[nvahalik]

> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking.

The internet is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for both good and evil. It depends on the people using it. In fact, the internet is arguably a victim of it's own success. It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. That's why we are having this specific conversation, is it not?

> I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing.

Don't judge your work by what others are doing. It's not right. You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people. Technology for technology sake will not bring you peace or joy—technology for the sake of others just might.

[ssaew333]

>It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are.

I don't think a majority of people hold these views. What we're doing is amplifying vocal minorities and drowning out everyone else.

Granted, no communication mass platform is going to accurately reflect the public. That's why we hold media especially accountable for spreading falsehoods. We haven't seen that sort of criticism of Social Media, however, until very recently. Twitter, Facebook, etc make editorial decisions to make some content more visible than others, and they chose to reward this kind of crap. But because they outsource their decisions to an algorithm, we have treated them less like television channels and more like telephone companies (dumb pipes).

> You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people.

I strongly agree. And tech skills aren't even necessary. Try to get involved with local politics, volunteer, give money to good causes, and help your neighbors and friends in need. It's the antidote to the division and loneliness in our world.

[nvahalik]

> I don't think a majority of people hold these views. What we're doing is amplifying vocal minorities and drowning out everyone else.

Then I'd argue perhaps people haven't thought about it well enough. My point in another comment was that people formerly who could find no audience would likely get shut down since there was a bit of inoculation against certain ideas. However, with the internet you can reach an audience who finds your ideas acceptable far more easily than you could before.

> And tech skills aren't even necessary.

Absolutely. If you care enough, you'll find a way to help. My opinion is that tech thinks way too highly of itself. It thinks that technology itself can actually be a panacea. I've found that generally to be the opposite—that tech most often gets used to "get around" the hard work. However, that's probably just my cynicism speaking.

[dgudkov]

>The internet is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for both good and evil.

I prefer to view the internet as amplifier. Per se, it's not good or bad. It just amplifies whatever it has on its inputs. The inputs of early internet were nerdy, but we mistook this nerdy utopia of internet as good force for axiom. Now internet amplifies whatever humans are and boy its ugly.

[nvahalik]

Absolutely. The barrier to entry initially was high, so the SnR was really high. However, now anyone can create 1080p videos and the tools to do basic editing are practically free. Whereas someone whose ideas were unpopular with those around them might find themselves unwelcome and perhaps would quiet down, now you can address your message to your specific audience and get positive feedback which wasn't possible before.

[DanBC]

> t has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. That's why we are having this specific conversation, is it not?

No. We only heard about her ideas when she murdered people. No-one on HN had heard anything from her before then. The internet did nothing to promote or supress her ideas, other than the news coverage she got after killing people.