It’s a video about why the Internet and society itself is so divided nowadays.
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.
Are you fucking kidding me? What rose-tinted crap is this.
The Internet has not changed, we’ve been at each others throats violent disagreeing with each other since Usenet and dialing into a BBS.
Flaming, trolling, etc. have been around from the start.
The only difference now is algorithms, but we already split off into our own subgroups and communities long before they came along.
Are you fucking kidding me? What rose-tinted crap is this.
Flaming, trolling, etc. have been around from the start.
Maybe you have this impression because you have been doing the flaming? That’s an honest suggestion there - swearing at people just because you strongly disagree (and you even have a possible understanding of why, in your view, I might be wrong - “rose tinted spectacles”) is flaming for sure.
And yes, flaming and trolling have existed since the beginning, but I don’t agree it was as bad as it is today. That is a not-unpopular view so I think just dismissing it is a bit much. There was far more willingness to engage with a disagreement and try to convince each other.
You actually think “are you fucking kidding me” is swearing at someone‽
People haven’t magically changed as a species in 2 decades. We act just the same as we did before.
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.
Yeah, but behind that wrong side is a valid person, and without a discussion you’ll never know how they ended up on that wrong side. Without knowing how they got there, you’ll never be able to sway them away from the wrong side and they will continue to be wrong.
I think everyone has something worth saying, but in the majority of cases I just don’t have the time, energy, or patience to get to that something.
I’m sorry to tell you that this is naive. Some people are just awful. Telling them they’re awful or showing them won’t change anything. You’re living under the delusion that people at their core are on equal footing of being basically good. They aren’t. It takes great effort and introspection to even move the needle toward good, and no one ever achieves it fully.
Take someone like Donald Trump. You think that guy has value buried deep inside? He doesn’t. He is proud of his awfulness. You think the right words or right people in his life at 77 years old are going to bring out something meaningful? C’mon…
This is a great point for the vast majority of opinions. I have an aunt who’s a flaming, angry conservative. She and her husband lost their jobs because of Obama tax increases and he now works as a flunky for his brother.
I understand where she’s coming from because I listened. Didn’t stop me from blocking her eventually, though. One must limit the amount of toxicity one sees on a daily basis.
entities with interest want to sway public opinion for their own goals. they’ll play the “us VS them” card, and its super effective.
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?
Not divided as in literally separated, but divided as in highly polarised individuals interacting with each other
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?
