
Half Blamed the EU for Their Problems, Blame Facebook for Yours - alexwoodcreates
http://www.thememo.com/2016/06/29/brexit-social-media-eu-half-blamed-the-eu-for-their-problems-blame-social-media-for-yours/
======
Jyaif
This article is making a very important point. A lot of people thought that
the internet would allow people to be confronted to different point of views,
and as a result people would grow more tolerant and open minded. The opposite
seems to happen: people are using the internet to be with people with the same
beliefs, and this results in people being more certain about their beliefs.

</rant>

<entrepreneur>

I'd love to see a product/social network that confront their users with
opposite point of views.

~~~
dang
> _I 'd love to see a product/social network that confront their users with
> opposite point of views._

It has dawned on me over time that HN is like this, mainly because there's a
single front page, i.e. no subreddits into which people silo themselves. That
means that on any divisive topic, anyone who feels strongly has comments in
their face that they strongly dislike, and vice versa. (I wrote more about
this downthread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12003205](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12003205)).

This is not an entirely good thing. It's responsible for most of the conflict
that happens here.

~~~
IanCal
I would definitely not describe HN as a place I come to get opposite points of
view. I'm actually really very surprised anyone would see it that way, can you
elaborate at all on why you do?

~~~
dang
What I think HN has taught me is that for any X you feel strongly about, if
you actually were in a community that was evenly divided about X, you wouldn't
know it. Instead, you would feel yourself surrounded by enemies. Why? Because
we notice what we dislike more strongly than what we like. We remember painful
experiences more than pleasurable ones, and it's painful to read comments
opposing our strongly held X's. So people feel like the community is biased
whether it is or not. Unfortunately they feel this the most about the most
divisive topics.

I arrived at this view because I have a different perspective than most users.
It's my job to monitor the site overall, plus pay attention to the complaints
people make about it. From such a position one quickly notices how many
complaints about HN contradict each another. For example, for any political X,
some people are certain that HN is overwhelmingly X. But those claims can't
all be true, so there has to be some distortion at work here.

Edit: here's an example I just ran across:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11990458](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11990458).
(I'm not mentioning that to single one user out; it's a common phenomenon, and
this is just the first example I saw after writing the above.)

~~~
IanCal
> What I think HN has taught me is that for any X you feel strongly about, if
> you actually were in a community that was evenly divided about X, you
> wouldn't know it. Instead, you would feel yourself surrounded by enemies.
> Why? Because we notice and remember painful experiences more than
> pleasurable ones, and it's painful to read comments against one's strongly
> held X's. So people feel like the community is biased whether it is or not.

This doesn't actually address the issue I feel there is in that HN is a fairly
small group of people from a particular demographic. A site called "hacker
news" with a heavy focus on technology and startups is surely likely to have
some bias compared to a random sampling of the general population.

Any post added gets voted on and only a small number of the posts that get
posted will get any real traction, do you feel there's no bias in the type of
things that get to the front page?

As a quick example, how many of the frontpage articles do you really disagree
with? Which ones are strongly against what you actually believe? I've just had
a look and honestly there are none. Everything fits very comfortably with my
general beliefs.

I have _never_ felt like I was surrounded by enemies here.

~~~
dang
It isn't that HN is a random sample of the population, but that on most
divisive issues (e.g. politics or programming languages) it's much more
divided than people think it is.

Re disagreements and conflict, I'm talking about the comment threads, not the
articles. I don't think articles really excite agreement or disagreement at
themselves (except about whether they should be on HN in the first
place—another divisive topic), so much as provoke it in the threads.

Re not feeling surrounded by enemies: that's great, but note that the "feel
strongly about" qualifier is a necessary condition for this effect.

~~~
NetTechM
I think it helps that HN has a common factor to bind us together. Professional
Techies may be able to disagree in a less flamboyant style in most situations
because at the end of the day politics is mainly seen in the light of how it
affects the tech industry as a whole.

While there are also some folks that are undoubtedly passionate about their
particular political views, they mainly get well thought out replies as to the
argument they are presenting for and against... even if some people get a bit
passive aggressive with the down voting.

------
pipio21
Why people believe that they could outsource the responsibility of living
their own life?

Internet is an amazing thing, but also is a terrible thing. You can use it to
improve yourself and your life or you can use it to foster addictions like
watching porn all day or gamble or gossiping.

Internet did not invented cognitive bubbles. When I was a child I was member
of a Church, it was a bubble. Then I met atheists in Reddit, another bubble. A
country is a bubble, with their media only giving people one view. I have
traveled a lot around the world and every country is a bubble.

For example, how many Americans have a strong opinion on Putin without
understanding Russian or Ukranian, having traveled to Ukraine or talked to the
people there. Their opinion is not their own, it has been implanted by the
media from people with strong economic interest in the region but they believe
their opinion is valid because everybody(there) agrees with each other.

I have Ukrainian friends on both sides, traveled the country, and what is told
in Western media is totally deceiving. But in Europe lots of people speak
those languages, know people and understand the region. It is way harder to
deceive them.

It is like North Korea media telling the people that West society is poor(like
they say) or Florida is a desert with no water. Koreans will believe it, but a
lot of Americans will not.

It is your personal decision to cultivate yourself and use the tools you have
at your disposal for good and not for bad.

If you don't like the tools at your disposal, as a programmer lots of people
here could do something about it. HN itself it such a tool, or example, when
reddit diluted his great content in order to gain popularity-money.

~~~
yomism
Implying Hackernews us not a bubble... Ok

~~~
dang
When people say this, they usually mean that HN is all in favor of X where X
is something they personally disagree with. In fact, though, the community is
divided on most issues. There are a few exceptions (anti-Snowden doesn't do
well here, pro-CFAA worse) but not as many as it seems.

I think this impression of 'the community lined up against my view' happens
because when you read HN threads on any divisive topic you're inevitably
confronted with comments you dislike and disagree with. That follows simply
from the community being divided while the threads are all in common (i.e. no
subreddits into which people silo themselves).

Such comments are unpleasant—indeed painful—to read, and therefore more
memorable, so we notice them more. These impressions accrete into a mental
model of the community all being on the opposite side. But this is actually a
side effect of the community _not_ being homogeneous—of the fact that for most
X, everyone who feels strongly about X has anti-X comments in their face, and
vice versa.

------
yardie
I don't unfriend anyone on my FB list unless the account is fake or they are
openly hostile. I've been able to debate childhood friends through their posts
about racism, politics, gun rights, abortion, etc.

If your only friends are the people that agree with you you're going to be
disappointed to find out how the real world operates. I'm black caribbean, my
neighbour is a white, southern boy. He believes in the 2nd amendment, a Trump
presidency, and the Iraq War. Just about every weekend we BBQ, drink a few
beers, and talk shop.

Talking with him I've learned a lot. I knew that Trump was going to win the
nomination months ago. He says a lot of things that don't get mentioned in the
news, everyone would do well to get a transcript and not rely on CNN.
Obamacare was more popular than politicians will lead you to believe, but it
could be better we both agreed. And the both of us were surprised by how
successful the Brexit campaign was. We both thought it was about the money.

~~~
rconti
I'm about at that point on trump. I've never even CONSIDERED not listening to
someone's political views, but this is not about politics. Everyone's got
their breaking point, and I'm simply not willing to be friends with someone
who believes an adult behaving in such a way is acceptable.

It's not about politics, it's about being a human being. I'm okay with saying
I won't tolerate support of a despicable human being.

~~~
khattam
>someone who believes an adult behaving in such a way is acceptable

How is he behaving that is unacceptable and to whom is it unacceptable?

~~~
rconti
Listen to him talk, once. That's how he's behaving unacceptably. And it's
unacceptable to myself and everyone I've ever met in polite society. I've
never met someone who would tolerate a child who throws tantrums the way he
does.

I'm sure there are places in the world where it's acceptable behavior. I'm not
interested in living there.

~~~
NetTechM
It would seem rather petty to unfriend someone based on political differences.
I suppose at that rate the friendship wasn't worth much to begin with.

~~~
carapace
Normally I would agree with you, but I'm also at the point where I just can't
credit people who still STILL consider him to be an acceptable candidate for
POTUS.

The incredible Brexit fiasco should drive home to us all that this is not a
game, not a reality TV show.

This isn't about politics, it's about humanity. It degrades us (the U.S.A. as
a Nation) to have this trainwreck taken seriously as a candidate.

~~~
NetTechM
That's all opinion, I'm sure their opinion is just as important to them as
yours is to you... I still don't think I would unfriend someone because their
opinion differs from mine. Unless it was illegal or harmful to others in a
real way... live and let live.

~~~
khattam
>Unless it was illegal

What if they strongly supported something illegal? Like illegal immigration?

~~~
NetTechM
I worded that awkwardly, I meant as long as they aren't doing anything
illegal. Since an opinion is impossible to classify as illegal.

------
Animats
Or you could blame Bezos. See the online front page of the Washington Post.[1]
For decades, the criterion for the front page seemed to be "What does a member
of Congress or a cabinet member need to know today". So everybody at the
senior levels of government read the Post, and so did their subordinates and
everyone who had to deal with them, and everybody involved with the government
who needed to know what the top people were doing.

Then Bezos bought the Post. Now it looks like the top stories are picked by
click-through rates. The print edition of the Washington Post, which you can
see online, has better story selection.[2]

It's hard to find any decent daily news outlet today. Reuters comes the
closest on what's important. Their lead stories are on Brexit and the latest
South China Sea troubles. Those are events which will have worldwide impact if
things go bad.

I miss the San Jose Mercury News from the days before it was bought by the
Contra Costa Times.

The Economist remains good, but it's a weekly.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) [2]
[http://thewashingtonpost.pressreader.com/the-washington-
post](http://thewashingtonpost.pressreader.com/the-washington-post)

~~~
waylandsmithers
Wow. I don't think I've ever been on the front page of the washington post.
Here's a headline up there now: 'Her shocking murder became the stuff of
legend. But everyone got the story wrong.'

~~~
tinalumfoil
On the front page of mine: "Amazon offers Prime users deep discounts on
Android smartphones — with a catch"

They disclose Amazon's relationship to WP in the middle sentence of the second
paragraph.

------
cel1ne
Facebook just rebuilt the little villages, their gossiping and their moronic
decision-making online.

Suddenly everybody pays attention to the shouting town-drunk again.

------
dang
This is one of those cases where the HN discussion turned out to be better
than the rather lightweight and topical article, so as an experiment we'll try
turning off the user flags and software penalties it was otherwise getting.

------
mdesq
"I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him."

~~~
SyneRyder
In Australia, this was "I can't believe Tony Abbott won." Or right now in the
US, there's Buzzfeed's handy equivalent:

How To Delete Your Facebook Friends Who Like Donald Trump

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevinsmith/get-rid-of-those-
pesky-f...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevinsmith/get-rid-of-those-pesky-
facebook-friends)

------
VeejayRampay
The internet was supposed to connect the whole world and help foster dialogue,
exchange and collective creation. In the end it's a bunch of interconnected
like-minded cliques stuck in confirmation bias limbo, posturing and pictures
of cats.

I feel cheated.

~~~
maze-le
Facebook (social media in general) is _not_ equivalent to the internet. All of
what you just enumerated is still possible. I have wonderful dialoges on HN,
exchange ideas at erlangcentral or reddit and create collectiveley on github.
It's just the case that most people really like their filter bubbles, and
don't care about much else. The problem, it seems to me, is that closed spaces
are more attrctive.

~~~
happyslobro
As a newcomer to HN, I can see that there is a strong, fairly homogeneous
culture here. For the most part, we are all in favor of increasing technology
and automation, reducing reliance on non-renewables, but we don't want
educated, hard working people to get shafted. Support for foreign wars is
thin. We consistently don't respect Trump supporters, and it seems to go
without saying around here that racism is bad.

If you think that this is just how all people are naturally, that these
opinions and preferences are too obvious to even discuss, then you need to
travel.

Also, I don't really do reddit myself, but I hear it is heavily moderated, to
the point of removing posts that are politically incorrect, from a liberal
American point of view. I'm not sure to what degree that varies by subreddit.

~~~
maze-le
> "If you think that this is just how all people are naturally"

Gee, I don't think that. Why do you think I have such an opinion? I am from
Germany (the eastern part), and have family members who are AFD-supporters and
worse. So I do realize that most people (esp. here where I live) don't share
my liberal world views. But in contrast to them I don't just get my news /
filterbubble-content from facebook. I read conservative Newspapers that
disagree with my opinions, because it is important to look beyond your own
Horizon (even though I constantly get mad when I read the likes of Jasper von
Altenbockum).

> I'm not sure to what degree that varies by subreddit

A lot, I am mostly on smallish/specialized subreddits: erlang, haskell,
spaceengine, gis. There not much conflict potential fairly few trolls.

Oh and by the way: the best dialogues I had on Hacker news were technical, not
political. Also I don't think that the HN-crowd is _that_ homogeneous.

~~~
happyslobro
Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically. You're right, we don't know each other
at all. I was trying to make a general observation about the community.

One thing that I didn't remember earlier, is that there is an exceptionally
high percentage of deep, introspective people here. That's pretty cool.

------
FeepingCreature
Everybody has the social right to shape their environment. Given how huge an
influence the environment has on us, this is vital.

At the same time, people have to take and carry responsibility for their
environment. I think we need to become more aware of the huge biases we are
exposed to by living in media bubbles. A huge part of that is that both sides
__need __to tone down the us-vs-them rhetoric, because it makes it very hard
for somebody in the other camp to listen to opposing voices.

I do think there's an instituional lack of options today for people who want
bipartisan news, partially because bipartisan reporting would get flak from
both "sides", but also because partisan outrage sells.

We share responsibility for our environment. As long as we buy partisan
outrage, that is what will surround us.

You aren't a victim of the market, you _are_ the market.

~~~
crusso
_we need to become more aware of the huge biases we are exposed to by living
in media bubbles_

Before the Internet, we lived in media bubbles manufactured by relatively few
voices in the media and political power structure.

Now we still have influences, but they're less centralized.

------
golemotron
These bubbles might be the new regionalism. In the past, communities were
physical - the people you saw walking down the street. Through conversation
got a sense of each other's views. Many political views could coexist in the
same town but they were still somewhat regional bubbles.

Social media (really just an extension of widespread internet/telecom
connectivity) breaks the connection almost entirely. You can walk though a sea
of people each day that may have completely different views than yours, while
you are virtually connected with people across the world who share your
viewpoints.

Should we be surprised that this increases disharmony in regional politics?

------
SixSigma
My friends certainly saw an OUT person. Despite my efforts, no-one debated any
issues, no-one tried to convert me.

This is a bit "iamveryclever" but my belief is that they were unable to debate
me because I was aware and confident of the issues of the economy, the social
space and business world - rightly or wrongly - I feel confident and can speak
at length on such subjects.

No-one put forward any real arguments except "but Boris is a bufoon" and "no
to xenophobes and racists".

I wanted someone to debate with, I got very little.

Now the voting is over there are suddenly an endless stream of economists and
social scientists posting exchange rates and share indexes and bad news.

~~~
arethuza
There seemed to be a _lot_ of reports in the media from businesses and
economists that Brexit would impact the economy. The reply that the Leave camp
came up with seemed to be "you can't make economic predictions", while I see
their point, that one cuts both ways.

~~~
sjclemmy
Gove's response was even better than that; “I think people in this country
have had enough of experts."

~~~
elthran
I think this was my favorite quote of the entire campaign - definitely the one
that made me despair for both the political and common classes

~~~
mike_hearn
Yes that's interesting isn't it. I wrote an analysis of what's going on with
that:

[https://medium.com/@octskyward/how-is-the-remain-campaign-
lo...](https://medium.com/@octskyward/how-is-the-remain-campaign-
losing-e0784209fe65#.6ew94nlgt)

~~~
jerf
Nice article.

I know a lot of people are despairing at the commoners ignoring "expert
advice". Personally, I'm despairing at so many of the "educateds" ignoring the
fact that the track record for "expert advice" has been _awful_ , and failing
to take the appropriate actions based on that. You don't hear much about the
_hazards_ of education, but in my opinion, education can implicitly teach the
primacy of words over facts. Education teaches some things that are
unintuitive and superficially contradict observed reality, yet are true. For
instance, chemistry is based on atoms, or Newtonian physics. These concepts
took centuries because they are not intuitive, but they are true.

But trusting words over reality can easily go too far. As you say in that
article, you can see "experts" who utterly shocked by what should have been
predictable. I've been reading "Debunking Economics", (by an econ professor,
not just "a guy"), and he shows (mathematically!) the dominant economic model
_does not include the Great Recession in its possible state space_. The
mathematically inclined should be gasping in horror. But that's not even the
real problem; the real problem is that the "experts" _cling_ to it even so.
Because they like the words.

The "common man" is much better at sniffing these mismatches out than the
"educated man". Whether this is an intrinsic hazard of education, or a defect
in our system, I'm not sure. Observed reality can still mislead them, it is
absolutely true. (I can argue either way.) But unfortunately, the educated
masses are not generally justified in their belief of superiority. It is at
best a very situational superiority, and one that carries its own unique
hazards, not a universal superiority. (And I do truly mean that
"unfortunately". It should not be. We are leaving so much "on the table"
because our educated class is not all that "educated". But it is what it is.)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I regret that I have only one upvote to give you for that, jerf. Brilliant
comment.

Maybe what we need is to teach "limits of models" or some such as part of our
educational curriculum. Learning to know when to stop trusting your model
without further evidence seems to me to be a critical skill.

And it seems to me that a prime example of this problem is the "the universe
is probably a simulation" people. I get that you can make that argument, but
they seem to actually _believe_ that the argument reflects reality. That's
kind of unsettling - not the argument, but that they take it that seriously.

~~~
tim333
Re teaching models, or how to be smart with them I recommend Mungers talk "A
Lesson on Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management &
Business." The world would be better if people were taught that one
[https://old.ycombinator.com/munger.html](https://old.ycombinator.com/munger.html)

------
m-i-l
Firstly, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it. I know I don't.

Secondly, you can still find alternative views on the internet if you look. I
know I looked prior to the referendum. Unfortunately, relatively speaking, I
found little evidence of reasoned argument from the Leave camp. Events after
the referendum, such as their lack of a plan and leadership, confirms that was
probably an accurate reflection of their position rather than any "bias" of
the internet.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Reasoned argument from the Leave camp definitely existed, but was drowned out
by other voices. I'm not a Conservative voter, and I don't agree with his
position on the NHS, but I thought Daniel Hannan was one of the more
reasonable voices in the public debates.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNj-
hH8LkY](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNj-hH8LkY)

------
sievebrain
I don't think this is to do with algorithmic filtering. I really doubt
Facebook is so good at sentiment analysis it can tell pro vs anti-Brexit posts
and separate them out (well, maybe they can, modern neural networks seem
capable of anything).

I think there's a much more obvious cause: the pro-EU side has become
incredibly, incredibly nasty and vicious. By posting a constant stream of
tirades against people they disagreed with not just attacking arguments but
the people themselves, they practically guaranteed their friends would not
speak up in case it damaged pre-existing relationships.

The echo chamber isn't made of algorithms. It's made of hatred and pseudo-
intellectual contempt. And it's been a problem of the left wing for a long,
long time. Corbyn leaving Parliament to speak to hard-left protesters with
t-shirts like "eliminate the right wing Blairite scum" on them shows just how
the supposedly caring left treats anyone who disagrees.

edit: seems some people are voting this down, thus rather ironically enacting
the problem the article is about ...

~~~
pyre
At the same time, you're scooping up everyone "on the left" and placing them
into the same bucket (a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals filled with hatred).

~~~
sievebrain
I didn't say _all_ left wing people were like that, I said it's been a problem
of that part of the political spectrum, with the problem getting more extreme
the further left you go.

That said, I think left/right wing politics have faded into the background for
now. The EU splits people outside of party lines. Lots of Labour supporters
voted out, hence the self destruction of the Labour party itself right now.
Lots of Tories voted in. The new ideological divide is between globalists and
those who value the nation state.

~~~
thrusong
I would say it's the same either way you go on the spectrum. Look at the
people on the far right supporting Trump.

------
crusso
Blame yourself if you're getting more than relative updates and cat videos
from Facebook.

~~~
raverbashing
At this point I'm happy to have that besides anything else, even views in
which side I'm on

It's too much of a "competition"

------
Terr_
I remember this from "Earth" by David Brin, published some 26 years ago:

> People bought personalized filter programs to skim a few droplets from that
> sea and keep the rest out. For some, subjective reality became the selected
> entertainments and special-interest zines passed through by those tailored
> shells.

> Here a man watches nothing but detective films from the days of cops and
> robbers–a limitless supply of formula fiction. Next door a woman hears and
> reads only opinions that match her own, because other points of view are
> culled by her loyal guardian software.

------
cel1ne
Once upon a time there was something of an educated, intelligent middle-class
who put some hand into managing and editing information for the masses who
didn't have that much time or capacity of questioning and learning everything
themselves. Call that education, call it manipulation, call it journalism. It
doesn't matter.

Fact is: that management is gone. Anybody can spread anything now and most
people aren't getting any smarter amidst that hurricane of information, most
of it charged in a highly negative way. They get scared, angry and numb.

~~~
mobiuscog
Once upon a time, journalism sought to equally represent all angles of a
story.

~~~
cel1ne
Medium.com was originally founded for their publication "Matter", a journal
for long well researched articles.

------
gambiting
For me personally, liking some of the pro-remain posts on facebook and making
it show me what I want to see was one of the ways to deal with the stress of
the situation. Seeing positive messages on my feed really made the situation
more bearable. I'm really worried about the future and if shaping social media
feeds helps with that, what's wrong?

------
rayiner
Blame yourself, not Facebook. If you don't have any friends with opposite
points of view that's not Facebook's fault.

------
return0
Given that it was the older generations who voted Leave, this article seems
out of touch with reality.

~~~
arethuza
It wasn't _just_ older generations who voted to leave - the older you are the
more likely you were to vote for leave but plenty (although a minority for
their age group) young people voted to leave and plenty older people (again a
minority) voted to stay.

NB I voted Remain.

