Posts with heated arguments (detected as having more than a certain number of comments/replies per minute), get shown to fewer people.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)
Psychology
469 readers
1 users here now
A place for articles, discussions and questions about psychology – the science of mind and behavior. It is a multidisciplinary field, covering behavioral, cognitive, developmental, educational, neuro-biological, personality, and social studies (and more!).
Rules:
- Do not take or give direct medical advice in your posts or comments.
- Absolutely no bigotry, hate speech or discrimination. That includes (but is not limited to) ableism, antisemitism, islamophobia, queer*- and LGBTQIA*-phobia, racism, and sexism.
- Keep discussions in good faith and be respectful.
- Posts should be related to academic, applied or clinical psychology in some way.
- Titles should be relevant to the content and not misleading.
- Do not post links to your own surveys, spam or self-help tips/videos.
Friends and related communities:
- !artificial_intel
- !biology
- !linguistics
- !medicine
- !mentalhealth
- !neuroscience
- !openscience
- !publichealth@baraza.africa
- !science
- !statistics
Banner: "A cross section of a mouse brain stained with cortical layer specific proteins" by Mamunur Rashid, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons / height edited to fit as banner
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't you mean those replies under the heated posts should be shown to fewer people? If you mean to hide the post entirely, people could weaponize this mecanism to hide posts they don't agree with from others.
You'd need a way to prevent abuse, but I meant the actual post.
Current algorithms consider heated arguments to be an indicator of highly engaging content, so add fuel to the fire by showing it to more people. What's needed is the opposite.
we had healthy social media once upon a time, they all died because people prioritize their addictions over utility.
Content outside of your immediate profile should be on a kill timer: after the time is up, it's completely deleted.
I guess the answer depends on the social media format, right? I think the old school PhpBB forums were peak for interacting with random people online (at least for me). An issue I've always had with things like Reddit and things similar to that is that there's no Avatar and signature to identify people in a conversation. And the forums that I was a part of, a moderator would always pop in to tell people to take it to PMs if there was too much back and forth conversation (or arguments) between 2 people if it got too heated, too personal, and started diverging too much from the main topic.
So, as far as "healthy" goes, I think my opinion is that communities should be more personal and much smaller. Lemmy definitely feels better to reddit and that's likely just due to the size difference and the fact that more of a percentage of us are real people and aren't part of some marketing campaign or karma farming bots. That way, there's more of a sense of community and people can remember your name from past posts/comments. If your "home" on the internet is slow and small, you won't feel the need to scroll endlessly since you can catch up to content.
As far as format goes, I like the idea of a feed (no text limit) where you can see generally what people are up to recently, but there's also topics people can follow that function more like forums. So then the question becomes should communities have artificially limited user counts and see everything (like Path was)? Or should there be a friends list so you only see things your friends are saying and the comments to those posts like facebook? I'm leaning towards artificially limited user counts since it guarantees a small and slow internet "home". And it's gotta be web based, unlike Discord communities.
And it’s gotta be web based, unlike Discord communities.
What do you mean by that?
To be honest, I forgot there is a web version of discord people can use. Also, I guess I didn't go into it because I was being long winded with the rest of my message, but every barrier to entry if you want to sustain a small community has a chance to kill it or limit the addition of great users who would otherwise keep it alive. I'm sure a ton of people would like to join something like lemmy, but don't because the concept of federated servers is a real barrier for those people. Discord feels like a major barrier since you can't really find the kind of community you really want to join since you can't taste test the content of the server before you join. The discord servers I'm in are either based around a community that's already popular and it is an extension of that OR it is a more organized version of a group chat with my friends. I'm sure there are general purpose discord servers that manage to be small and friendly, but they seem really hard to find if you want to find them. It is fine if you want to connect to other people who (for example) all are fans of the same youtube channel, but if there's not that common thread, I'm not seeing how a community like that could start or thrive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just haven't seen it before. I just think my main gripe against discord is being used by companies for troubleshooting so answers to common problems can't be searched on the web, which is an entirely different issue.
I agree that small communities are better, by the way, the way you talked about is mostly how it is in language learning servers, some are really comfy, even more if its of a single language only and one that isn't usually listed as most spoken languages worldwide since people learning those others have very really specific curiosity/need/couldn't find many communities on it. Maybe you'd like it more, I don't know if there are Matrix servers like those yet, maybe I just haven't found too.
When it comes to Discord, I think it's easier to sign up on Matrix than Discord though, Element is pretty straightforward and already pre-selects an instance when signing up for those who isn't familiar with decentralized tech yet. I bet if Lemmy had a landing page for people to share when trying to convince others to join to sign up and pre-select lemmy.ml (since it is maintained by one of the devs, you are already trusting using their software anyway) it could help, or not, just an idea.
I have both Matrix and Revolt, but they remain empty unfortunately. The advertised public servers are so full I usually leave within an hour. And I can't get my friends to join my Matrix channel instead of the discord server they are used to using. I also fully admit that real time chatting is just not my thing, so my bias is definitely towards non-real-time social media sites. Growing up with dyslexia and AIM, I'd always feel really insecure about spelling things correctly and it always takes me a while to send a message. Again, fully a me-issue that other people generally don't have, but I can dream haha
And I can’t get my friends to join my Matrix channel instead of the discord server they are used to using.
I have managed to get friends to use Matrix but not switch, if they don't even bother to try using it (i really mean use, not replace or switch, that's a bigger ask) they are either just lazy (I don't mean it in a bad way, some people usually are because they are in a bad mental state and just too exhausted day-to-day) or it's just not worth your time as much as you think. There are friends and there are people who are just going along.
so my bias is definitely towards non-real-time social media sites. Growing up with dyslexia and AIM
Have you heard of Neocities? They're also open-source.
Every day I relearn that Neocities still exists I'm surprised. I also had no idea it was open source! Thanks for the info! I honestly love the "small web", and neocities really has a large portion of those kind of sites. I also follow some Bear Blogs, though I think it's rare to find comment sections on these sites, so communication is limited to emailing if this was to be considered social media. But it definitely makes me feel more cozy than any of the corporate owned media sites.
Wow, first time I hear of Bear Blogs, thanks for sharing, I will try it out!
I also find blogs more cozy, nothing wrong with emails for communicating (if you use a good email provider/self-host).
No images, text only.
My hot take is that memes made the internet worse. Why make a new joke when you can copy someone else's? Why write thoughtful political commentary when you can slap 100 characters on a picture and call it a day? Don't link the article, screenshot the headline and put a picture of your favorite favorite celebrity under it. That's content, baby!
I mean, copypastas would still exist. So long as people are trying to show off on the internet for likes or points, there will be people trying to steal other people's popular content or say the most outlandish things to get a response. You could tackle this by removing likes/points or you could remove the algorithm that gives preferential visibility towards things with the most likes/points/comments. People just don't want to feel lonely and if that part of their brain lights up when they steal jokes and get a ton of likes, maybe the solution is creating a situation that fosters real connection instead of emulating that feeling with of likes and digital attention?
Copypasta is as easy to copy but memes are wayyy easier to digest so they're way more prevalent. Text uses basically no bandwidth in comparison, too.
It's just filler that keeps people scrolling.
Would you also want to ban URLs even though they are technically just text? I also wonder if a social media site this limited would be able to survive when up against websites that are designed to be as addictive as possible. Actually, how does any non-addictive site compete with that and survive? My only guess is that it'd have to actually make people feel good about themselves and be less lonely. Fight addiction with a better emotion instead.
No, I'm fine with links if the thumbnails aren't big images. It's making a meme the entire post that I think is what makes the internet worst
I'm not proposing a POPULAR social media site, of course.
Ohh gotcha! I do think images would be fine if there was some way to verify original content since there are some truly amazing creators out there. But yeah, that'd likely require constant moderation.
I would try to steer us back to a shared reality, so for instance maybe ranking for suggested posts is calculated by geography. Not religion or politics or financial standing or whatever.
Is it perfect? No. Can it be gamed? Yes. But everybody will see the same thing, and would be an improvement over micro targeting, which by its nature polarizes us N-dimensionally.
So let me preface this by saying I understand all of the privacy and other reasons why the below would be a very bad idea, but I think it might help:
Make everyone use their real names. I already pretend that everyone knows who I am online and sees all my comments, I strive to treat all of my online interactions as if I was talking to someone in real life. If it’s something rude or something I don’t have the guts to say to a person’s face, or something I don’t want shared to everyone I know, then I don’t post it.
Edit to add after theotherben’s comment below: I definitely understand how this could be dangerous to many people and I don’t think it’s feasible. My main idea is just try to ask yourself whether you would say what you want to post or comment, to someone in person. But you guys are right, too many people ARE jerks in real life so that wouldn’t change. Idk, I mask a ton in real life and don’t use social media outside of Lemmy so I’m probably the wrong person to even think about this.
Have you ever used a local facebook group?
Nope, I don’t have Facebook or any other social media than Lemmy (used to be Reddit).
Make everyone use their real names.
Yeah, because that won't make people overly anxious and some fake a lot of their interactions or be too obsessed, the best part is: the examples of this are the biggest social medias such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn. Also, have you thought of those who are in danger because they have an ex or a random internet user stalking them all over? Congratulations, that'd not help those people.
Anonymity can be good and bad but the good can overweigh the bad if you care that much to at least moderate the bad.
If it’s something rude or something I don’t have the guts to say to a person’s face, or something I don’t want shared to everyone I know, then I don’t post it.
This is a psychology community, talking is healthy, you're thinking everyone must suffer of exposing themselves because the platform can't be properly moderated? Then it shouldn't even be public.
It's always been my opinion that anonymity makes people more aggressive and more willing to partake in antisocial behavior. A person in a car could have their trip extended by 2 seconds before someone else decides to endanger their lives because they see "slow car" instead of "real family on a road trip".
For stalkers, just have an option to lock down the account. Like, block the stalker and make your account inaccessible to those who aren't already your friend/follow you. With anonymous accounts, there's nothing stopping bypassing any moderation attempts by creating another account unless you do an IP ban, which can also be bypassed. Moderation and especially auto-moderation can be subject to silencing topics and voices the parent company of the social media platform deems shouldn't be talked about.
But if your real name is attached to any number of sensitive topics, getting doxed suddenly becomes a major issue. If Reddit is half full of psyops campaigns, political campaigns, marketing campaigns, what's stopping the people who use these sort of tactics from doxing and threatening you directly to prevent dissent directly from the source? I can only imagine what happens to all those people who have basic walkthroughs for Nintendo emulation only to have hired mobs show up to their door to break their knees within the week. Or a conservative government find a reason to jail (or worse) someone asking about abortion options.
So if you can't be anonymous and talk about sensitive topics without it resulting in rage and propaganda and you can't have your name attached to sensitive topics without it resulting in a risk of doxing or violence, what's the answer? I honestly have no idea. :/ Maybe it will always be a fact that there will be both anonymous websites in addition to websites attached to people's real names.
You basically just described the situation with Facebook/Instagram and they don't really help much, ever heard of web scrapping and OSINT?
So if you can’t be anonymous and talk about sensitive topics without it resulting in rage and propaganda and you can’t have your name attached to sensitive topics without it resulting in a risk of doxing or violence, what’s the answer? I honestly have no idea. :/
So basically you criticize but provide no solution for people who can have their identity stolen/stalker who can happen to be very tech knowledgeable/work or administrate that very social media/corrupt law enforcement.
You have a picture of where people can openly say anything as long as they don't promote hatred while others can know who said it and try finding all their online footprint to stalk, extremely idealistic and zero pragmatism, who's to say the stalker isn't violent and because of that now the person is in physical danger? Your problem is lack of proper moderation where people can be anonymous.
So basically you criticize but provide no solution for people who can have their identity stolen/stalker who can happen to be very tech knowledgeable/work or administrate that very social media/corrupt law enforcement.
I'm not sure if you think I'm someone else, but I'm not criticizing your point at all, I was trying to add to it. You and I agree that there are pros and cons of anonymity, but it falls on good faith and high quality moderation to make sure anonymity is better than having your name attached to something. I even went into detail how dangerous having your name attached to something is?
I was criticizing your approach to atttempt to keep people "private" while having their identity openly to show to anyone, Meta already does some of it and that does not solve it.
While you did acknowledge the dangers you tried making points there are workarounds to make people safe while pseudo private if they want to. I'm saying there's no such thing if your identity is public, it doesn't matter if its a bare minimum, that will give it a start to stalkers. Your line was drawn on this:
I can only imagine what happens to all those people who have basic walkthroughs for Nintendo emulation only to have hired mobs show up to their door to break their knees within the week. Or a conservative government find a reason to jail (or worse) someone asking about abortion options.
...
So if you can’t be anonymous and talk about sensitive topics without it resulting in rage and propaganda and you can’t have your name attached to sensitive topics without it resulting in a risk of doxing or violence, what’s the answer?
That's what I was addressing while taking your possibke workarounds to make someone pseudo private.
You and I agree that there are pros and cons of anonymity, but it falls on good faith and high quality moderation to make sure anonymity is better than having your name attached to something.
If that was your final point and whole stance, then we do agree. But I don't think moderation is solution to when people are exposed, there ain't just a single page on the internet where people can spread doxxed info on someone. However, if you mean that the problem with anonymity although the best choice is lack of proper moderation, then we're definitely on the same page.
While you did acknowledge the dangers you tried making points there are workarounds to make people safe while pseudo private if they want to. I’m saying there’s no such thing if your identity is public
Yes, this is why I said it's probably reality that there'll likely always be anonymous websites as well as non-anonymous websites. People would be able to choose what kind of identifying information they give (even though on all the major social media sites, they're honestly giving out more info than the average person would expect) The reality of existing on the internet is that nothing is secure or private regardless of your name- though having your name attached would definitely make the barrier to entry for stalkers to be lower.
Did you seriously not see that I acknowledged the privacy and safety concerns? I’m just saying, I try to use social media (which is literally just Lemmy and used to be Reddit) as if I was talking to someone face to face.
Did you seriously not see that I acknowledged the privacy and safety concerns?
You didn't before but now you edited 2h after my reply which is public for anyone to check, a bit immature to pretend you just didn't do that now but fine.
lol yes I edited to clarify, but my original comment said:
“So let me preface this by saying I understand all of the privacy and other reasons why the below would be a very bad idea”
Did you see that at the beginning of my original comment? I should have phrased it stronger but I DID acknowledge it before I edited the end to emphasize.