I think it's an exaggeration of the "city effect": the denser an environment is, the more likely it is that people who see you out to talk to you are going to have a negative agenda, because everyone else is trying to keep their head down.
If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger on the street in New York, you're probably going to put your hand over your wallet. Adverse selection wins.
It sometimes feels like social media has gone from a place to make friends to a place to make enemies - or at least to bond with a group through the medium of hate. Bonding through hate of the outsider is hardly new, but it's especially negative on the Internet where it can be amplified over and over.
Oh yeah ive never heard of this city effect but it does make sense. And to your other point i do see a lot of bonding over hate or negativity and i wouldn't blame that on social media. Just people being irrational and irresponsible.
The idea of the city effect is suburbia romatization. My view is that people (me included) tend to be biased in what they like. I love cities and dense areas and hence most interactions I have are positive.
I like what you said about the kinship through hate, I feel no connection to a city though rather I see the segregation of suburbia as the breeding ground for hate.
Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place.
Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity.
Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.
No, I don't think it's anonymity. You can see absolutely rabid, hateful, unhinged things people post under their real names on Facebook, LinkedIn, nextdoor.
There is a kind of 'bubble effect' where people are wrapped in their own world. A similar effect can be seen once people drive a car and there's a behavior change towards other people on the road, and 'road rage' becoming a thing.
I agree. I think that it's the removal of an emotional connection, and that happens naturally, after a certain pause (an interesting study, would be to find out how long, and I'll bet there are people who can explicitly prevent the analytical part of their mind from taking the wheel).
A lot of it happens in out of band posts like these.
It seems to happen less in interactive (i.e. chat, etc.). Make no mistake, it absolutely happens there.
But not as much as in async posts (I don't think).
I don't think it happens much at all with video.
Most of it is surrounded by context (or lack of). How difficult it is to communicate (typing like this is not easy, and certainly not for the impatient).
I have to keep telling folks when they get that Look in their face because of what someone said or didn't say over email or an instant message to not judge on that. If it's that important to you, CALL them. TALK to them, you simply can not rely on typed conversations for anything that impacts you emotionally.
I know that my idea is completely rectally-sourced, but I feel that the less time that we have to think about an element of an interaction, the less likely we are to go into the nasty "flame mode" we see.
But there's exceptions to every case (especially when human nature is involved). I actually know people that are so emotionally broken, that every interaction that they have; regardless of the context and medium, is a fight.
They tend to be lonely and angry. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from.
That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction.
People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.
Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it.
Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave.
When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.
A long time ago, you would only interact with humans from your own tribe. Most of your actions had direct consequences for you, and you interacted with these people every day. Your life and wellbeing depended on that group and your social status. Then came local communities, followed by the global village, with access to eight billion people you will never meet or know. You can say whatever you want to them and face no real consequences, you can simply block them if you wish.
pjc50|5 months ago
If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger on the street in New York, you're probably going to put your hand over your wallet. Adverse selection wins.
It sometimes feels like social media has gone from a place to make friends to a place to make enemies - or at least to bond with a group through the medium of hate. Bonding through hate of the outsider is hardly new, but it's especially negative on the Internet where it can be amplified over and over.
card_zero|5 months ago
unknown|5 months ago
[deleted]
sentinelsignal|5 months ago
pastage|5 months ago
I like what you said about the kinship through hate, I feel no connection to a city though rather I see the segregation of suburbia as the breeding ground for hate.
ChrisMarshallNY|5 months ago
Especially if a corporation that controls the venue, deliberately amplifies the rancor.
9rx|5 months ago
Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity.
Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.
jv22222|5 months ago
socalgal2|5 months ago
sentinelsignal|5 months ago
subscribed|5 months ago
rapnie|5 months ago
ChrisMarshallNY|5 months ago
whartung|5 months ago
A lot of it happens in out of band posts like these.
It seems to happen less in interactive (i.e. chat, etc.). Make no mistake, it absolutely happens there.
But not as much as in async posts (I don't think).
I don't think it happens much at all with video.
Most of it is surrounded by context (or lack of). How difficult it is to communicate (typing like this is not easy, and certainly not for the impatient).
I have to keep telling folks when they get that Look in their face because of what someone said or didn't say over email or an instant message to not judge on that. If it's that important to you, CALL them. TALK to them, you simply can not rely on typed conversations for anything that impacts you emotionally.
"What do you think they meant by that?" Oh no.
It's just an awful medium.
ChrisMarshallNY|5 months ago
I know that my idea is completely rectally-sourced, but I feel that the less time that we have to think about an element of an interaction, the less likely we are to go into the nasty "flame mode" we see.
But there's exceptions to every case (especially when human nature is involved). I actually know people that are so emotionally broken, that every interaction that they have; regardless of the context and medium, is a fight.
They tend to be lonely and angry. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
ChrisMarshallNY|5 months ago
That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction.
People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.
lordnacho|5 months ago
Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave.
When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.
lossolo|5 months ago