I saw this article by Nathan J. Robinson on Current Affairs and wanted to share. I do agree with the idea that the twitter format discourages deep conversation and debate. Lemmy is in general much better in this regard, but even still it is affected by the wider internet culture of our time, and a proper debate culture takes effort.
Even on Lemmy I frequently see more nuanced takes being shut down by quick, snarky comments pushing the conversation into absolutes. And yes, a democratic society absolutely requires healthy discussion of difficult issues, not just outrage.
Really hate this, the article focused on other platforms but I want to call out the stuff Reddit and many of its moderators did to actively prevent debate from happening, like generally regarding disagreement as something to be moderated away, the way the updated block feature works, and locking any thread with a contentious topic that people wanted to argue about.
I miss forums.
I miss times when the majority of the population didn’t have access to the internet.
Something awful is still active
If you have a few dollars, you can engage in the highbrow conversations of SomethingAwful
There’s a time and a place for everything, with apologies to John Lennon.
Lemmy is a great place for longform discussions, but the vast majority of my posts and comments tend to be of the one-line, weary-columnist snark variety.
Much of the news this days is “this is objectively bad,” making attempts at discourse difficult.
Do you think the jump from viewing on pc to viewing on mobile phone may play a part?
On a big old square screen you could look a decent amount of replies fast, phone scroll through 2/3 long posts becomes a chore.
I only use my phone under duress. The screen is entirely too small. It’s a phone. It’s meant for calls and texting.
Its always been somewhat of an issue, but more recently the shut down has also been facilitated by the platforms, as they have an agenda, are concerned by legal issues or straight up want to flex authority.
I personally feel good debate is better in the real world, chat with people and open your mind. Its always a good way to get people practising their critical thinking skills. You can always start the questions…is big tech good or bad? what could be the consequences of letting your device think for you?
IMO verbal debate is a poor substitute for writing, where you can take more time to consider what is being said and look up or cite information. Anonymity also helps a lot in various ways, when in person social considerations normally trump the interest of crafting good argument. Also personally something about speaking and interpreting speech makes it harder to think.
Something happened over time, and I think it coincided with the rise of Donald Trump and the emergence of Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok as the social media platforms of choice. A lot of people just stopped bothering to defend their ideas against people who disagree with them. The arguments dried up.
It’s because we’ve realized these people are a completely lost cause.
The rise of these platforms increased the ability of politicians’ ability to disinform and manipulate people ten fold.
Yeah, it’s useless to yalk with bigots
Similar thoughts here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
Particularly interesting is this comment:
One really interesting addition to me is that the early internet was a very, VERY free speech place. It loved Gish Gallops of enormous numbers of arguments from all sides and the idea that you would tell anyone, even the most foolish, that they should be banned was verboten.
In fact, early atheists loved creationists posting! It gave them content because these people were so obviously wrong. And creationists the same, because it allowed them to fight back too.
The modern deplatforming support on both sides is another sign that that era is gone.
This might be romanticizing the early Internet.
I can remember plenty of flame wars in the late 80s and early 90s that were all about shutting down meaningful discussion. Informed debate flourished in niche areas, but it still does today, in a similar volume. What’s changed is the massive volume of social media that’s grown up around it, including many types of voices that were in short supply on the Internet in 1989, and many of which are uneducated and/or tribal in nature.
