwards again.
> All these twitter/facebook/youtube bans are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, Parler is gaining steam
Did not age nearly as well.
At some point you have to branch off and learn from others.
My pet dream: Everybody Gets One, maybe two, things to be "radical" about. You reckon the earth is flat? Sure. You don't get that AND vaccines are micro-chipped AND an antisemitic 9/11 theory. Spend that token wisely.
That resonates hard with some stuff I'm seein' now.