[scott_paul]

It's worse than the Eternal September. It's definitely more toxic than it's ever been, and people are definitely more polarized. The 2016 election news cycle got a lot of otherwise normal people really radicalized and hostile. Sure most of the old-timers among us remember, often fondly, the constructive insanity of usenet. And the younger generation remembers the torrent of pure id that was 4chan in the early days, and 8chan later.

Here's the thing. It's leaking. This stuff used to be contained, kept in a little secret segmented-off piece of your world that was 'the internet'. Now it's invading your real life, your real-world friendships, your workplace, even your family.

Think of the Greater Internet F-ckwad Theory: "Normal Person + Anonymity + an Audience => Total F-ckwad". Now run that function over the entire populace, map/reduce style. Now take that F-ckwad, and remove the Anonymity by requiring them to use their real name. And bingo, now you live in Interesting Times.

[vitaflo]

>Now it's invading your real life, your real-world friendships, your workplace, even your family.

I fully expect in the future for there to be a segment of the population that chooses to "drop out" of the always-connected digital social life for these reasons. And I don't just mean giving up Facebook, but going back to analog social circles only, as well as ignoring those who are still connected (and hooked) digitally.

I like to compare it to smoking. Imagine everyone got addicted to smoking, but you eventually wanted to quit because you realize how bad and addicting it is. Even if you quit though you'd still be hanging out with other smokers mostly, and breathing in that 2nd hand smoke. The only true way out would be to both quit and only hang out with non-smokers.

This won't be everyone of course. Like smoking, toxicity and polarization are too addictive, but I can see there becoming a counterculture that simply rejects all of it altogether.

[WingTipTheSpick]

I have already started doing this. I use my phone for calling people, listening to music, reading books, and directions when I'm lost. I have given up Facebook. Twitter. Gmail. Google. And a bunch more besides. I hadn't realized how much the Google/Gmail ecosystem was affecting me, how it fed me news based on links and news based on what I'd clicked, and how that affected me. Since I have given these things, particularly the Google filter bubble, up, I am calmer and happier. That's not to say that I am perfect, or perfectly calm, or anything like that. But I am significantly better than I was a year ago.

[ryandrake]

Don't wait for the future. You can have this life today. Whenever I read about how this Twitter stream is toxic, and that group is using Facebook to harass some person, about Gamergate and 4chan and The_Donald--how glad I am that I don't participate in any of these sites, and therefore have opted out of all of this drama!

This stuff is almost 100% online. It's not invading your real life unless you invite it in. Switch the computer off and disengage, and suddenly you're immune. Someone right now might be badmouthing me on Facebook or Twitter, and I don't care. It doesn't matter because I'm not on these sites.

[anigbrowl]

Counterpoint: people who shoot up churches and the like.

[jessaustin]

Those people are vanishingly rare. You're vastly more likely to die in a traffic collision than to be shot because somebody doesn't like your church.

[anigbrowl]

They're a lot less rare than they used to be. Likewise, few people die in wars until they're suddenly declared.

[jessaustin]

We haven't "declared" wars in my parents' lifetimes, yet somehow millions have died at our hands. "Apocalyptic" violence in USA is partly an echo of our crimes overseas, but mostly an obvious result of the constant fear-mongering and dehumanization our media performs in order to justify those crimes.

[ilikepi]

It used to take some knowledge and effort to fill the Audience portion of that equation. The further back in time you go, the more was required of you to find and maintain it. Now the audience is delivered to you and everyone else via a handy little device we all carry around and reflexively stare at whenever there's a pause in our lives.

EDIT: clarity

[cotelletta]

"The UVA rape was real" - Rolling Stone

"That ESA guy's shirt is sexist." - Too many to count

"That nobel prize winner made inappropriate jokes because one person said so and should be sacked." - The BBC

"That Covington kid is a nazi and is guilty af." - Too many again, even after contradicting material came out.

"Jussie Smolliez was nearly lynched by MAGA hats!" - A US presidential candidate.

"Zoe Quinn is a credible game developer with no track record of either scams or BPD at all, and certainly no blood on her hands." - The Guardian

None of the people behind these lies were anonymous, in fact they were quite proud they got to broadcast then.

And their audience loved being given permissable targets for their 2 minutes hate.

Almost no one wants to acknowledge that before the right radicalized online, the left radicalized both offline and on and pretended this was civilized.

[fastball]

I think people are over-emphasizing the anonymity aspect of it. If the only think causing someone to behave morally is the idea that they are being watched by other people who know who they are, then their parents/religion/society has failed them.

[Barrin92]

>If the only think causing someone to behave morally is the idea that they are being watched by other people who know who they are, then their parents/religion/society has failed them.

what do you think the function of parents, religion and society is if not to observe people and watch them? That's what socialization is. Stake in a community and incentive to adjust to social norms, because the consequence of anti-social behaviour is loss of status or punishment.

It's completely rational for individuals to behave selfishly under conditions of anonymity because they face no social consequences. The way humans are conditioned to behave what we perceive to be reasonable is through social interaction and peers, that is to say, to be watched.

The model many people seem to have is that 95% of people under conditions of internet anonymity are good citizens and that the trolls are the aberration. But actually the trolls are just the example of what essentially happens to everyone if they're taken out of what is the natural human condition, which is social interaction including persistent identity and stakeholdership in some community.

[fastball]

That doesn't really explain why many people are not assholes when given anonymity. And whatever those people have, we need to replicate in everyone else. Unless you believe that those people are somehow genetically "nice" and it is impossible to replicate with environmental factors.

[Barrin92]

To be honest I think that's overstating how many nice people there are on the internet. In purely anonymous communities the discourse is almost always toxic. Even on a small website like HN with people who frequently have their names exposed in their profile discourse is rough.

Look at the amount of moderation the average Reddit community needs. Everybody is meaner on the internet, people are mean even on facebook just because they don't talk face to face. I remember a woman in Germany who posted that someone should set a refugee home on fire under her actual name, several such cases existed. They obviously all lost their jobs but it shows how maladjusted we are if we type into our keyboards.

I think the difference between extreme trolls and regular people is just to what degree you live online. If you have a regular social life you're probably not that bad of a person online, if you spend your entire day online you end up with 4chan. But I think everybody feels the bad consequences of semi-anonymous or virtual communication.

[fastball]

I actually always found 4chan to be more courteous/less toxic than Reddit, even with it's extra level of anonymity - in its own, incredibly offensive way.

[aquabeagle]

Now take that F-ckwad, and remove the Anonymity by requiring them to use their real name. And bingo, now you live in Interesting Times.

https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/ would like to disagree.

[beepboopbeep]

Ya because one side backs a fascist dictator and the other side doesn't. Too many cowardly people trying to shrug off their obligation as a U.S. citizen to revolt against this garbage. This isn't he-said, she-said. There is objective truth out there, and it's being suppressed by a massive right wing media machine that has broken the collective backs of overall journalism. But we're supposed to be civil? To hell with that.