This -> the internet is a reflection of us
Why is politeness in person so hard? Because we've become used to interacting on the internet where you so easily villainize others. Once other we see the person and their response putting on that filter is hard. Not that it matters because you can run back to your internet bubble.
I'm fostering self awareness. If I can't form a concise, opposing argument I keep scrolling. Sometimes, no amount of facts will make a difference. On my threads I've started deleting posts that are off topic. If the topic is ACA and you say Bill Clinton ran a whorehouse while in the White house that comment gets deleted as the topic is ACA.
I think a lot of the problem is click-bait headlines coupled with people's emotional response to the headlines then not reading the article. I do that too so I'm working on stopping that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/twitter-mute-abusers-1.3858319?cmp=rss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Weight loss is more than calories in and calories out. Research using a pool of 10,000 participants. People tend to gain weight back. Differ...
-
Serious about safety? Allow one free checked bag and stop carry on that doesn't fit under the seat. Don't want to "give away&qu...
-
We were in Edmonton so I took the opportunity to visit the Microsoft Store, check out the Go and finally purchased it. I knew there was a ...
Twitter is as bad a YouTube... A toxic toilet the both of them.
ReplyDeletePossibly related...the use of targeted advertising taken to the extreme from information gleaned off social media polls. Via George Station .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html
If not related, delete away.
I vote for "definitely related" but I've got a dog in the social-media hunt, M Sinclair Stevens :-)
ReplyDeleteI'll vote for totally related.
ReplyDeletewhat u on about
ReplyDeleteso no freedom of talk
ReplyDeleteso every thing on is fantastic lol
ReplyDeletedik
ReplyDeleteJust because someone says something doesn't mean I have to believe them - or even pay attention to their words. Why are "freedom of talk" advocates so afraid of having to explain their positions?
ReplyDeleteWhat about "Freedom Of Speech" needs explaining?
ReplyDeleteThat it doesn't apply to Twitter? Or Facebook? The GOVERNMENT cannot limit ones right to Free Speech.... Twitter can... Facebook can... If one doesn't like their rules, don't play in their sandbox!
But it is not unreasonable that the users desire that the rules be applied fairly, without bias.... If they're going to block someone from, for example, the Alt Right for saying something, anyone from the Regressive Left should be blocked for saying the same thing.
I delete and very occasionally block specifically for attitude (trolling, mindless ad hominem) and illiteracy—but not merely for commenting on my posts with an opposing argument. There's no need to delete, really. Anyone who's been on G+ more than a week can get a sense of where I stand on various issues. Most folks who just want to be in charge of my posts just move on when they find out it won't work.
ReplyDeleteAs to being "on topic' or "off topic," I think G+ format allows for both very focused conversations and for meandering, as it allows individuals to control their own "bubbles" tightly or loosely. The former IMO is more for people (commenters) who don't interact much, and the latter is more common among people who have formed social ties (repeat commenters) and know how to facilitate extended conversation over multiple posts. It's an art and a science. As examples of the latter, I'm going to cite the G+ "microverses" of Giselle Minoli, Laura Gibbs, John Kellden, Charlie Hoover, Gideon Rosenblatt, and Yonatan Zunger.
George Station The conversation dimension of G+ (which I love) makes it totally different from Twitter for me. Every once in a while a total stranger will show up and start ranting on one of my G+ posts, but that's very rare, and I don't hesitate to block when that happens. Sometimes a conversation on one of my posts goes off in a direction that I don't expect, and even in a direction I'm personally not very interested in, but that's fine: let the conversations happen where they happen. That's one of the great things about G+ I think: it has all the share/reshare power of Twitter AND a real space for conversation for those who want it. You can use G+ in one way or both; it's all good. :-)
ReplyDeleteG+ does seem to lend itself better to actual conversation than other social medias do..... Or maybe that's just perception bias on my part ;-)
ReplyDeleteI agree, especially twitter.
ReplyDeleteExtended threads on Facebook happen but the flow is different and I find it harder to follow, especially on a post with lots of replies to replies. Zuckerberg's intent was really just for students to connect with other students, not to ponder the great questions of life. On both Twitter and Facebook I may hop over to DM, or be dragged over, just to straighten out a misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteOn Twitter, I can never really figure out how to engage with people I disagree with or where I am not sure I understand what they are saying, but at G+ I can :-)
ReplyDeleteGeorge Station When I first started to get a significant audience on G+, one of the first things I did was ask John Scalzi for advice on moderation. (We know each other through the SF world) He gave me one very simple and important rule: "Don't be afraid to moderate."
ReplyDeleteThat turned out to be incredibly important. My moderation rules basically turned into "if someone is detracting from the conversation, stop them from doing it." Detracting doesn't mean disagreeing, of course – but there are kinds of "disagreement" which are simply detracting from the conversation, and don't do anything useful. One particularly important kind of detraction I quickly recognized was "making other people annoyed or uncomfortable enough that the conversation dies because nobody wants to be around this."
Clinton Hammond I think there are deeper patterns which link speech law and speech policy on platforms – essentially, these are both trying to solve the same kind of problem (creating a free and open marketplace of ideas) but subject to very different constraints. Since the law basically has "big hammers" and "very big hammers," it has to be extremely restrained in using them, for example: censorship of speech means that the speech is essentially banned outright, in all fora. Contrast this with a service like G+, Twitter, or Facebook, where the harshest possible penalty is being told to hit the road, and many lighter penalties are possible (content items being taken down, brief suspensions, items still being up but no longer recommended to people, etc): those same gray areas open up the possibility of far more nuanced rules, and the fact that these rules ultimately only cover a single forum mean that you don't have the same risks of squelching discourse across the board.
OTOH, governments are swinging a bigger hammer, and so can create an entire system of courts and precedent to create very consistent and robust speech law. That's much harder at the scale of a company: if every content item removal as spam required an actual trial, nothing would ever happen. There are other legal and policy reasons why company speech policies basically can't be as open and structured as government ones, but we nonetheless try to hit that bar – for example, by making the work of the analyst teams who actually tag things as consistent as possible.
But none of this means that the rules are simple, and "if X says something and gets blocked, then Y should get blocked for the same" isn't actually a robust rule. The simple reason is context: language is complicated stuff, and there are plenty of words that have a very different meaning depending on who is saying them to whom and where. To take a simple example, if I say that someone is so nice, and if a Southerner says the same thing about them, those two sentences mean very different things.
Writing actual speech policy requires a very deep and nuanced understanding of this sort of thing, and a recognition that nothing is as simple as "these words are good, these words are bad." Context matters, meaning can't be divorced from it, and that includes both interpersonal and social context.
Better to not try to write such speech policy at the government level, and if a business wants it, that is, literally, their business.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like how twitter for example codifies and enforced their regulations, you are free to enjoy the egress.
Clinton Hammond You still need some such policy at the government level, for the simple reason that people's rights often conflict with one another, and a basic function of courts is to resolve that. There's a reason there are laws against extortion, for example, even though that's a type of speech.
ReplyDeleteExtortion is violence
ReplyDeleteIt is not free speech
Clinton Hammond Yes, that's the point. Extortion is not included under "free speech," even though physically it is a speech act. It's one of those restrictions on what you can say that makes perfectly legitimate sense. :)
ReplyDeleteThere isn't anywhere that doesn't restrict some forms of speech.... But that's not at all what this is about, is it?
ReplyDeleteClinton Hammond Isn't it?
ReplyDeleteNope. This is about twitter /FB etc regulating their own sandboxes
ReplyDelete