
Debubble - apsec112
http://debubble.me
======
User23
I admire anyone who makes an effort to improve things and this is no
exception. In this particular case the author would be well served to review
Aristotle's Rhetoric[1] to understand why this particular effort is doomed to
fail. The short version is that Twitter is by design an absurdly rhetorical
platform, and any attempt to inject dialectic into it is, well, pissing into
the ocean as it were.

[1] [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-
rhetoric/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/)

~~~
wenc
As a peripheral point, I have witnessed an improved quality in conversations
where certain ground rules are applied, and that the participants accept in
good faith. There's a performative aspect to rhetoric that a well-developed
system can disincentivize. For instance, on Twitter, there's always the peanut
gallery cheering one side or another, which distorts participants' incentives
completely. They cannot be honest with themselves because of the need to
"perform", i.e. to say clever/snarky things.

This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter
open up their DMs -- one-on-one conversations produce much higher signal-to-
noise because the performative aspect of a tweetstorm is removed and there's
more of a desire to slow down and really address each other rather than the
mob. (DMs aren't perfect -- trolls will DM too -- but OTOH you can get DMs
that are in good faith).

I think it is possible to "design" a good conversation. To some extent many of
the rules are self-evident and intuitive to most adults. The problem is that
in the heat of debate, we forget them and need third party moderation as a
form of accountability.

One of the main ways to improve adversarial conversations is to apply
techniques to move conversations from the _lower brain_ (which governs
fight/flight responses) to the _upper brain_ (executive functioning,
neocortex). Books like Difficult Conversations, Nonviolent Communication,
Imago technique, etc. all start from different priors but mostly converge to
this prescription due to the commonality of human psychology. Most people just
want to be heard and to be validated (as smart, socially "woke", etc.) -- some
will resort to manipulation to get there, but if these things can be achieved
without manipulation, then the desire for deploying rhetoric is reduced.

Having a system helps create a platform for civil discourse by allowing
oneself to guided by a system, which frees one up from decisions and nudges
one toward higher-order executive functioning.

~~~
tptacek
My brain shut down completely reading this, before I could really evaluate
whether it had any validity, when I read "This is why people who are truly
interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". Lots of
people can't have their DMs open, lest they be flooded with abuse.

~~~
wenc
Let me invite you to think through that position. Is this necessarily the case
in all situations?

Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than
abuse? Would it be a function of your popularity and the kind of of people who
would DM? Might there be a different psychology at work for DMs than public
tweets?

I’m not being snarky or presupposing answers, but just wanted to advance the
conversation.

~~~
jmcqk6
>Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome
than abuse?

That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is denying
that there are people with DMs open that do not get abused. I am one such
person, for example.

The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in
DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just
plain false.

~~~
wenc
> The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in
> DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is
> just plain false.

I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the
contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the
first clause.

I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback,
especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private
support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out
there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want
the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements.

It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one
channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a
Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar.

That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I
merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it
does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter
noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your
attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the
Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every
single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the
recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any
discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even
people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things
get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs
and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel
they're ready.

At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in
removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher
quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as
optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.

~~~
tptacek
Yeah, so, you wrote that poorly. What you said was "this is why people who are
truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". What
you mean to say was "this is why opening up ones DMs is helpful to those truly
interested in learning from others". Those are not at all the same statements.

------
laughinghan
IMHO this largely only solves problems caused by Twitter's idiosyncratic
design, and does little for the deeper problems that cause debates to be
toxic.

Much more interesting would be a debate format in two phases:

Phase 1: just identify what we agree and disagree about. Are there things we
actually agree about but are using different words for? Are we using the same
words to mean different things? Are there two competing concerns we accuse
each other of denying, when we actually both agree on them and are just
valuing them differently?

The goal would be to create a document that outlines things we agree on and
disagree on, and identifies whether the disagreement is factual/empirical,
values, or logic (hopefully there will be zero of these, but it might be
possible). We should be able to fully agree on the contents of this document.
If there's ever anything you simply _can 't believe_ the other side disagrees
with you about, try to clarify what the deeper disagreement is.

Important rule during Phase 1: no persuading. We're not allowed say anything
to try to persuade the other side, we're only allowed to ask clarifying
questions about the other side's position, and clarify our own positions,
because the goal is not to change anyone's mind, only to understand, identify,
and document what we agree and disagree about.

Phase 2: persuade away. It should be much easier to have a civil and
respectful discussion if we each understand the other's side, their values,
and what empirical facts they disagree with the evidence on.

(I do really like that Debubble doesn't allow bystanders to "cheer for their
side", they can only star the whole debate—I'm stealing that.)

~~~
washicalendar
This is a lot of words, but at the end of the day, people who believe in Q
conspiracy bullshit are lost causes and their viewpoint or beliefs are simply
not worth the time, effort, energy, or patience to understand because there is
nothing to understand and nothing to emphasize with because it is all unsound
bullshit.

It may be true that there are always two/both sides, but it’s definitely not
true that both sides are equal, or both sides are worthwhile.

And for me, this is the core problem here with “breaking out of your bubble.”
I DONT want to see outside my bubble because it’s just not worth the time.
Now, I know this makes me sound like a closed minded bigot. I’d agree that was
the case if the people outside of my “bubble” are arguing about sound things
and not conspiracy bullshit, but they aren’t.

It’s a fact that 5G isn’t causing coronavirus, and I’m not going to leave my
bubble to put up with your bullshit. It might as well be a fact that HRC did
not run a pedophile pizza ring, and there is no point in me listening to that
side because it’s completely nonsense.

Both sides are not equal. Both sides are not worth listening to.

One more edit: this website looks like a combination of r/changemyview and
r/unpopularopinion. The former is full of trolls who have no intention of
listening, and the latter which are people posting about positions they don’t
agree with in a way to make themselves feel like a victim, all for internet
karma.

~~~
concordDance
Even if you disagree with a group, talking to them can still be a fascinating
experience.

I learnt a lot talking to devote muslims, young earth creationists and race
realists.

~~~
washicalendar
I’m not religious, but I do enjoy talking to Muslims and other religious
people to learn their world views. Even though my personal beliefs are
incompatible with their concept of a divine power.

But people who believe in flat earth theory, a 6000 year old planet, that one
skin color is better than the others… I have much better things to do with my
life than to even try to understand this level of crazy.

Edit: I fully see/understand the irony here, that I’m saying similar things as
what people in those groups are saying about my beliefs. Maybe deep down, they
really do believe that Obama and Clinton ran a pedophile pizza ring or that
Biden flew to China to import SARS-CoV-2. And that’s the problem. They
BELIEVE. There is no factual basis. It’s just what they believe because it
reinforces their worldview. I don’t want to associate or interact with those
types of people because nothing is based in reality.

~~~
concordDance
They often see a factual basis.

For instance the young earth creations could go into a great deal of depth
about various topics in archaelogy, geology and ancient texts. It wasn't a
blind belief, they had been exposed to arguments/evidence that had reinforced
their pre-existing beliefs.

The people believing in pizzagate and deliberate SARS importing are a tiny
minority of the american right-wing voting population. Try talking to a more
random sampling of them (a gaming Discord for instance), you'll be pleasantly
surprised!

------
devwastaken
Debate doesn't do well in vague topics and the internet. If you care about the
truth then you debate people that have the knowledge you're disagreeing with.
That's difficult online because it turns into a sourcefest, where each party
just gives links and you have no time to be sorting through that information,
nor the expertise necessary to understand it. Like any time psychology studies
are brought out. Theres so much work involved in getting to the truth.

I like the idea of how civil courts work with evidence. Each party has weeks
to prepare refutal to the other, and no one can communicate with the judge
without the other party present.

------
FailMore
As someone who has promoted debubble in other HN comments [1], I thought I'd
share my own discussion platform I'm building too:

Taaalk ([https://taaalk.co/](https://taaalk.co/)) is less focused around
debate, and more around exploring topics:

E.g. OCD: [https://taaalk.co/t/exploring-obsessive-compulsive-
disorder](https://taaalk.co/t/exploring-obsessive-compulsive-disorder) Eating
disorders: [https://taaalk.co/t/discussing-eating-
disorders](https://taaalk.co/t/discussing-eating-disorders) Bitcoin:
[https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-
things](https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things) Flag design:
[https://taaalk.co/t/the-power-and-significance-of-
flags](https://taaalk.co/t/the-power-and-significance-of-flags) Chess:
[https://taaalk.co/t/how-to-think-about-chess](https://taaalk.co/t/how-to-
think-about-chess) Psychedelics & Mental Health: [https://taaalk.co/t/falling-
inward-discussing-the-role-of-ps...](https://taaalk.co/t/falling-inward-
discussing-the-role-of-psychedelics-in-modern-medicine-and-mental-health)

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23728449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23728449)

------
teddyh
By limiting the length and number of responses, the debate is trivially
vulnerable to the Gish gallop¹.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)

~~~
thih9
Gish gallop seems most effective in live debates and in discussions with
limited third party interactions.

Online it should be possible to link a third party article that explains a
misconception in detail. Or to request an independent fact check.

It probably won't make Gish gallop completely harmless, but hopefully it would
reduce its effectiveness.

~~~
recursivecaveat
The gish gallop is still extremely effective online, as you can see it in
widespread use in almost every HN comments section. Simply quote every 3rd
sentence of the source comment and reply with 'citation needed'. This takes 30
seconds and will tie up the other side for hours. When they finally collect a
reputable source for every claim, just repeat with sample size, perceived bias
of the publisher, or 'did they control for X?'. Even if they eventually
untangle themselves from this web, you've won anyway because you framed the
flame war about the truthfullness of the base facts and not their policy
positions.

~~~
thih9
You give an example of requesting sources. I think wouldn't mind having more
of that in twitter debates.

I see how this could be a time waster, but I see the benefits too and I'd say
that more often than not we forget about checking sources.

Also, in a debate (which is usually longer and more focused than discussions
elsewhere online), both sides can use this tactic. In this case the person
with better sources seems more likely to win. Again, this looks OK-ish to me.

~~~
yellow_postit
This is what makes this rhetorical style so insidious — it should be
reasonable and advantageous to have more sources, more depth, more
counterpoints but when done in bad faith and weaponized it stifles any
progress or real discussion grounded in an attempt to learn.

------
searchableguy
I like the design of the site. It's simple and easy to follow. I would
appreciate if you had more login options and examples than simply twitter. I
don't see an option to edit the title or delete a debate/point. I think it
would be reasonable to give people option to bury the debate or change the
course within a reasonable time period.

Why debubble won't work:
[https://debubble.me/opi6znpcml](https://debubble.me/opi6znpcml)

Social media is a net positive:
[https://debubble.me/axyrntvh4e](https://debubble.me/axyrntvh4e)

Let's debate or debubble?

------
Kerrick
Even after signing up, I am unable to find any arguments to browse, star, or
participate in.

~~~
toby
Same. A matching site should at least seed with some content, I'm just staring
at a blank screen.

------
doc_gunthrop
It's far too common for civility to be lost in an online argument. A platform
like Debubble may do well to include a reference to Graham's hierarchy of
disagreement[1] to keep a debate from going off the rails.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_\(programmer\)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement)

~~~
Pfhreak
Civility is often used as a cudgel against the disadvantaged. Maybe someone
lacks the upbringing, or is experiencing emotional distress, or had difficulty
articulating their ideas for any reason. While I agree that avoiding ad
hominem attacks is good, I don't feel that emotionally charged arguments are
bad, for instance.

It's super important to be specific about what 'civil' means, who gets to
define it, and who gets to decide when their opponent is being 'uncivilized'.

~~~
concordDance
I've never seen emotionally charged arguments result in a change of view, just
new enemies.

Emotionally charged arguments also seem to always involve rhetoric rather than
logic.

~~~
Pfhreak
I've seen it all the time. If someone is in pain, for instance, I've seen tons
of people stop and say "oh shit, I didn't realize how much this hurt you".

We're social creatures built to respond to joy, anger, pain, grief, etc.
Trying to cut them out of a discussion means that emotional people aren't
allowed to participate when they, in fact, may have the most important voice
to listen to.

------
mrfusion
Someone on HN made a site called “how truthful”. I thought that was a good
idea too. Two people create one to debate a topic and they drill down into
each fact until they get to something they agree on.

I can’t seem to find it now. It seemed like a good idea.

Edit: found it
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21687403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21687403).
(The video probably explains it best
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PXvU1h44jVw](https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PXvU1h44jVw))

~~~
jsf01
This seems like a good approach. Often we either have a different set of
underlying assumptions/facts or different axioms. For the former case, the
“how truthful” approach makes a lot of sense.

------
dcow
I’ve been sketching out ideas for a tool that tries to solve the online
discussion problem, too. The conclusion I have come to is that you need to
actually have a minimum word requirement in addition to a limit. I like the
idea of rounds but have always felt structured debate was easily game-able. I
think there also needs to be some form of moderation, whether managed or
community, whereby interested volunteers can help guide the course of the
argument if it starts devolving. I would love to try this tool but I don't use
twitter ):

~~~
flir
At this point I'd be much more interested in a tool designed by someone who
was an expert in dispute resolution - a relationship counsellor, say.
Something that emphasizes points of similarity to build on them, not points of
difference to amplify them.

"Debate" is entirely the wrong model. It's about winners and losers. How about
a tool for dialogue?

~~~
sethammons
Look into “non-violent communication.” From their website:

> Through the practice of NVC, we can learn to clarify what we are observing,
> what emotions we are feeling, what values we want to live by, and what we
> want to ask of ourselves and others. We will no longer need to use the
> language of blame, judgment or domination. We can experience the deep
> pleasure of contributing to each others' well being.

I’m most definitely not a self-help book person. A colleague and friend at
work introduced me to the book. I found it very convincing for a way to
approach communication in a way that tries to make all parties better.

~~~
flir
The Quakers have very interesting models for community-wide communication,
decision-making and dispute resolution, too. Then there's the agile
retrospective model we're probably all familiar with.

There's lots of potential for someone smarter than me to build more useful
communication tools.

------
stepstop
> But context is often lost and then incorrectly inferred. Twitter is one big
> misunderstanding.

This seems like a misunderstanding of the effect of Twitter. If you click on
any individual tweet during a /x thread or debate, you'll see detestable and
repugnant replies. People do not want to participate, they just want to
criticize

------
thih9
I enjoyed the demo debate on the landing page and I'd like to see more.

Are there any examples of this being used by actual users?

------
ThouYS
Interesting, would love to see some argument graphs included in this. Too
often debates don't work because nobody is attacking the arguments, but just
some stuff around them, anecdotes, insults, etc.

I would love to see some formalization of attacking an axiom vs attack what
follows from that axiom. If you formalize arguments, users could pick if they
disagree with the conjecture or what follows from it.

And in the end you could nicely display the entire argument as a graph showing
who doesn't agree with what, what gets canceled out by what etc.

~~~
Kerrick
Isn't this the primary value proposition of Arguman?
[https://en.arguman.org/everything-in-the-universe-is-
either-...](https://en.arguman.org/everything-in-the-universe-is-either-a-
potato-or-not-a-potato)

~~~
imustbeevil
I wouldn't find value if arguments about the Confederate flag or the morality
of eating meat ended in that level of nonsense.

We're trying to talk about reality in a way where we can make decisions about
it. If only 63% of people can agree that "true != false" then it will be
impossible to build any arguments on top of priors.

------
putlake
From the name I assumed it was about breaking out of filter bubbles, which is
something I'm very interested in. A couple of years ago I created a news mixer
that pulled stories from left and right-leaning outlets and intermingled them:
[https://smashthebubble.com/](https://smashthebubble.com/)

Since RSS is pretty much dead, it was hard to find the right feeds for US
politics from each source. So you may see some non-political stories there
from time to time.

~~~
senderista
Why would I want my news to be equal parts Breitbart and Daily Kos?

~~~
washicalendar
This is my problem with these efforts to get people out of their “bubble.”

I am on the left end of the American political spectrum. I’d Vote Blue no
matter what because the other side is too far gone, to the point where it’s
not even worth my time or energy to even begin to understand that side. For
me, it’s just objectively wrong.

“My” team believes in science. The other team believes that there are shadow
forces in the government who control everything and that people on “my” side
are devil worshiping pedophiles who believe that my skin color makes me a
lesser person or that my Jewish friends are trying to “replace” them.

What’s the point in leaving my bubble?

~~~
concordDance
Hmm...

I think you are getting an _extremely_ distorted view of what the other side
actually believes, only being exposed to the most zany extremes.

I also very much doubt "your" side believes in science as much as you think.
Politically inconvenient facts are ignored by all politically motivated groups
and attempting to do studies that could contradict bedrock dogma is a good way
to be out a career (as Stephen Hsu just found out after he got fired recently
for funding a study investigating race and police brutality several years ago
that ended up returning the "wrong" answer).

------
nihil75
I'm going to stop clicking on "cryptic" one-word HN posts.

------
brandonmenc
> Have you ever tried to follow or, God forbid, participate in a debate on
> Twitter or any social network or online forum?

Not for many years because - to paraphrase the comedian Norm Macdonald -
social media posts are the equivalent of bathroom graffiti.

imo the medium itself is the problem, and no amount of external tooling will
fix that.

------
kraftyo
If anyone is interested I am building something similar that is way more
revolutionary. If you are naive like me and think u can change the world -
looking for a technical co-founder to join me :))

------
Hyolobrika
| Debubble will make sure you wait for your turn before you can deliver your
arguments. What if you forget to say something when you first make the post? |
It will also limit each response to 1500 characters (roughly one page) and the
entire debate to 12 turns. This bit seems unnecessarily limiting to me.

------
The_rationalist
What are some others websites that attempts to improve debate quality?

I know Kialo [https://www.kialo.com](https://www.kialo.com) And
[https://argdown.org](https://argdown.org)

I would love to know more!

------
mekkkkkk
So... is having the debates somewhere else than on Twitter unthinkable? I
don't understand which problem this solves that isn't largely undermined by
still using the platform.

EDIT: Disregard this. Not sure why I thought they were using Twitter for the
back and forth.

~~~
Thorrez
Does it take place on Twitter? It says 1500 characters per turn, that doesn't
sound like it would be on Twitter.

It also says people will cheer for the entire conversation rather than a
single participant. That also doesn't sound like it would be on Twitter.

~~~
mekkkkkk
You are probably correct, I must've misunderstood. Thank you.

------
aabbcc1241
Can I just signup with email/username and password? Why require social auth?

------
mrfusion
Great idea!

Somewhat offtopic but I’d like to see videos of average or below educated,
hyper partisan people debating. I feel like it would be enlightening for
people with strong opinions.

~~~
aahhahahaaa
I've watched a lot of congressional debates and I don't think it's very
enlightening at all.

------
anonytrary
Wow, this is a brilliant landing page. The use of the product to justify the
product is very clever.

------
adamsea
Seems like the people who need this the most are the least likely to use it.

------
sjwright
I applaud the OP for experimenting with new ideas in this space, as every idea
is worth trying. And honestly given how bad this space is, I actually wonder
if the only bad ideas are the ones we've already tried. Still, the cynic in me
is unconvinced that Twitter could ever be a jumping-off point for valuable
debate, no matter how brilliant the landing pad might be.

As the operator and lead moderator of a large community it's been my
observation that there are three things which most reliably derail challenging
conversations:

1\. The assumption that words are reliable. It's almost impossible to converse
on contentious topics without using words and idioms that become corrupted in
transmission because Avery speaks "Avery's English" and Quinn speaks "Quinn's
English"—two languages which _appear identical_ on the surface, and _seem
identical_ when interrogated but are actually _slightly different_ in the most
perniciously subtle of ways. This makes it impossible for Avery to know how to
craft sentences which are received as intended. Or even to recognise that
corruption occurred; we tend to interpret these corruptions as part of the
disagreement, not part of a language barrier.

2\. The tendency of people to so identify with their ideas, that criticisms of
ideas automatically translate into criticisms of them as a person. This can be
mitigated in part with the use of careful, defensive qualifiers, but
ultimately this requires acts of consciousness-raising and a deep well of good
faith by all parties. I'm not optimistic that deep wells of good faith can be
constructed for impersonal, online debates with your ideological opposites.

3\. The unwillingness of people to accept retractions of prior statements. All
too often I see debate fall apart because Quinn says something inartful and
Avery jumps on a misunderstanding of it. This almost always ends one of two
ways: either (a) Quinn doubles down out of a tendency to never admit fault, or
(b) Quinn attempts to clarify or retract the original statement, but Avery
dismisses the clarification/retraction and pursue the original phrasing as
"revealing what Quinn _really_ thinks."

If I were forced to invent a debate platform, my first experiment would be to
require all formal responses be preceded by an interposed round of validation:
a mandatory restating of the argument you're about to respond to using
different words. Not until your interlocutor is satisfied with your
restatement would you be able to post an actual response with counter-
arguments. And rather than having spectators vote on arguments, they would
vote/comment exclusively on the quality of (and goodwill shown in) the
restatements—with bonus points for a successful steelmanning. There would
certainly be no attempt to infer a "winner" of any debate by any statistical
means.

This almost certainly fail as being too infuriating for anyone used to the
"submit" button having immediate results.

------
GaryNumanVevo
I'm sure Debubble.me means well, but misses the mark with respect to why
people use Twitter. It's entertainment first and foremost. I would be
interested to hear the creator's user research.

Framing every argument as a debate is disingenuous. A debate implies that both
sides are of equal merit, debating only works between two people of similar
values. I.E. if I'm debating a Nazi, it's hard to "debate" nearly anything in
the sphere of politics because they do not believe all people are equal.

Third, what of debates that have largely been settled by consensus? Would a
flat earther be able to enter into debates with me whenever I retweet a photo
from NASA? Debating assumes that either side is going to play by a certain set
of rules. How does this prevent a DDOS via Ad Hominem?

~~~
anonytrary
I agree that Twitter's main user segment is interested primarily in
entertainment. A very small subset of users are actually interested in taking
things into idealand. The majority of social tweets are memes, jokes, trolls,
and hot takes with a "don't @ me" mentality. The people who want to talk about
ideas are probably in private groups, niche subreddits, and forums, but that
number at any time is certainly less than the number of people who are looking
for entertainment.

------
undoware
I would like to suggest that the attempts to solve 'toxicity' in social media
are actually an attempt to relativize the latent, normalized, usual-amount
white supremacism, heteronormativity, ableism and patriarchy that most makers
-- being privileged enough to have the resources to _make_ \-- are filtered
for ahead of time.

Put a way that you find easier to read: You're halfway between 'oh shit I'm
like that' and 'yes I appreciate the needs but we couldn't possibly XYZ' and
you, like everyone else, is having to pick a side. That's not 'toxicity',
that's just the ongoing war. And for those of us whose survival depends on the
outcome, the war is not figurative; it is quite literal.

Beware, your bias is manifesting.

~~~
sjwright
That's an astonishingly narrow interpretation of what ails social media, and I
would submit are echos of problems that rest many layers above bedrock. Closer
to bedrock is how the human psyche responds to the unfathomable scale and
signal amplification algorithms which pervade all online culture.

Put simply, the internet cannot be expected to cure the human condition. We're
not well suited to living in a world where _community_ means millions of
people. Aggregate human behaviour becomes too predictable at scale, and in
turn more easily hackable.

And this ends up making people post intentionally inflammatory comments, such
as an inference that privilege or resources reliably insulate people from loss
or marginalisation. Individual humans from all strata are complex and deserve
more respect than a game of intersectional olympics. My advice is to try to
treat all people as individuals, no matter how satisfying it might be to
marginalise groups as privileged, toxic or biased.

