
The long-term effects of ugly political discussions on Facebook (2014) - prostoalex
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/the-long-term-effects-of-ugly-political-discussions-on-facebook/
======
alva
I think this is what was behind (still is?) the huge surprise to many, that
Trump has a large number of supporters.

The social cost in my friendship group of airing conservative views, has for
the last few years been quite great. If you are not completely on board with
the currently promoted view, you are accused of "wrong think" and chastised.
The best strategy, as differing views on politics are rarely worth losing
long-time friends over, is simply to shut up. Unfortunately this reassures the
group in their unquestioned beliefs. It reminds me of Taleb's minority rule
[0]

When it comes to anonymous polling and voting, for this kind of group there is
a massive disconnect between their perceived reality (reduced dissent or
differing opinions due to social cost) and reality. It is a shame, both sides
lose.

A large part of why I love HN and other pseudo and fully anonymous forums is
that you are able to engage in proper discussion, disconnected from this
social suppression.

[0]
[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf)

~~~
hkmurakami
You're hardly alone, and when I voice this concern to my vocally liberal
friends, the vast majority don't give any reply at all and pretend that my
message never reached them or wasn't worth responding to. I find this brand of
(what is essentially) censorship to be quite disappointing.

\------------

 _It’s November 2008, after President Barack Obama’s first election, and one
of professor Ruth R. Wisse’s undergraduate students comes in to speak with
her.

“I really did want to tell you that I’ve been feeling very guilty,” says the
student, a freshman.

“About what?” asks Wisse, an outspoken conservative faculty member and
prominent Yiddish scholar.

“Well, I worked on the Obama campaign,” the student says.

Wisse laughs, and replies, “You and everyone else—why would that necessarily
make you feel guilty?”

“You see, I’m for McCain, and I voted for McCain.”

Wisse was now puzzled—and intrigued. “Well, why did you work on the Obama
campaign?”

“Because I so wanted to be with my roommates and with everyone else.”_

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/10/1/conservatives-
sc...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/10/1/conservatives-scrutiny-
oct-2015/)

~~~
adrianratnapala
I'd say if they are ignoring messages they don't like, then you are doing
well. After all, we have the right to say what we like -- not the right to be
taken seriously.

I am not saying it means your friends are being wise or balanced, it's just
that what they are doing is not censorship.

~~~
hkmurakami
Oh yes sorry I shouldn't have conflated the two. I, like the parent poster,
have taken care to not voice not-commonly held opinions that would be met with
scorn or disbelief since I want to avoid that sort of misery. I suppose my own
experiences are a disappointment that my peers often do not open themselves up
to understanding the logic and reasoning behind someone's beliefs that do not
match their world view.

I guess the Brendan Eich situation would be a decent example of the kind of
censorship I am referring to, where we now seemingly cannot respect the right
of others to have opinions and beliefs that are vastly different from our own.

------
chatmasta
The problem with political discussion on Facebook is the problem that has
always existed with political discussion. Facebook just amplifies it x100.
People simplify political rhetoric to fit it into a finite number of "camps":
Democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, "SJW"/anti-PC,
feminist/mysoginist...

The simplified rhetoric pigeonholes issues into bipolar ideological
frameworks. As a result, political "discussion" does not reflect the reality
of complex networks of opinions, people, and ideas. Instead, it reflects a
shallow mask of "us" and "them." Nuanced, rational discussion does not stand a
chance against the uncontrollable biases of ingroup/outgroup psychology.

Once someone forms an opinion, and finds validation of it from within a group,
they have joined the ingroup. At that point, it will be nearly impossible to
move them to the outgroup. Hearing any opinions from the outgroup will only
drive them further into the ingroup, as they retreat to the echo chamber of
their peers and emotionally reconfirm their own beliefs instead of critically
engaging opposing viewpoints.

Of course, I'm mostly talking about the "ingroup" of "feminists and SJWs" (I
hate that acronym because it seems hypocritical to criticize SJWs for
reductionism and then give them an acronym). Right now the "regressive left"
is certainly the most guilty of seeking affirmation from ingroup dynamics, and
the group most unwilling to engage with the opposition.

However, I think _every single human_ is subject to the same biases of
ingroup/outgroup psychology. The "SJW" group is only the most recent example
of a group whose opinions are pigeonholed, amplified, and ultimately opposed.
But many of the people crusading against political correctness are guilty of
the same unwillingness to consider the other side.

This dynamic has _always_ existed, as long as humans have been a social
species. It's how society evolves. But it sure is messy.

(visualization of the political polarization in congress:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-
visualization-of-our-divided-congress/))

~~~
guelo
WTF, you had me until the "SJW" group being the _most_ guilty. My guess is
that you're part of some ingroup that is polarized against the SJW group so it
seems to you like it's the most extreme. But that's just typical polarized
ingroup thinking.

~~~
hueving
They easily fall into the most extreme category when it comes to online
discourse. I've never seen a group more organized when it comes to brigading
and propaganda about how to respond with essentially copy and paste replies to
any category of response elicited to their arguments.

SJWs pushed out the CEO of Mozilla, made GitHub stop rewarding people based on
the merit of their work, and pressured companies to hire under qualified
minorities over other more qualified people[1]. Even if they don't have a
strong presence in other industries, they have completely dominated tech
companies to the point where people fear using a race or gender to describe
how someone looks.

1\. Assuming equal qualifications from each group, there will be more
qualified non-minorities than minorities by definition.

~~~
tomlock
I think SJWs would respond that meritocracy has always been an illusion in
tech because people will still hire for "culture fit". And the predominant
culture in tech companies, by survey and measurement, seems to be male. The
idea that tech is "completely dominated" seems to fly in the face of those
numbers - which I'm assuming you see SJWs as perceiving negatively at this
point?

------
thedevil
Another, bigger long term effect: everyone is either A) becoming extremist in
their political ideas or B) just won't talk about politics at all.

Edit: I've been moving towards B myself.

~~~
parennoob
I would say that might be a side effect of a more fundamental shift – that of
social networks making us more stupid (unintelligent?) and unable to
coherently defend ideas in real life.

On the internet, it is easy to type out long comments, cherry-pick and refute
the ideas of the person on the other side, and sometimes be incredibly rude to
them. But performing the jugglery of coherently defending your point while
talking frankly, without being rude, in person, is a skill that seems to be
conspicuous by absence in Americans today. I have noticed way too many people
recently who post 200 things on Facebook/Twitter/Pinterest/Instagram, and yet
are unable to keep up a decent conversation for more than five minutes without
uncomfortable silences or pulling out their phones.

~~~
Retra
How are social networks making us more stupid than generations of family-run
farming communities?

Anyway, I don't see any evidence that people were ever able to speak frankly
without being rude, nor that silence being uncomfortable is anything but a
personal problem. Maybe you think silence is uncomfortable because _you_
aren't properly socialized?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
In previous decades "rude" in politics would literally get people killed.
Trolling on FB doesn't move the needle in comparison.

As a rue of thumb, if windows, limbs, and necks aren't being broken, the
discourse is still relatively civilised.

I don't believe there's evidence to support the idea that there was ever a
golden age of mainstream political civility. I think there may have been a
golden age of literate and moderated political _journalism_ , but that was
always distinct from the kinds of things that happened - and still do happen,
in some ways - to people who happen to be in the wrong out-group.

~~~
tomlock
I think its important to draw a distinction between the past and now. In the
past, many oppressed people would never have a chance to participate in "the
discourse" because the mere act of them speaking could be seen as
inappropriate. The violence against them would be leveled at them _outside_ of
the realm of discourse. The discourse may have been civilised, but the
civilisation wasn't!

The idea that those people can all participate in the discussion without the
fear of direct fist-to-the-face violence, is to me a positive.

I'm pretty sure you already felt that way?

------
spc476
I had a friend (who I've known since high school, and I graduated in the late
80s) unfriend me because of a link I posted as a reply to his reply to a
mutual friend's post.

My take: my now unfriended friend can dish it out, but can't take it.

His take (via some third parties): I'm a close minded evil conservative [1].

Yes, I come across posts from friends (and acquaintances) that I don't agree
with but I won't unfriend any of them over it. There are 50,000 other channels
I can "watch" and I'm certainly capable of changing the channel. Pity more
people don't realize that.

[1] Libertarian actually. My friend is, in his own words, "a liberal pinko
Commie." Make of that what you will.

~~~
towlejunior
Let's see that link, baby.

~~~
spc476
It was to a medical study that showed a possible side effect of marijuana use
is paranoia. The actual event happened some time last year and trying to dig
it up on Facebook is a pain.

------
Lxr
To me this is just a 21st century example of the old adage 'don't discuss
religion or politics' \- you will often be unpleasantly surprised by the views
of friends and family that you considered like-minded people. I avoid these
topics entirely, unless I know someone _really_ well and even then would not
post about it on Facebook et al.

~~~
julian55
Exactly. I would rather not know the political opinions of many of my friends
as Often we would disagree and it wouldn't be a fruitful discussion.

------
rosser
I had an uncle unfriend me after I called out some of the racist, misinformed
crap he was spouting in response to Prince's death. It's unfortunate, because
I really want to like the guy, but his posts had really boiled down to one
(or, rarely, more) of: sportsball fanaticism, "Immigrants are scary!", or "Why
doesn't anyone care about Vietnam Veterans?!"

My feed is a lot less unpleasant now, but we're both that much more isolated
in our echo chambers. Granted, I think the acoustics are much nicer in mine,
but a breadth of discourse does, one hopes, help to keep one's mind ... if not
more open, at least more aware of what other people are thinking.

~~~
Kequc
Calling someone a racist is a quick way to get unfriended, yes. I've been
blocking people who use that kind of personal attack on me and my life is
better for it. His perception of your feed and your perception of your feed
are likely very different.

Since he is your uncle, you have an inroad available of meeting him to
hopefully patch things up. But be aware that you might have to try and
understand his point of view rather than labelling it, and writing him off as
a bigot.

I don't know the full story, but I've become somewhat skeptical when I hear
things like this.

~~~
rosser
I didn't call him a racist, though I can see how my phrasing of what went down
might imply that. I pointed out places where his beliefs about Prince were
based on factually false ideas about the man and his life, and supplied
information he was clearly lacking that gave context to the things he'd heard
about him that inspired those mistaken beliefs.

E.g., "He was a druggie!" Yeah, no. It was Percocet, because his hip was
profoundly fucked up from all the jumping around on stage he'd done for
_decades_. As a Jehovah's Witness, drug abuse was _strictly_ against his
faith, and he didn't even allow guests at Paisley Park to drink or smoke
tobacco. That kind of thing.

See how making an assumption about someone and proceeding with that as a
premise leads to mistaken beliefs about the events in their lives?

~~~
Kequc
Well... he did take a lot of drugs. Prescription pills are a hell of a thing,
much stronger than street drugs, and he was taking them in excess. Not just
doctor's prescription if you know what I mean. I don't want to talk about
prince.

In your post you suggested that your uncle was saying racist things. You imply
his racism and I bet it comes across quite strongly when you speak/type.

Worse than passing judgement on someone is passing judgement and then
communicating it passive aggressively. Word games, used so that the other
person can't properly address what was said.

------
Aelinsaar
I understand why some people use Facebook, but I've managed to avoid it and
have never heard someone in my real life express happiness that they made a
different choice. It always seems to offer benefits in theory that don't pan
out. Mostly it just seems to make people unhappy.

~~~
backlava
I wouldn't recommend hanging out on Facebook, but if it puts you in touch with
lost acquaintances that can be valuable.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
That part has mostly just been sad. Time really wears people down.

------
jalami
I like to call things people don't want to talk about "untouchables" because
you can't argue them, you can't reason them out, you can't even comment on
them without getting a glare or worse. Religion, politics, economics etc.

People feel affronted when these things are talked about. I think that's why
we have these political/religious/economic strongholds/echo-chambers where no
one will disagree with you so you feel powerful in your conviction. In all
honesty though, we know our positions have holes, but never talk about them as
a society.

I think if we talked more about thing we disagreed about, we'd realize we're
wrong or not quite right about everything. Untouchables would go away. The
problem is hard illogical convictions and echo-chambers where we allow
ourselves to let our guard down.

Not talking about things as a society is the problem, not the solution. We
shouldn't get upset and break off relationships when people do.

IMHO of course.

Edit: rewording

------
hnruss
I don't mind thoughtful political discussion, but much of what I see on
Facebook is partisan political propaganda. Commenting on it only seems to
legitimize it.

------
soneil
I'd be honestly curious to see the same study enacted outside the US. I do
wonder if it'd come up with very different results.

I don't want this to sound like stereotype-bashing, but I do notice that
politics in the US seems to be incredibly polarized. There seems to be very
little in the way of "difference of opinion", and more .. O is the antichrist,
H is a criminal, B is a communist, T is going to bring on the
apocalypse/ww3/economic collapse armed with little more than ignorance and
arrogance ..

It's hardly surprising people find political conversation divisive, when they
see someone who disagrees with them as not having a differing opinion on one
or two key issues, but as supporting a regime that's going to destroy their
way of life (.. which never ends up happening).

~~~
Unklejoe
This is probably because the USA is relatively large and there are significant
differences between states in terms of culture and industry.

For example, the people of New York probably have very little in common with
those of Tennessee.

For example, it's easy for a liberal in Massachusetts to label a conservative
in Arizona a "bigot" for wanting to close the border, but the liberal in
Massachusetts has probably never experienced the issues of illegal immigration
in the way that someone from Arizona has.

This is why I think more power needs to be given to individual states rather
than the federal government.

------
Yhippa
Facebook has gotten to the point for me where even normal, non-political
things I post on Facebook draw trolls and shitposters. Probably just the
cocktail of friends I have but people use my posts as a way to express their
particular way of standing out. I posted a picture of an iris recently and
even that brought out people making some weird comments. Stuff like that makes
me want to hold back on posting. If I ask for restaurant recommendations I
don't feel like dealing with a ton of sarcastic comments anymore.

------
proksoup
Hm, okay, I think we're making progress here though. I've started and
continued quite a few controversial conversations that have "harmed" some[1]
relationships, but overall I think it's for the better and has improved the
relationships I want to improve.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/derekbreden/posts/1670541883212714](https://www.facebook.com/derekbreden/posts/1670541883212714)

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting word, "homophily". Apparently it has been around for a while, I
recognize the effect.

It is interesting that discussions can be hugely enriched by discussing
differing opinions, and at the same time very threatening. Especially if there
is limited trust. Interesting to consider when sharing things at home, at a
party, at the office, and in random groups.

------
MatthiasP
I had that very experience a few days ago, after the first round of the
Austrian presidential elections my facebook wall exploded. Marked several
friends for "don't show messages, but stay friends", because I am not
interested in political opportunism, no matter which side they are on.

------
Kenji
That's exactly it. I have this one friend who always posts pro-Israel articles
and another one who is black and reposts subtly racist (against whites)
quotes. Even if I don't follow them, if I don't block them, their garbage will
show up on my timeline sooner or later. And it's always the same things. Like,
for 5 years they post this stuff. One could think their world is frozen in
time. I never want to be that guy towards my friends, that's why I'd never
post anything about politics, religion, etc. Facebook is not the right thing
for it. Actually, for me personally, facebook is nothing but a platform to
communicate with or find old classmates.

~~~
striking
That's what the "Unfollow" feature is for. For those people who you want to
keep a link with, but don't actually want to follow.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'd like to balance the article out a bit and say something nice about
Facebook. (Holds nose)

Yes, these things turn ugly. But I think there are a lot of people who have
strong political opinions but have not been forced to communicate them (and
defend them) in writing. Instead, they'll just tell a joke to a few friends
that they know share the same view.

The old complaint about television was that there were no segmented
conversations anymore. It used to be that grown-ups talked about one thing
with the kids around, other things with just adults, and still other things
with close friends. Television changed all of that. Now every type of
conversation was fair game for everybody. This is probably one of the main
driving factors for the youth-dominated culture of the past several decades,
but I digress.

Facebook is doing that about politics -- and to some extent, religion. You
don't get a special set of friends you make those atheist or conservative
jokes to. It's everybody, all the time. This is forcing folks either to 1)
learn to defend their views in longform discussions civilly (which is very
rare), 2) have lots of flame wars with people (I disagree with the article. I
think some of these folks can be fairly close), or 3) just shut up and self-
censor.

I've been privileged to be on a couple of sites where open and civil discourse
was promoted, and I miss those experiences. I learned a lot and managed to
change my opinion on a couple of things.

Facebook is not that kind of site. At first I thought I could cultivate
reasonable discourse in my comment feed. I could not. Then I tried a private
group, thinking a smaller group could self-moderate. Perhaps some could, but
mine could not. The more people realized they might be in error, the more
abusive they became. Now, for me, it's just jokes, travel pictures, and
humorous family stories. About once a month somebody will sucker me into a
political/religious discussion. I always apologize and bow out.

I love having difficult conversations. I like being challenged to think
differently about the world around me. But for this to happen implies a high
level of written respect for other participants that simply doesn't exist on
the site. I eventually decided to become a no-politics guy on FB because it
made me a worse person. It made me angry at people that I liked. How many
times can you explain concept X to a friend before you don't have to again?
Well, the answer is an infinite number of times if the other person doesn't
want to hear it. So discussions have no progress. No matter what you do or
say, a couple of weeks later you're going to be doing and saying that all over
again. I do not have the infinite patience required to do this, and hell, I
_like_ these people! Easier just to dumb down my content so they can consume
it.

