- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s a video about why the Internet and society itself is so divided nowadays.
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
Well said.
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 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.
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.
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.
Penny Arcade 's greater internet fuckwad theory is the GIFT that keeps being relevant.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies
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?
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?
Piped link
