I find this to be a pretty problematic view of things... I'm not sure what you mean by comments being "pulled or influenced into..." different topics. If you mean people saying discriminatory or...
Exemplary
I find this to be a pretty problematic view of things...
It seems almost like one can’t speak, post or comment on most places, without it getting pulled or influenced into racism, homophobia, sexism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, covid issues, vaccines, politics, anti-capitalism, propaganda, etc, etc, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by comments being "pulled or influenced into..." different topics. If you mean people saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it, then I don't agree with your point here. I follow a lot of queer creators on mainstream social media platforms and the majority of the comment section is often pointless queerphobia completely unrelated to the post. The only thing the creator did to receive that abuse is be openly queer -- and that is reprehensible behaviour that should be criticised heavily.
It seems like Tildes is the only place where it isn’t as prevalent.
Again, not too sure what "it" is referring to. I will say that Tildes has a Code of Conduct, philosophy and tools that mean discriminatory and harmful language are stamped out quickly, and I for one am thankful for that.
Tons of people are fleeing the older sites because of either one of the above topics...
People are not fleeing "the older sites" because of perceived polarisation, but because of bad policy decisions on behalf of the owners. Reddit suffered a mass exodus of users because it made its API paid, not because of discourse. Twitter suffered a mass exodus of users because Musk implemented ridiculous policies that are not only user-unfriendly, but advertiser-unfriendly too.
And because of this giant migration, the alternative sites and Fediverse alternatives are booming. So that was tried as well, and it was even more prevalent of the above. It’s either in every profile description or posts or comments or rules of the servers.
And now I see what you mean by "it"... Most Mastodon server's cultures are openly accepting of queer people, the global majority, neurodivergent people, and other groups that have been historically oppressed and without a space to express themselves and their cultures. Some instances are even made by and for specific minority groups, I have an account on tech.lgbt, for instance. If you went to Mastodon expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you were sorely mistaken. If you came to Tildes expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you are still (in my experience) very mistaken.
Over the years, having tried Twitter [...] and some other failed sites, etc, etc, etc. Tildes seems like the one place that’s mature or level-headed enough to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or is it perhaps due to it’s small community and the fact that it’s purely text-based, leaving less of a space to trigger someone?
I will only say that framing minority groups being open about who they are and critical of discrimination as immature and irrational is incredibly disingenuous and also that words can have a great effect on someone so Tildes being text-based is neither here nor there.
And the worst part, is how it’s been trickling down into our (offline) reality. One can go on and on about echo-chambers, stereotyping, labelling people, races, genders, etc, etc, etc. But for now, maybe it’s time to stop the post.
I think the sheer amount of vitriol coming from politicians and political activists towards trans people and migrants and any other group they feel they can demonise both online and offline shows that any claim of a trickle-down effect of acceptance of minority groups into society is a complete fabrication.
And so, in closing, asking sincerely, where can one go to just have a normal conversation, that isn’t overshadowed by paranoia?
I think if you're so paranoid that your opinions will receive backlash you should be a little introspective and take a critical look at your views and people's response to your views and ask yourself why people are responding negatively to what you say rather than coming here to complain about any backlash.
I can't speak for how "the old ways of the web" were because I wasn't there, but if you want to find a social site where you can say whatever you want without any repercussions or criticism there are many such places, but Tildes is most definitely not one of them.
That's not what OP is talking about. I don't think it's new or anything like OP, but it's more that there are contingents of people who, whether they know it or not, enjoy recreationally being...
I'm not sure what you mean by comments being "pulled or influenced into..." different topics. If you mean people saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it, then I don't think I agree with your point here. I follow a lot of queer creators on mainstream social media platforms and the majority of the comment section is often pointless queerphobia completely unrelated to the post. The only thing the creator did to receive that abuse is be openly queer -- and that is reprehensible behaviour that should be criticised heavily.
That's not what OP is talking about. I don't think it's new or anything like OP, but it's more that there are contingents of people who, whether they know it or not, enjoy recreationally being angry, and will find some way to construe anything you write in such a way that they have sufficient cause to be angry at it.
A strawman, but emblematic, hypothetical is the famous pancakes and waffles tweet.
You can say "I like pancakes" and someone will say "So you hate waffles?"
No bitch. Dats a whole new sentence. Wtf is you talkin about
The Israel/Palestine conflict is especially prone to this, because it's very easy to construe quite literally any position - including not having a position! - into either anti-semitism/support for terrorism/jihadism or support for fascism/genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Starbucks is currently under protest by BOTH pro-Israel AND pro-Palestine factions because they're trying to distance the brand from the conflict in general.
ahh I see, I didn't think of it that way. those sort of people are actively harmful to an ethos like the one here on Tildes and I can understand the frustration someone might have with them...
ahh I see, I didn't think of it that way. those sort of people are actively harmful to an ethos like the one here on Tildes and I can understand the frustration someone might have with them (albeit that sort of antagonistic behaviour being nothing new, as you said)
Here's a thought experiment concerning a particular axis of polarization that emerged in the last 3 years. I've frequently made arguments like this one in many different venues: Many people find...
Here's a thought experiment concerning a particular axis of polarization that emerged in the last 3 years.
I've frequently made arguments like this one in many different venues:
(1) Many people are lacking meaning in life today. They go to work, eat, watch TV, and go to bed. Some
people, however, find social movements that give their life meaning.
(2a) Some people are angry about the government taking countermeasures against the pandemic and for
a long time they've been getting up every morning, finding social media posts that prove the government
has done absolutely everything wrong since the pandemic happened and stay up late sharing them online.
What baffles me about these folks is that the government isn't taking these countermeasures anymore but they're still angry.
(2b) Other people have built an identity about having long COVID or being afraid that they will get long
COVID so when (2a) is not wearing a mask they have to wear two masks. No two of these cases are alike,
but there are many people with chronic conditions who build a whole identity around that condition, see this https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520223981/under-the-medical-gaze
Many people find this argument offensive.
The easy refutation targets (1) and goes like "Who the hell are you to say I can't find meaning in social movements?" but it is one I've yet to hear.
If you try this in IRL you can see how people's emotional reaction evolves and you get (2a) and (2b) in the right order you will see they are pleased by one argument and very displeased by the other argument.
With a generic category (2) that describes both of these people you will often find that (2a) thinks you are talking about (2b) and that (2b) thinks you are talking about (2a). I've sometimes had long conversations with (2a) or (2b) persons about people who have a bad style of communication, describing the behaviors this person is exhibiting right now with behaviors that the "other" exhibits sometimes at some other place and time. It's manipulative and not the right way to have communication with people but I don't know what is. Of course there are issues (3), (4), and (N) with the same structure but (2) really got inflamed in recent memory.
People tend to pick a side though when they hear that argument and I think the tendency is "They are wrong and I am right" and don't accept grace and fall back to a humble position like "right or wrong, I have my own point of view and so do they".
To be specific, I am very active on Hacker News and approve of (and help enforce) the moderation policy that anti-trans and pro-trans articles get flagged. Some people will vote them up and then we have terrible discussion. Some people who otherwise seem OK will turn into werewolves and say the most hateful things against trans people (let's call that person (3b)). If those people don't show up, however, often trans people will start talking about those people who didn't show up and how awful they are. I think they are retraumatizing themselves and materializing their opposition, both in their discourse being captured by it, but in quite literally attracting their opponents.
There's the story that Twitter drove a certain left and right to a fever pitch by forcing them into confrontation but Mastodon (or The Rush Limbaugh Show) shows that a single side can drive itself to a fever pitch simply by talking about the opposition which isn't in the room.
I am sure both groups of people find the situation to be exquisitely meaningful but count me out. It is a choice to let social media in my life, but the fact is that exposure to angry people is quite toxic and there's a certain amount that I have to face IRL and that's bad enough. When I am exposed to angry people it doesn't just affect me, it affects my family, it affects the people at work, it affects my friends, it affects other people on social media and I just have to protect myself.
Two areas that I think are very much worth talking about are: (a) how does the line of argument around (1) play out? Personally I'd say that it does concern me because your distress affects me. (b) How do we be a friend to (3b)? Since people can be so resistant to feedback it is very tempting to exclude (3b) or filter out (3b)'s negative posts. Others will say that we really owe (3b) some correction but boy can that be hard, IRL I have seen that end in violence and online you could run yourself ragged fighting with people.
For what is worth, I am with you (and I am pretty sure I am not the only one). I think the phenomenon you are talking about exists and this very discussion illustrates it - you ask questions and...
Exemplary
For what is worth, I am with you (and I am pretty sure I am not the only one). I think the phenomenon you are talking about exists and this very discussion illustrates it - you ask questions and immediately someone assumes you are bad.
It is assumed that when you talk about being afraid of expressing an opinion, you mean "saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it". You were probably just "expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed". And some moralizing thrown your way: "you're so paranoid that your opinions will receive backlash you should be a little introspective and take a critical look at your views and people's response to your views and ask yourself why people are responding negatively to what you say rather than coming here to complain about any backlash." (quoted text from the very first comment in this discussion by @the-boy-sebastian - and honestly, the number of upvotes that comment received bothers me, because I think it is unfair to you)
You didn't actually say any of the things attributed to you, but you're being scolded for it anyway.
My pet theory is that we live during the pandemics of moral superiority addiction. To many, feeling morally superior is so pleasurable that they have to conjure something immoral out of thin air, project it onto others, and then moralize over it to get their dopamine hit.
I think it is a game we can refuse to play (as I am attempting to do right now). Although I am pretty sure someone might label it as "being an asshole". I don't care. I don't want you to feel alone in this.
I wholeheartedly agree with this response, and that some of the top comments have fallen right into the very issue OP is raising. E.g.: "He's probably saying racist or homophobic things and he's...
Exemplary
I wholeheartedly agree with this response, and that some of the top comments have fallen right into the very issue OP is raising. E.g.: "He's probably saying racist or homophobic things and he's being called out for it".
Too many people have this attitude where, for any given topic, they've already decided or been convinced on which stance the "good guys" should have, and anybody who does so much as suggest that this might be wrong will just get labelled as <insert your trendy insult here>. It gets to the point where they do this unconsciously, while at the same time remaining convinced (ironically) that they're a prime example of tolerance towards others' opinions. They've completely lost the ability to engage in rational, open minded discussions with people who truly disagree with them, because they've been convinced that everything is a very simple, black and white issue. Their favourite politicians and/or social media accounts have ridiculed and infantilized the people who hold opposing views, and maybe these people have even taken part on that themselves (e.g.: sharing some of those memes, publicly defending those arguments before friends and family, etc). So by now they're just too invested in that opinion.
There's a large, personal sunken cost in there, mostly reputational but also in terms of the moral superiority that you mention, so they can't even fathom backing away now. They can no longer be impartial, because admitting being wrong would mean admitting they've ridiculed and treated other people unfairly, while also proving that maybe they hadn't actually done their due diligence or informed themselves on the topic as much as they claimed. It would also mean admitting that whatever "side" they defended (often political parties) can actually be wrong some times... which is its own problem (the other side isn't admitting any flaws, so you can't either!).
I don't know what the solution is, but I personally think it's a strategy that most political parties have followed in the last few years in most developed countries, and it has worked wonders for them. Rather than actually doing the hard work of improving our lives and the countries they rule in order to win our vote, they can simply create exaggerated moral conflicts and then pitch us all against each other, forcing us into these "black or white"/"with me or against me" type of mindsets. This eventually splits friendships and even families, but in turn encourages people to vote for their "side" just to make sure the "bad guys" don't win. They polarise us to the extreme, making us feel extremely passionate about largely irrelevant things, so they don't have to do any relevant things to win our vote. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is that we've all ended up passionately hating each other too, just for disagreeing on a random tax policy or the color of a particular sign.
I'll stop the rant here, but it makes me really sad and nostalgic thinking of how much I enjoyed back in my teenage years, when I could freely talk and exchange opinions with close friends who had completely different views from mine. And especially how often we actually got convinced by each other, with a smile on our face and the feeling that we had both learned something new. Unfortunately, it seems that's not the world my kids will grow up in.
Years ago, your friend with "completely different views" was probably a lot closer to your opinions than they would be today. For me, years ago, political debate was centred around economics. I...
it makes me really sad and nostalgic thinking of how much I enjoyed back in my teenage years, when I could freely talk and exchange opinions with close friends who had completely different views from mine.
Years ago, your friend with "completely different views" was probably a lot closer to your opinions than they would be today.
For me, years ago, political debate was centred around economics. I felt I could understand the points raised by all sides. Everyone's goal seemed to be to improve things for everyone, even if their approach differed. Socialists wanted to ensure there was a safety net for everyone. Capitalists wanted to make society as a whole richer. No normal person wanted to make my life worse, kill me, or or exile me just because of who I am.*
Nowadays, there are mainstream politicians, and political movements whose focus is on punishing, killing, or exiling people they don't like. They support discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation. They want to expose me and my vulnerable family members to deadly pathogens. They want to remove freedoms that enabled me to marry and live where I choose (Brexit-specific point).
In the past I could sit with my friend and disagree about levels of welfare, or whatever, and still feel that they had my best interests at heart. But how can I sit and have a calm discussion with someone who wants to expose my vulnerable elderly dad to a deadly pathogen? How can I be friends with someone who wants to take away my wife's right to vote, just because of where she was born? Those issues are much, much more personal. They threaten my way of life, even the very lives of my loved ones.
* The far right existed, but were marginalised and had zero impact on my life. There was institutional discrimination against gays and women, but mainstream consensus was for reducing discrimination, even if there was disagreement on how far, or how fast change should be.
Example from my country (UK): In the 80s, the Conservative government introduced a law that made it illegal for schools to "promote" (teach about) homosexuality. But the same government also reduced the age of consent for gay sex from 21 to 18. Even though campaigners understandably hated them for Section 28, it seems to me that overall the Conservative government wanted to reduce discrimination, but also wanted to avoid rapid societal change. There were no serious, mainstream voices arguing that homosexuality should be re-criminalised.
Thank you for your post, the irony is thick and we could maybe learn something here. The top response to OP does indeed seem like a perfect illustration of what they're referring to. And it's a...
You didn't actually say any of the things attributed to you, but you're being scolded for it anyway.
Thank you for your post, the irony is thick and we could maybe learn something here.
The top response to OP does indeed seem like a perfect illustration of what they're referring to. And it's a particularly good one because I believe the response (leaped to conclusions and all) is not intentionally polarizing. It's effectively polarizing, but I think the intent is well meaning.
Adding another layer, it's the top reply in the thread because (I imagine) later readers accepted its assumptions and applied them back to the OP, thus making it an important rebuttal of troubling views.
But of course those views were not actually expressed. The OP could hold them, but there is not objectively enough information in their post to say.
It shouldn't be our job to be biggot detectives, we're not qualified for it. Small minded people will out themselves soon enough, we don't need to analyze posts to find subtle clues.
I think this phenomenon is one of the ways that polarization (and online rage in general) breeds more of itself. There's so much toxicity online that many people, justifiably, have mild PTSD. They see something that reminds them of toxic shit they've encountered before and there's a whole package of unprocessed emotion that gets attached to it. It's an opportunity not only to express those emotions, but to say this isn't ok and I won't accept it.
Which is understandable, and also it's not the only potential reason why the top reply leaped to so many conclusions without evidence, I use it as a general example.
Because I have no idea what the poster was really feeling, any more than I know what OP's underlying perspectives are.
I think the best approach in that situation is curiousity. Let's assume we don't know and ask genuine questions.
The alternative is for everyone to triple check everything they write for potential misinterpretations and go off on endless tangents to disclaimer away those risks.
We're all going to continue to sometimes misread and misunderstand and get triggered by things we read online, that won't change. So tools like curiosity, checking our knee-jerk reactions and (in spaces where it's reasonable) assuming good faith, are really valuable.
I felt kinda shocked when I clicked on this thread because the first response and the first response to that response felt like it was perfectly demonstrating and describing what the OP was...
I felt kinda shocked when I clicked on this thread because the first response and the first response to that response felt like it was perfectly demonstrating and describing what the OP was talking about, but not in a tongue in cheek kind of way, just it actually unironically happening.
Agree, but being on the internet long enough and living 4 years in Brazil under Bolsonaro's government, 90% of the time when someone says they are afraid of expressing themselves, they want to say...
Agree, but being on the internet long enough and living 4 years in Brazil under Bolsonaro's government, 90% of the time when someone says they are afraid of expressing themselves, they want to say something racist.
I agree with both sides here really. It is complicated.
This is were this gets interesting I think, because the global differences in experiences might be very different. Which of course leads to misunderstandings like this. Here in Denmark there have...
This is were this gets interesting I think, because the global differences in experiences might be very different. Which of course leads to misunderstandings like this. Here in Denmark there have been public surveys that shows that many people are increasingly less comfortable with expressing their political opinions online. Women in particular for the sadly well known reasons. And the sad thing is, it is mostly the majority with normal opinions, whereas the various extremists don't hold anything back. These kind of surveys mostly refer to public discussions on Facebook, which is probably the worst place to look for reasonable discussions these days, but it is still the main platform that the majority of the population is on and especially on topics about immigration or gender equality, it is the most bigoted loud obnoxious people that fill up the comment sections on news post because normal people with reasonable opinions don't want to engage with that.
OP does mention they have this experience on a bunch of social sites, but I still generally think we shouldn't assume the worst just by default. People can have had all sorts of negative experience for varying reasons. As we see here, it is easy to be misunderstood online. Not everyone is equally good at expressing their thoughts in writing and many places just have a big crowd users who simply love to create conflict at every chance they can get.
I don't assume the worst when I read this kind of thing here. This changed a little since the last influx from reddit, but I still assume and hope for the best here. But on mainstream social media...
I don't assume the worst when I read this kind of thing here. This changed a little since the last influx from reddit, but I still assume and hope for the best here.
But on mainstream social media I always expect the worst. I am just on Instagram and stopped looking at comments. It's awful.
Yup, it shows how bad and entrenched this problem is today. And someone else even hit it with the tildes equivalent of reddit gold too. Even this site isn't safe from this and the group think it...
Yup, it shows how bad and entrenched this problem is today.
And someone else even hit it with the tildes equivalent of reddit gold too.
Even this site isn't safe from this and the group think it propagates.
Not sure why else you would be afraid of expressing an opinion if not because you might get called out on it. I also qualified that section by saying: and omitting that is misrepresenting what I...
It is assumed that when you talk about being afraid of expressing an opinion, you mean "saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it"
Not sure why else you would be afraid of expressing an opinion if not because you might get called out on it. I also qualified that section by saying:
I'm not sure what you mean by comments being "pulled or influenced into..." different topics. If you mean...
and omitting that is misrepresenting what I said and rather disingenuous. I'm perfectly happy for the OP to tell me I interpreted that section wrongly.
You were probably just "expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed".
I think that OP's complaints about the Fediverse were a mask off moment for me. The part about bios is to me an implicit criticism of people being open about who they are on the internet, as is prevalent on a space like the Fediverse. Many instances also have rules explicitly prohibiting many different types of discrimination, and I'm not sure what else the part about server rules could be referencing.
Of course since all of the criticism is hidden behind references to a nebulous "it", no one apart from OP can be sure exactly what is meant here. Clarification would be welcome.
Also you yet again misrepresent my words -- here's the full text:
If you went to Mastodon expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you were sorely mistaken.
And some moralizing thrown your way: "you're so paranoid that your opinions will receive backlash you should be a little introspective and take a critical look at your views and people's response to your views and ask yourself why people are responding negatively to what you say rather than coming here to complain about any backlash."
My intent was not to moralise -- I actually only brought up the topic of paranoia because it was explicitly mentioned in the last section of the post, the part about conversations on the internet being "overshadowed by paranoia".
And for the third time you incorrectly quote my words, so here's the bit you missed for context:
I think if you're so paranoid [...]
I don't think it's an unfair assumption that someone posting about online conversations being "overshadowed by paranoia" might be a bit paranoid about reactions to the things they say.
It is way too common these days that you are called all kinds of names just for expressing an opinion someone disagrees with. It is also common that opinions are misrepresented. These are all...
Exemplary
Not sure why else you would be afraid of expressing an opinion if not because you might get called out on it.
It is way too common these days that you are called all kinds of names just for expressing an opinion someone disagrees with. It is also common that opinions are misrepresented. These are all "innocent" reasons to be afraid to express opinions. Being justifiably called out on your opinion is far from the only reason people might be afraid to express their opinions.
and omitting that is misrepresenting what I said and rather disingenuous.
I tried to read your first comment again and I see no omitting or misrepresenting. I left out some things for brevity but I am convinced that the point I was trying to make is valid.
I think that OP's complaints about the Fediverse were a mask off moment for me. [...]
And this is one of the assumptions I was talking about. You have zero evidence this is what the OP was talking about, it is conjured out of thin air. When you basically accuse people of something as bad, you should have something more substantial.
Also you yet again misrepresent my words -- here's the full text:
If you went to Mastodon expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you were sorely mistaken.
How? Again, I see no misrepresentation. And to clarify what I mean, let me ask you this - why did you even start talking about expecting to find a place where voices are suppressed? Claims of this type are not neutral. They come with implicit assumptions. How would you like if I said to you in this discussion something like "if you went to Tildes to express fascist opinions, you were sorely mistaken"? Can you not see how suggestive it is? People have to have a reason to say something like this. You don't - there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this was the reason he went to Mastodon. You just made it up.
My intent was not to moralise -- I actually only brought up the topic of paranoia because it was explicitly mentioned in the last section of the post, the part about conversations on the internet being "overshadowed by paranoia".
I did not have a problem with the "paranoia" on itself, I had a problem with the way you framed the paranoia as if there were no "innocent" reasons to be paranoid, only something nefarious that the poster might say and needs to be introspective about. As if the internet was not full of people willing to twist your words and then crucify you for it.
BTW, this is how I interpret what the original poster wanted to say (and dear @HeyNiceLunchBox feel free to correct me) - it was a search for the spirit that existed in those days when innocence was assumed and your words were interpreted in the best plausible way until proven otherwise.
You did exactly the opposite - you assumed the worst without anything that would suggest that this is what HeyNiceLunchBox thinks. The way I see it, you criticized something that you inserted into their mouth yourself.
If I thought it was just one guy twisting someone's point and moralizing about it, I would be OK with that. The problem is that this has become so common lately that it is turning into a norm. And I am really tired of this.
Hell, I got banned from multiple subreddits because the mods were too quick to assume everyone was put to get them when I was actually supporting them. You can get crucified for any position by...
It is way too common these days that you are called all kinds of names just for expressing an opinion someone disagrees with.
Hell, I got banned from multiple subreddits because the mods were too quick to assume everyone was put to get them when I was actually supporting them. You can get crucified for any position by people supporting anything these days.
You keep trying to paint me as some sort of spin doctor making accusations here which was never my intention -- my initial comment was written as I read the post and was my gut reaction to reading...
accuse
made it up
assumed the worst
You keep trying to paint me as some sort of spin doctor making accusations here which was never my intention -- my initial comment was written as I read the post and was my gut reaction to reading it. I don't have any reason or the inclination to start making things up to frame OP as a bad person.
It is way too common these days that you are called all kinds of names just for expressing an opinion someone disagrees with. It is also common that opinions are misrepresented. These are all "innocent" reasons to be afraid to express opinions. Being justifiably called out on your opinion is far from the only reason people might be afraid to express their opinions.
I accept that this is true -- but I don't think this is the thrust of the post. If it is, then why the mention in OP's post of "profile descriptions" (i.e bios) and "server rules"? Are people being called names or having their opinions being misrepresented through those areas? I've not seen that happen and it doesn't really make sense to mention them otherwise.
why did you even start talking about expecting to find a place where voices are suppressed?
User bios are used to express a person's individuality, and more often on the Fediverse than on other platforms people are members of an oppressed group. Most instances also make specific reference to discrimination against specific groups in their rules.
I drew parallels between what I knew about the Fediverse culture, historical criticisms I'd heard of the Fediverse which took a similar tone and the flawed logic of other interpretations and came to a conclusion that made sense to me. I wasn't trying to make things up or misconstrue OP's point.
I tried to read your first comment again and I see no omitting or misrepresenting. I left out some things for brevity but I am convinced that the point I was trying to make is valid.
How? Again, I see no misrepresentation.
I make a lot of qualifications throughout both my comments that are left out completely from any quotes you've taken -- which to me looks like I said what I said as if it was unqualified fact. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to say such things as if they are facts. From your responses I don't think you did this deliberately and I apologise for assuming that you did.
you assumed the worst without anything that would suggest that this is what HeyNiceLunchBox thinks.
I don't agree that there was nothing to suggest that my interpretation is possible because of a couple reasons.
Firstly, I wrote it in the first place. I know you'll just have to take my word for it, but I wouldn't waste my time and energy on writing a critique like that (or indeed, defending it) if I didn't think there was some merit to my points. Secondly, other people have had similar concerns about OP's post throughout this comment section. If I was the only one saying the things I said I might be more inclined to agree with you but the way I see it is not limited to just me.
I'll say it again, if OP wants to explain how I'm wrong about what I've said they can, and I'll happily make a full retraction. In this instance, I'd be very happy to be proved wrong.
I think its kind of enlightening as to the dynamics involved though. From what I can see, I think the problem is how people handle ambiguities and "if"s. I dont know what you mean. IF you mean...
I think its kind of enlightening as to the dynamics involved though.
From what I can see, I think the problem is how people handle ambiguities and "if"s.
I dont know what you mean. IF you mean something terrible, then here is my response.
IF you were going to Mastadon expecting discriminated people to be silenced, then here is my response.
IF you're so paranoid that _____ will happen, then here is my response.
And if not to any of those things, then I have nothing to add. But I don't need to say that, because it's implicit.
The whole response only means anything if all those ifs are true, and means nothing if they aren't.
Because if someone says something innocuous, you don't have to say anything. But if someone says something evil, you have a moral responsibility to knock them down a peg. Which turns into people only responding to the worst interpretation, which from the outside ends up looking identical to just asserting the worst interpretation. But to the person saying it, they don't think they are asserting anything. Because they said IF.
If someone is looking to get away from racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. then Tildes is great for that. If someone is looking for a "free speech" forum, they couldn't possibly pick a worse place...
If someone is looking to get away from racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. then Tildes is great for that.
If someone is looking for a "free speech" forum, they couldn't possibly pick a worse place than Tildes.
"Don't be an asshole" is the motto here. And everyone who inherently understands that statement does fine here. Meanwhile, those who have to ask clarifying questions on what constitutes asshole behavior inevitably get banned. I really think you either get it or you don't. The Tildes philosophy page does a good job explaining everything.
As for the "old web" feeling Tildes fosters, I think the barrier to entry (invite only), the small community, and the fact that most of us are a bit nerdier in terms of our interests makes Tildes feel that way. It's nice! And while Tildes is very left-leaning overall, I do find that people are less interested in discussing wedge issues on this forum, which is also nice. Even though I am extremely progressive in my political leanings, it is exhausting to constantly be exposed to rage-bait and debates. It's also exhausting that we can't talk about the latest graphics card release without it devolving into identity politics on many other parts of the web.
For what it's worth, I think you may feel this way because tildes is (as you noted) very left-leaning. I am best described as a centrist, and for me it does very much feel like people constantly...
I do find that people are less interested in discussing wedge issues on this forum, which is also nice. Even though I am extremely progressive in my political leanings,
For what it's worth, I think you may feel this way because tildes is (as you noted) very left-leaning. I am best described as a centrist, and for me it does very much feel like people constantly bring up wedge issues.
I certainly feel like there's a lot of obnoxious "of course this is the best way to proceed and everyone agrees" whenever certain buzzwords come up. It ends up feeling at times like reddit...
I certainly feel like there's a lot of obnoxious "of course this is the best way to proceed and everyone agrees" whenever certain buzzwords come up. It ends up feeling at times like reddit bro-liberal circlejerks.
Comment chains like that bring out my worst contrarian impulses. “Of course everyone agrees” rhetoric is way up there on my list of things that make me lose respect for someone. I say often no...
Comment chains like that bring out my worst contrarian impulses. “Of course everyone agrees” rhetoric is way up there on my list of things that make me lose respect for someone. I say often no because it can be said, not due to deep seated conviction one way or the other.
One insignificant data point - I also think Tildes is "very left leaning". I have no data or evidence to support that statement, it is just my estimate. It is interesting to me that you consider...
One insignificant data point - I also think Tildes is "very left leaning". I have no data or evidence to support that statement, it is just my estimate. It is interesting to me that you consider that bizarre.
Tildes would be considered very left-leaning from a US politics perspective for sure, but from a European perspective it's maybe a bit left of center at most. Your perception of what's "very" left...
Tildes would be considered very left-leaning from a US politics perspective for sure, but from a European perspective it's maybe a bit left of center at most. Your perception of what's "very" left leaning is going to vary wildly depending on what you're used to -- as someone who is in much more left-leaning groups outside Tildes (and I'm not even close to the extreme end), Tildes almost never has super popular opinions any further left than social democrats (which is about the rightmost group that can be called a leftist at all and which is frequently insulted by other leftists for it) and the mainstream appears solidly liberal.
Ehm, I have written this as a very late-night mind dump and now I am tempted to delete it. It is very subjective and please take it with a huge grain of salt. I am a European and I think I have a...
Ehm, I have written this as a very late-night mind dump and now I am tempted to delete it. It is very subjective and please take it with a huge grain of salt.
I am a European and I think I have a pretty Europeany perspective. It is hard to map the European left to the US left. Also, European countries differ significantly - left in France or Spain is more left than east-European left.
Many of my views would probably be considered left in the US also - an atheist, pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, unemployment support, abortion legal, that kind of stuff... but some things that seem pretty much "assumed" without too much questioning here at Tildes seem pretty "far left" to me.
If you are interested what exactly - all that stuff about "late stage capitalism" for example. I live in a pretty left leaning bubble (by our standards) but I do not know anyone who would not consider capitalism as a generally good and successful system (with EU-style safety net - not the US 19th-century style version; to us, US capitalism seems like very early stage capitalism).
And there are other things... like pretty much everybody I know is all for equality of women in the traditional sense (equal rights, equal pay for the same work etc.), but I don't personally know anyone believing we actually live in "patriarchy".
There is more stuff that I cannot remember right now but I pretty often just skip something here that I consider a weird US folklore - it seems so far from my views that I don't want to participate in what feels like extremist blabbering about socialism. That is something that I - someone who grew up in a communist country - consider brutally naive, almost delusional - I would estimate that I view this the same way you might view creationists? (or some group that is so far that you don't even engage - maybe Qanon or something - I am not comparing those groups, I just want to express how distant it is from my views).
No offense, I hope it is not your case, given the fact that are, as you say, "someone who is in much more left-leaning groups outside Tildes".
If I had to say that in one sentence, I would personally label "social democrats" as, ehm, "standard" left and everything left of that as extreme left.
EDIT: Please do not take this the wrong way. Maybe I should not have used words like "blabbering"... but it is just how it feels to me. I am pretty sure my views seem like blabbering to some people. After all, we are talking about perception here, we are not discussing the merit of those views.
It also depends - and this is my fault - on how you interpret the "very". Does it mean "the average views are really far to the left" or "overwhelmingly, people lean left?" I meant the latter. But...
It also depends - and this is my fault - on how you interpret the "very". Does it mean "the average views are really far to the left" or "overwhelmingly, people lean left?"
I meant the latter. But I should've used more precise language.
I am 100% on the same page as @honzabe in that I also think a lot of commentors here fall into the former category - having views that are really far to the left - when it comes to geopolitics and economics.
Yeah my point is mostly that your assessment of whether Tildes is very left leaning or not is highly contextual, especially gor an international site. I think there are a fair number of actual...
Yeah my point is mostly that your assessment of whether Tildes is very left leaning or not is highly contextual, especially gor an international site.
I think there are a fair number of actual leftists here (I myself am a socialist after all lol), but that they're outnumbered by liberals and that most of the leftists here are not particularly extreme in their views. I haven't seen a single Marxist-Leninist or Maoist here, for instance.
In any case, it's weird for people to bring up Tildes being left-wing or not in this thread, which has nothing to do with geopolitical or economic views or Tildes users and more to do with their views on how to manage a social space, which is pretty orthogonal to actual political discussions here on Tildes.
It's bizarre because a bunch of stuff that is described as "very left leaning" ends up being "respecting lgbtqia people", "thinking abortion should be free, safe and legal", "thinking education is...
It's bizarre because a bunch of stuff that is described as "very left leaning" ends up being "respecting lgbtqia people", "thinking abortion should be free, safe and legal", "thinking education is good and should be free", "thinking public transport is good and should be available at low cost to users", "thinking healthcare should be free and easily accessible", and these are only "very left" if you live in a dysfunctional hell hole because in very many countries these are just things that most normal people mostly agree on, even if they disagree about models to provide them.
I don't know about other people, but since you are responding to my comment - this is not why I consider Tildes "very left leaning". As a European, I consider all the things you listed just...
I don't know about other people, but since you are responding to my comment - this is not why I consider Tildes "very left leaning". As a European, I consider all the things you listed just normal, not even left leaning, let alone very left leaning (in my country, most of them are not even debated, parties across the whole spectrum, except maybe some marginal ones that do not even make it to the parliament, just accept them as a status quo). I described in other places in this discussion what I consider very left leaning.
And it's been a while since my last visit to the US, but I remember a pretty great country - despite certain flaws still one of the most desirable places in the world (and some hard data, for example immigration stats, suggest this is still true). A dysfunctional hell hole seems like a very leaning position - I would call it an extreme position. And I just realized this might be part of the reason why I consider Tildes very left leaning - because it is not that uncommon to encounter something like this - clearly left leaning people with extreme positions.
Maybe it is just a part of that extreme polarization that the US is going through right now. I hang out in left leaning places and the American ones seem extreme left - I guess the right leaning would seem extreme right just because of the general movement from the center toward extremes. Just a theory.
It's bizarre to think that it's not in my opinion. I find myself left-ish leaning on most social issues but right leaning on some other issues (like guns) and those opinions do not seem to be...
It's bizarre to think that it's not in my opinion.
I find myself left-ish leaning on most social issues but right leaning on some other issues (like guns) and those opinions do not seem to be commonly expressed on tildes from what I've seen.
Maybe you've forgotten that climate impact, gay/trans rights, etc. is still an ongoing debate for some. And guns are certainly still a contested issue.
We don't see that debate here because this site is pretty much all left leaning and agrees on these topics already.
I've been online since the 90s and have noticed what feels like distinct periods in the tone and style of online interaction. At the same time, I've changed and evolved as a person, so some of it...
Exemplary
I've been online since the 90s and have noticed what feels like distinct periods in the tone and style of online interaction. At the same time, I've changed and evolved as a person, so some of it is the internet has changed, and some of it is that I have changed. In the earliest days, the technical barriers were so high that you had a small, self-selected group of people online. As such, the conversations revolved around a smaller set of issues and topics than today, and your online self and IRL self very much felt like being in different places.
As that changed, I think the expectation shifted so that you need or should reconcile your online and your IRL behavior. We all saw how anonymity fueled bad behavior and unproductive speech. And that has pushed the internet in two directions: free-speech-focused and more moderated speech.
You tap-danced around your issue, so I don't know if what you are thinking is what I am thinking. But I'll share an anecdote just from this morning. I typically look at three social media places: Tildes, BeeHaw local using Jerboa, and Kbin.Social All, which shows me content from all over the fediverse.
When I fired up Kbin, I saw a feed of more bombastic and polarized content. Posts were using standard meme templates, but then where the punchline would be, there were statements about Israel being an apartheid state, anti-capitalist rhetoric, why you should feel bad for using Windows, etc. Content almost aimed to be confrontational or polarizing. I've also noticed on the fediverse that people are more prone to nitpick others' posts aimlessly, no matter how well-written and well-intended. It is just a grouchy group of people. Some of the content is nice, and I have a few pleasant conversations over there where I feel I'm giving insight to help people understand world issues. But it is exhausting never knowing when a noisy crowd with loud opinions will come and brigade your conversation.
On BeeHaw (local content), I see a much smaller set of conversations that are a little more technical, and you still get some FOSS absolutists who can be a little rough around the edges. But overall, there isn't any mean-spirited conversation because BeeHaw has a "be nice" policy. We can still talk about issues, and if I go into a thread with misconceptions about bankruptcy law or a matter of historical fact that can be found in an encyclopedia, I can mention those things and not face a virtual lynch mob.
Tildes is much like BeeHaw local, but with less emphasis on technology. I see more conversations about books and real-world policy than at BeeHaw. Still, it has the same feeling: if you participate in a conversation in good faith and with good manners, you don't have to worry about being virtually shouted down.
So, I'm not sure if that helps answer your question. Overall, the internet and the people have changed, and where and how we have conversations have changed. I gave examples of the types of conversations I see and where. I think places like Tildes are good places to have a conversation and even ask or talk about delicate social issues, so long as you are coming into it with good faith. I don't see people on BeeHaw or Tildes looking for ways to be offended. That said, if you inadvertently say something offensive, be sure you know how to learn from the incident and apologize or clarify.
I don't think you can have a place with pleasant conversations where people don't have to give any care to what they say. But I also don't think you can have a place with pleasant conversations where people nitpick posts, looking for ways to be offended. You want people to give their posts some thought and care, and you want people to read the posts somewhat generously to account for the lack of tone, context, and background that makes text communication difficult.
I hope that helps, and I'm happy to answer any more specific follow-up questions.
I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet as it exists is as saturated with discord as your post implies. My Instagram is free from all of that politics, mostly consisting of little snippets of...
I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet as it exists is as saturated with discord as your post implies. My Instagram is free from all of that politics, mostly consisting of little snippets of what my friends and some creators I like are up to in their lives. I barely use Facebook, but again it's rarely political or antogistic when I do go on there. The same goes for the other services that you list. Where I use them, I have curated my experience so that discussing any of those problematic issues is far from the norm and I don't see much of it. So perhaps that is on me, but I don't think that it is so hard to exist on the modern Internet as all that.
Through a combination of being invite-only, incentivising higher-quality submissions, excellent moderation, and skewing generally a bit older and more educated (I don't have a source for this, but I do get the impression that this is the case) Tildes manages to walk the tightrope you describe quite adroitly. But this involves concerted effort from users to contribute what they think is valuable, and to consider the human at the other end of their keyboard. The slow growth and slower pace of posting definitely helps with this, as does the culture of writing longer comments.
Are you familiar with the concept of Safe Spaces? Until I came out I was a little dismissive of the idea, as I had never really felt unsafe on the Internet or in public. For many people the Internet is not a Safe Space. If you're trans or gay then there are a lot of people out there who make it their mission to harras and frighten you off whatever platform you're on. If you're a woman, Internet culture can be extremely misogynistic. If you are non-white then online spaces can feel dismissive of your experiences and identity. The more of these groups that you are a part of, the less welcoming a place the Internet can feel. And so there are those online who try to fight back against this, and to try to enforce norms to make social media a safer space for everyone, which can and does lead to aggression.
If you were to walk into a gay bar and start spouting homophobic slurs or trying to debate whether or not being gay is moral, then you would be rightly kicked out for intruding into a place where people go to escape from all of that kind of bullshit. Places such as Mastodon and other parts of the fediverse simply want to curate safety for their membership. When algorithmic social media serves you massively liked/upvoted comments from some antisemite into your normally pretty chill feed, it can feel very jarring and trigger a fight-or-flight response, and those with the loudest voices and shortest tempers are often the ones who choose to fight.
My personality tends toward the conciliatory, and so if I were to discover I had said something offensive to another person, my learned response is not to go on the defensive or double down, but to try to understand what I did or said that was wrong, and to learn from that in future. This isn't always possible, especially if you are met with vehemence and anger. But I think more people on all sides should be willing to try to understand their fellow Sapiens and give each other a little latitude when it comes to expressing opinions. Where we judge someone as genuinely willing to better themselves and to try to understand another point of view, then my opinion is that those of us who have the capacity have a duty to put forward our perspectives to facilitate that.
Edit to add after rereading your post:
And so, in closing, asking sincerely, where can one go to just have a normal conversation, that isn’t overshadowed by paranoia?
This and the tone of your post makes me think that you are not engaging in good faith with people affected by the issues you complain about. Perhaps some introspection about how you relate to others and whether or not you are speaking appropriately to abject strangers is in order?
oh that's a rly nifty feature, I can just highlight text and Tildes will auto-quote it for me. so helpful omfggggg~ Anyway, this comment rly spoke to me. I think it's essential to show that anyone...
Exemplary
Perhaps some introspection about how you relate to others and whether or not you are speaking appropriately to abject strangers is in order?
oh that's a rly nifty feature, I can just highlight text and Tildes will auto-quote it for me. so helpful omfggggg~
Anyway, this comment rly spoke to me. I think it's essential to show that anyone can communicate in bad faith, and this divisive culture on the Internet is not one-sided. I think that's where I had some trouble empathising with OP; it sounds like there is nothing they did wrong, and it is very... disturbing, ig.
I do communicate in bad faith not just on the Internet but off the Internet too. I think my experience in more politically-active scenes on mainstream social media has given me 'brainrot' and such. I have treated the people I love the most in such a careless, narcissistic and borderline abusive way. It is a mind-breaking and despondent thing to realise that you are not only in the wrong, but have become the thing you hate and condemn. I'm trying to be better about this today, and a good thing I can do is just... listen and change.
I forget the problems we have today — aside from subjectivity and individual perspective — are intersectional and complex. There is no easy way to solve a genocide like the one in Palestine, there is also no way to solve racism, sexism, transphobia. There is no future where someone doesn't get hurt and you can save everyone. This line of reasoning is why people don't wish to try, staying in the now is more familiar. The future is uncertain, and painful. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
But I think more people on all sides should be willing to try to understand their fellow Sapiens and give each other a little latitude when it comes to expressing opinions.
It is genuinely hard but not impossible to do this in a culture as egocentric, superpowered and individualistic as the US. Even on social media — you can dodge America's dominant influence on the WWW, but you can't exactly escape it unless you go to more niche areas. Kind of like Kensington Market in Canada and also more ethnic places like New York's "Chinatown".
Either way, I really like this sentence and what has been said. I try to do this, and it is rly alienating and isolating. One of the worst things to feel is an unspoken "you're not welcome" in a community you love and give towards because of being 'human'; forced to make a choice between the truly right thing and the ""right"" thing. Both political sides have done this, whether in-person or online.
Are you familiar with the concept of Safe Spaces?
I was really bitter towards this idea once as I was kicked out and ostracised in safe spaces, but as I grew up... I realised that the communities I was kicked out of (excepting the ones where I genuinely was an asshole, and that was the reason why) were run by people who were immature.
Safe spaces are, solemnly, absolutely necessary. I'm glad they exist and places like cohost and Mastodon instances exist too.
I don't know if this comment makes sense, but I wanted to provide a different perspective to this than just saying 'I agree'.
While we can't say for sure without better clarity from OP, I think there are some places, especially on the fediverse, where what the OP describes feels very fair. What I mean is there are feeds...
While we can't say for sure without better clarity from OP, I think there are some places, especially on the fediverse, where what the OP describes feels very fair. What I mean is there are feeds of federated content where every post is very polarizing, explicitly containing vehement views on the Middle East, anti-capitalism, political talking points, etc. And these are the primary feeds of these sites, not some out-of-the-way corner. Those parts of the internet are very different to comment on than Tildes, Instagram, etc., and are generally more stressful to interact with. OP may be thinking of that, but it also feels like they are tap dancing around something, so who knows?
I have a feeling a lot of people have gone into private servers. Often on Discord. The way I see it right now is the old internet used to be like public gathering with pseudonymous friends. The...
I have a feeling a lot of people have gone into private servers. Often on Discord. The way I see it right now is the old internet used to be like public gathering with pseudonymous friends. The current internet is like a public space in real life. Except it's not the one that big social media firms want you to believe. It's not the idealistic "town square" where humanity gathers to exchange ideas and peace and harmony and singing Kumbaya and stuff.
It's a real world crowded public space in a big city. Everyone is a stranger. You keep your head a swivel. You watch out for pick pockets. You watch out for criminals. You don't just talk to anyone who approaches you have to be careful.
They wanted to digitize the world. To create a mirror world online without physical limitations. They succeeded. The real world is a dangerous place. And so that's how the internet is. The era of community internet is over.
I've tried to dive into those private servers but it was too much effort for me with little reward. There's cliques and social drama. People want to keep their own establish little circle of social milieu or whatever. You are the outsider and that's their purpose for you. It's nothing like the old internet that was primarily public spaces that anyone could get into once they understood the nature of the community.
Places like old internet is very few and far between anymore. My only suggestion is to find specific topics interest and find where those people are. The general internet (ie social media) is easiest for ideological pushers to proliferate their ideas to a wide audience. More specific topics of discussion aren't as appropriate for them to just spout off.
That doesn't mean there won't be users who hold bigoted beliefs in those places. It's just not appropriate topic of discussion. You cannot control what people hate. If the admins and moderators (or even users) of that place don't do anything about it if or when those people run their mouth then just leave.
I feel this is a problem not just with the Internet but with friend groups in general, or at least I've seen it too. People do this sort of nonsense all the time IRL, I think it's just that people...
I've tried to dive into those private servers but it was too much effort for me with little reward. There's cliques and social drama. People want to keep their own establish little circle of social milieu or whatever. You are the outsider and that's their purpose for you. It's nothing like the old internet that was primarily public spaces that anyone could get into once they understood the nature of the community.
I feel this is a problem not just with the Internet but with friend groups in general, or at least I've seen it too. People do this sort of nonsense all the time IRL, I think it's just that people have way less tolerant of it when people treat a real live person like that in front of them vs. seeing it said to someone online.
I like your description of online public spaces. Yes, the internet feels more like an actual public space now than in the early days when it felt like a group hangout.
I like your description of online public spaces. Yes, the internet feels more like an actual public space now than in the early days when it felt like a group hangout.
Having the community principle of "assume good faith" and having it actually carried out by the userbase with few exceptions goes a long way. Unlike my experiences on places like Reddit and...
Having the community principle of "assume good faith" and having it actually carried out by the userbase with few exceptions goes a long way. Unlike my experiences on places like Reddit and Twitter, where comment threads often felt more like contests of wit and outrage rather than anything resembling an enriching discussion, I don't dread seeing the "new comment reply" when I see it on here, because I trust that I'm not about to get raged on or strawmanned.
As someone who's genuinely curious about the world and is always seeking to improve my own understanding of it, it has been maddening seeing the state of discourse on mainstream social media sites. Ignorance is not treated as an opportunity to learn, but a weakness to exploit. Even what might otherwise look like "just asking questions" was apparently turned into a trolling tactic, which is great news for someone like me who likes asking questions.
This all led me to becoming nothing more than a lurker for years, and while I still mostly lurk here, too, the much more charitable culture on Tildes has given me some confidence to chime in more often. I'm thankful that a place like Tildes exists now, and I'm thankful for all of you carrying out this culture every day.
Yeah, even in the circlejerks that I mentioned in another comment, you aren't going to get crucified for saying "maybe going all-in on getting all of America to use public transit every day within...
Yeah, even in the circlejerks that I mentioned in another comment, you aren't going to get crucified for saying "maybe going all-in on getting all of America to use public transit every day within seven years is not our best option" the way you might on some subreddits. For the most part, everybody is civil and open to exchanging actual ideas.
What happened to the old internet? Money. I have a friend that says, "If you want an answer to a question, post the question online then add an answer that you know is wrong. People that might not...
What happened to the old internet? Money.
I have a friend that says, "If you want an answer to a question, post the question online then add an answer that you know is wrong. People that might not engage with the question will come out of the woodwork to list all the reasons why the answer is wrong."
You're being baited. Companies are trying to get you upset because you'll stick around and argue more, and the longer you're there the more ads they can put in front of you.
Why is Tildes better? What's missing here? Ads. Does Tildes care about how much time you spend on the site? Probably not.
Money, as it does with all things, ruined the internet.
I think that one of the important things to realize about this "old web" that you're talking about is that it basically never really existed. These problems you perceive only seem so big because...
I think that one of the important things to realize about this "old web" that you're talking about is that it basically never really existed. These problems you perceive only seem so big because the social spaces on the web have been heavily consolidated over time. The web is not a monolith; it is a bunch of islands in a vast sea. Every "good" social space had moderation, and when people didn't like the moderation or people they'd just move on to another one. And then of course there were very lightly or completely unmoderated places, but those naturally pushed out a lot of good people and attracted trash.
The other thing about those small communities is that they were also a lot more social in nature; posting something to Reddit or Twitter is like sending letters into the void, where strangers will send you their reactions. Smaller groups are full of people you eventually get to actually know. There is a concept in sociology called Dunbar's Number which is basically the maximum number of people a person can hold social relationships with at once; it's commonly estimated to be around 150. Here on Tildes we have many times that number, but only a small portion of them post and an even smaller portion of them post regularly, so those types of relationships are still possible.
Tildes is not perfect, because when it comes to social groups there is no such thing as perfect. There are definitely a bunch of people who have been driven off of this site by the types of conversations that have happened here, and I sincerely miss some of them. We've also had people who have had to be suspended, and I think we've even had permanent banning. But the thing I like about Tildes in particular is that it has a "restoritive justice" like moderation policy; if you are causing problems, you'll be talked to rather than just punished. Punishments only come if you can't learn to behave yourself.
If you want the internet to be more permissive, then you will want to encourage more communities like Tildes or any other smaller site you like. If you want to do something difficult but worthwhile, you can try to start one of your own! Otherwise you can do what I do; abandon the big corporate sites and try to convince everyone you know of how bad they are.
The old web had a core user base of nerds and alternative folks. The commercialization of the internet, decreasing price of computers, and introduction of home broadband allowed your mom, your...
The old web had a core user base of nerds and alternative folks. The commercialization of the internet, decreasing price of computers, and introduction of home broadband allowed your mom, your grandma, your racist uncle, your classmates from high school, and your 12-year old brother onto the web. Basically, normies killed the old web, since they had no concept of its etiquette.
My take. I started using Twitter really early, I went to a conference put on at the New York Times where the organizers were quite shocked and maybe even a little offended that we were live...
My take.
I started using Twitter really early, I went to a conference put on at the New York Times where the organizers were quite shocked and maybe even a little offended that we were live tweeting the event because it could have been the first conference that was live tweeted.
By the end of 2016 I swore off social media and deleted most of my accounts. For me LinkedIn in particular had an almost demonic element because I'd spent a lot of time on it trying to develop a business and instead it had brought in an endless stream of losers, grifters, rip-off artists, bullshit artists and salespeople who couldn't sell and I was staring into the abyss of financial ruin.
When Twitter went into the crapper a year ago I was inspired to finish a project that I'd been thinking about since about 2004, about building an intelligent RSS reader that used machine learning to do content-based recommendation, something quite different than the "collaborative filtering" approach most commonly used in recommenders. Technically it came together really well so I had social media revolution on my mind.
A few months later there was the panic at Reddit and a lot of ferment around things like Threads and Bluesky and I thought about it and got involved in Mastodon and also Tildes.
Immediately I noticed Mastodon was a lot nastier in 2023 than Twitter ever was for me. Right away I had people talking to me in dehumanizing language simply because I wrote a reply (now they'll say I'm a "reply guy") and saw quite a people who just totally "lost it" from comments that were really innocuous. (After a few orders of magnitude more area under my followers × dPost curve I did have somebody blow up at me on Twitter back in day... but that one really was my fault)
Then there were the people who saw "fascists" under every bed just like the John Birch Society saw communists back in the 60's. (I half expected to hear something like "Joe Biden is rich, white, old, male and cis... what a fascist")
I was thinking about quitting but I decided to give it another go so I got very systematic about blocking keywords (the f-word, "republican", "DeSantis", ...) and blocking negative individuals, particularly people who post angry image memes.
After a while I wasn't bothered anymore and in fact I discovered there was quite a "silent majority" of people on Mastodon who avoid all that polarized crap and now I enjoy hanging out with them.
Nowadays whenever I hear somebody say the word 'censorship' I kind of feel like I'm about to get into a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness who just has a bent world view. I'm fascinated with the idea of this book
where Habermas develops this idea that we could build some kind of communication process where people would really respect what other people have to say and everyone would seem heard but it seems so unrealistic to me in 2023. We've had so many spams, scams, scams that get spammed, influence operations (Russia funds right wing organizations today the same way they funded left wing organizations in the early 1920s) and other forms of disingenuous communication that it's tempting to say "delete them all and let God sort them out".
My RSS reader YOShInOn downloads maybe 6000 articles and picks out 300 to show me so I am seeing the top 5%, I just don't have the time or energy to see everything, in fact a lot of what is out there will wreck my equanimity. (My wife hates it when I get upset because of some interaction I saw on social media) Really there are 1000x more messages about any topic than people are able to receive and the default has to be "the message is not transmitted" because for every message you can receive there are astronomically more messages you can't receive.
If speech is "free" it is free like a puppy in that every message crowds out other messages, particularly when messages are repeated in time and space. 150 years ago in the US or Europe if you had something to say you raised some funds and started a newspaper, today people feel entitled to have a megaphone.
I curate my social media feeds, and I still see such negative comments every so often. For example, someone called a content creator a race traitor on her birthday cake video. Anyone could post...
I curate my social media feeds, and I still see such negative comments every so often. For example, someone called a content creator a race traitor on her birthday cake video. Anyone could post the most innocuous thing online and get dragged into something ugly. So I understand how you might be afraid of getting your head bitten off when all you wanted to do was participate in the discourse. I guess being chronically online makes people forget that they can ask for clarification before they make a judgement.
I mostly follow creators on YouTube and IG. The even-handed ones tend to have a respectful community. Maybe start there? Some people also stream live chats and hangouts on their Patreon.
As for real life -- well, living is political so there's not much advice I can give other than try to hang out with emotionally intelligent folks who can tell when it's appropriate to bring up those topics. 😅 I have family and friends who are addicted to TikTok, but they don't just repeat everything that they hear.
Just post whatever it is you're feeling and let the comments go at it, if you feel like you do. Have a conversation about whatever it is in the comments. Discussion from all sides was what the...
Just post whatever it is you're feeling and let the comments go at it, if you feel like you do. Have a conversation about whatever it is in the comments. Discussion from all sides was what the internet usually amounted to "back in the day" when you posted much of anything.
Best way that we had in the "old internet" was people posting comments or IMing/emailing you about something you posted. Or if you were on IRC, you could get some real time (probably not politically correct these days) feedback about your opinion in real time.
People are faster to jump on you more recently if you deviate from accepted norms that are put forth as accepted consensual reality, but I guess that's all relative depending on the circles you run in, or post in.
Or maybe it's more platform-ized in terms of who and what gets responded to, and the tone and nature of the response. I dunno. I don't have social media outside of Tildes.
I'm just some random internet person and I'm happy to keep it that way these days.
I find this to be a pretty problematic view of things...
I'm not sure what you mean by comments being "pulled or influenced into..." different topics. If you mean people saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it, then I don't agree with your point here. I follow a lot of queer creators on mainstream social media platforms and the majority of the comment section is often pointless queerphobia completely unrelated to the post. The only thing the creator did to receive that abuse is be openly queer -- and that is reprehensible behaviour that should be criticised heavily.
Again, not too sure what "it" is referring to. I will say that Tildes has a Code of Conduct, philosophy and tools that mean discriminatory and harmful language are stamped out quickly, and I for one am thankful for that.
People are not fleeing "the older sites" because of perceived polarisation, but because of bad policy decisions on behalf of the owners. Reddit suffered a mass exodus of users because it made its API paid, not because of discourse. Twitter suffered a mass exodus of users because Musk implemented ridiculous policies that are not only user-unfriendly, but advertiser-unfriendly too.
And now I see what you mean by "it"... Most Mastodon server's cultures are openly accepting of queer people, the global majority, neurodivergent people, and other groups that have been historically oppressed and without a space to express themselves and their cultures. Some instances are even made by and for specific minority groups, I have an account on tech.lgbt, for instance. If you went to Mastodon expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you were sorely mistaken. If you came to Tildes expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed, you are still (in my experience) very mistaken.
I will only say that framing minority groups being open about who they are and critical of discrimination as immature and irrational is incredibly disingenuous and also that words can have a great effect on someone so Tildes being text-based is neither here nor there.
I think the sheer amount of vitriol coming from politicians and political activists towards trans people and migrants and any other group they feel they can demonise both online and offline shows that any claim of a trickle-down effect of acceptance of minority groups into society is a complete fabrication.
I think if you're so paranoid that your opinions will receive backlash you should be a little introspective and take a critical look at your views and people's response to your views and ask yourself why people are responding negatively to what you say rather than coming here to complain about any backlash.
I can't speak for how "the old ways of the web" were because I wasn't there, but if you want to find a social site where you can say whatever you want without any repercussions or criticism there are many such places, but Tildes is most definitely not one of them.
That's not what OP is talking about. I don't think it's new or anything like OP, but it's more that there are contingents of people who, whether they know it or not, enjoy recreationally being angry, and will find some way to construe anything you write in such a way that they have sufficient cause to be angry at it.
A strawman, but emblematic, hypothetical is the famous pancakes and waffles tweet.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is especially prone to this, because it's very easy to construe quite literally any position - including not having a position! - into either anti-semitism/support for terrorism/jihadism or support for fascism/genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Starbucks is currently under protest by BOTH pro-Israel AND pro-Palestine factions because they're trying to distance the brand from the conflict in general.
ahh I see, I didn't think of it that way. those sort of people are actively harmful to an ethos like the one here on Tildes and I can understand the frustration someone might have with them (albeit that sort of antagonistic behaviour being nothing new, as you said)
Here's a thought experiment concerning a particular axis of polarization that emerged in the last 3 years.
I've frequently made arguments like this one in many different venues:
Many people find this argument offensive.
The easy refutation targets (1) and goes like "Who the hell are you to say I can't find meaning in social movements?" but it is one I've yet to hear.
If you try this in IRL you can see how people's emotional reaction evolves and you get (2a) and (2b) in the right order you will see they are pleased by one argument and very displeased by the other argument.
With a generic category (2) that describes both of these people you will often find that (2a) thinks you are talking about (2b) and that (2b) thinks you are talking about (2a). I've sometimes had long conversations with (2a) or (2b) persons about people who have a bad style of communication, describing the behaviors this person is exhibiting right now with behaviors that the "other" exhibits sometimes at some other place and time. It's manipulative and not the right way to have communication with people but I don't know what is. Of course there are issues (3), (4), and (N) with the same structure but (2) really got inflamed in recent memory.
People tend to pick a side though when they hear that argument and I think the tendency is "They are wrong and I am right" and don't accept grace and fall back to a humble position like "right or wrong, I have my own point of view and so do they".
To be specific, I am very active on Hacker News and approve of (and help enforce) the moderation policy that anti-trans and pro-trans articles get flagged. Some people will vote them up and then we have terrible discussion. Some people who otherwise seem OK will turn into werewolves and say the most hateful things against trans people (let's call that person (3b)). If those people don't show up, however, often trans people will start talking about those people who didn't show up and how awful they are. I think they are retraumatizing themselves and materializing their opposition, both in their discourse being captured by it, but in quite literally attracting their opponents.
There's the story that Twitter drove a certain left and right to a fever pitch by forcing them into confrontation but Mastodon (or The Rush Limbaugh Show) shows that a single side can drive itself to a fever pitch simply by talking about the opposition which isn't in the room.
I am sure both groups of people find the situation to be exquisitely meaningful but count me out. It is a choice to let social media in my life, but the fact is that exposure to angry people is quite toxic and there's a certain amount that I have to face IRL and that's bad enough. When I am exposed to angry people it doesn't just affect me, it affects my family, it affects the people at work, it affects my friends, it affects other people on social media and I just have to protect myself.
Two areas that I think are very much worth talking about are: (a) how does the line of argument around (1) play out? Personally I'd say that it does concern me because your distress affects me. (b) How do we be a friend to (3b)? Since people can be so resistant to feedback it is very tempting to exclude (3b) or filter out (3b)'s negative posts. Others will say that we really owe (3b) some correction but boy can that be hard, IRL I have seen that end in violence and online you could run yourself ragged fighting with people.
For what is worth, I am with you (and I am pretty sure I am not the only one). I think the phenomenon you are talking about exists and this very discussion illustrates it - you ask questions and immediately someone assumes you are bad.
It is assumed that when you talk about being afraid of expressing an opinion, you mean "saying discriminatory or harmful things and then getting called out on it". You were probably just "expecting to find a place where these groups' voices are suppressed". And some moralizing thrown your way: "you're so paranoid that your opinions will receive backlash you should be a little introspective and take a critical look at your views and people's response to your views and ask yourself why people are responding negatively to what you say rather than coming here to complain about any backlash." (quoted text from the very first comment in this discussion by @the-boy-sebastian - and honestly, the number of upvotes that comment received bothers me, because I think it is unfair to you)
You didn't actually say any of the things attributed to you, but you're being scolded for it anyway.
My pet theory is that we live during the pandemics of moral superiority addiction. To many, feeling morally superior is so pleasurable that they have to conjure something immoral out of thin air, project it onto others, and then moralize over it to get their dopamine hit.
I think it is a game we can refuse to play (as I am attempting to do right now). Although I am pretty sure someone might label it as "being an asshole". I don't care. I don't want you to feel alone in this.
I wholeheartedly agree with this response, and that some of the top comments have fallen right into the very issue OP is raising. E.g.: "He's probably saying racist or homophobic things and he's being called out for it".
Too many people have this attitude where, for any given topic, they've already decided or been convinced on which stance the "good guys" should have, and anybody who does so much as suggest that this might be wrong will just get labelled as <insert your trendy insult here>. It gets to the point where they do this unconsciously, while at the same time remaining convinced (ironically) that they're a prime example of tolerance towards others' opinions. They've completely lost the ability to engage in rational, open minded discussions with people who truly disagree with them, because they've been convinced that everything is a very simple, black and white issue. Their favourite politicians and/or social media accounts have ridiculed and infantilized the people who hold opposing views, and maybe these people have even taken part on that themselves (e.g.: sharing some of those memes, publicly defending those arguments before friends and family, etc). So by now they're just too invested in that opinion.
There's a large, personal sunken cost in there, mostly reputational but also in terms of the moral superiority that you mention, so they can't even fathom backing away now. They can no longer be impartial, because admitting being wrong would mean admitting they've ridiculed and treated other people unfairly, while also proving that maybe they hadn't actually done their due diligence or informed themselves on the topic as much as they claimed. It would also mean admitting that whatever "side" they defended (often political parties) can actually be wrong some times... which is its own problem (the other side isn't admitting any flaws, so you can't either!).
I don't know what the solution is, but I personally think it's a strategy that most political parties have followed in the last few years in most developed countries, and it has worked wonders for them. Rather than actually doing the hard work of improving our lives and the countries they rule in order to win our vote, they can simply create exaggerated moral conflicts and then pitch us all against each other, forcing us into these "black or white"/"with me or against me" type of mindsets. This eventually splits friendships and even families, but in turn encourages people to vote for their "side" just to make sure the "bad guys" don't win. They polarise us to the extreme, making us feel extremely passionate about largely irrelevant things, so they don't have to do any relevant things to win our vote. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is that we've all ended up passionately hating each other too, just for disagreeing on a random tax policy or the color of a particular sign.
I'll stop the rant here, but it makes me really sad and nostalgic thinking of how much I enjoyed back in my teenage years, when I could freely talk and exchange opinions with close friends who had completely different views from mine. And especially how often we actually got convinced by each other, with a smile on our face and the feeling that we had both learned something new. Unfortunately, it seems that's not the world my kids will grow up in.
Years ago, your friend with "completely different views" was probably a lot closer to your opinions than they would be today.
For me, years ago, political debate was centred around economics. I felt I could understand the points raised by all sides. Everyone's goal seemed to be to improve things for everyone, even if their approach differed. Socialists wanted to ensure there was a safety net for everyone. Capitalists wanted to make society as a whole richer. No normal person wanted to make my life worse, kill me, or or exile me just because of who I am.*
Nowadays, there are mainstream politicians, and political movements whose focus is on punishing, killing, or exiling people they don't like. They support discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation. They want to expose me and my vulnerable family members to deadly pathogens. They want to remove freedoms that enabled me to marry and live where I choose (Brexit-specific point).
In the past I could sit with my friend and disagree about levels of welfare, or whatever, and still feel that they had my best interests at heart. But how can I sit and have a calm discussion with someone who wants to expose my vulnerable elderly dad to a deadly pathogen? How can I be friends with someone who wants to take away my wife's right to vote, just because of where she was born? Those issues are much, much more personal. They threaten my way of life, even the very lives of my loved ones.
* The far right existed, but were marginalised and had zero impact on my life. There was institutional discrimination against gays and women, but mainstream consensus was for reducing discrimination, even if there was disagreement on how far, or how fast change should be.
Example from my country (UK): In the 80s, the Conservative government introduced a law that made it illegal for schools to "promote" (teach about) homosexuality. But the same government also reduced the age of consent for gay sex from 21 to 18. Even though campaigners understandably hated them for Section 28, it seems to me that overall the Conservative government wanted to reduce discrimination, but also wanted to avoid rapid societal change. There were no serious, mainstream voices arguing that homosexuality should be re-criminalised.
Thank you for your post, the irony is thick and we could maybe learn something here.
The top response to OP does indeed seem like a perfect illustration of what they're referring to. And it's a particularly good one because I believe the response (leaped to conclusions and all) is not intentionally polarizing. It's effectively polarizing, but I think the intent is well meaning.
Adding another layer, it's the top reply in the thread because (I imagine) later readers accepted its assumptions and applied them back to the OP, thus making it an important rebuttal of troubling views.
But of course those views were not actually expressed. The OP could hold them, but there is not objectively enough information in their post to say.
It shouldn't be our job to be biggot detectives, we're not qualified for it. Small minded people will out themselves soon enough, we don't need to analyze posts to find subtle clues.
I think this phenomenon is one of the ways that polarization (and online rage in general) breeds more of itself. There's so much toxicity online that many people, justifiably, have mild PTSD. They see something that reminds them of toxic shit they've encountered before and there's a whole package of unprocessed emotion that gets attached to it. It's an opportunity not only to express those emotions, but to say this isn't ok and I won't accept it.
Which is understandable, and also it's not the only potential reason why the top reply leaped to so many conclusions without evidence, I use it as a general example.
Because I have no idea what the poster was really feeling, any more than I know what OP's underlying perspectives are.
I think the best approach in that situation is curiousity. Let's assume we don't know and ask genuine questions.
The alternative is for everyone to triple check everything they write for potential misinterpretations and go off on endless tangents to disclaimer away those risks.
We're all going to continue to sometimes misread and misunderstand and get triggered by things we read online, that won't change. So tools like curiosity, checking our knee-jerk reactions and (in spaces where it's reasonable) assuming good faith, are really valuable.
edit: typo
I felt kinda shocked when I clicked on this thread because the first response and the first response to that response felt like it was perfectly demonstrating and describing what the OP was talking about, but not in a tongue in cheek kind of way, just it actually unironically happening.
Agree, but being on the internet long enough and living 4 years in Brazil under Bolsonaro's government, 90% of the time when someone says they are afraid of expressing themselves, they want to say something racist.
I agree with both sides here really. It is complicated.
This is were this gets interesting I think, because the global differences in experiences might be very different. Which of course leads to misunderstandings like this. Here in Denmark there have been public surveys that shows that many people are increasingly less comfortable with expressing their political opinions online. Women in particular for the sadly well known reasons. And the sad thing is, it is mostly the majority with normal opinions, whereas the various extremists don't hold anything back. These kind of surveys mostly refer to public discussions on Facebook, which is probably the worst place to look for reasonable discussions these days, but it is still the main platform that the majority of the population is on and especially on topics about immigration or gender equality, it is the most bigoted loud obnoxious people that fill up the comment sections on news post because normal people with reasonable opinions don't want to engage with that.
OP does mention they have this experience on a bunch of social sites, but I still generally think we shouldn't assume the worst just by default. People can have had all sorts of negative experience for varying reasons. As we see here, it is easy to be misunderstood online. Not everyone is equally good at expressing their thoughts in writing and many places just have a big crowd users who simply love to create conflict at every chance they can get.
I don't assume the worst when I read this kind of thing here. This changed a little since the last influx from reddit, but I still assume and hope for the best here.
But on mainstream social media I always expect the worst. I am just on Instagram and stopped looking at comments. It's awful.
Yup, it shows how bad and entrenched this problem is today.
And someone else even hit it with the tildes equivalent of reddit gold too.
Even this site isn't safe from this and the group think it propagates.
Not sure why else you would be afraid of expressing an opinion if not because you might get called out on it. I also qualified that section by saying:
and omitting that is misrepresenting what I said and rather disingenuous. I'm perfectly happy for the OP to tell me I interpreted that section wrongly.
I think that OP's complaints about the Fediverse were a mask off moment for me. The part about bios is to me an implicit criticism of people being open about who they are on the internet, as is prevalent on a space like the Fediverse. Many instances also have rules explicitly prohibiting many different types of discrimination, and I'm not sure what else the part about server rules could be referencing.
Of course since all of the criticism is hidden behind references to a nebulous "it", no one apart from OP can be sure exactly what is meant here. Clarification would be welcome.
Also you yet again misrepresent my words -- here's the full text:
My intent was not to moralise -- I actually only brought up the topic of paranoia because it was explicitly mentioned in the last section of the post, the part about conversations on the internet being "overshadowed by paranoia".
And for the third time you incorrectly quote my words, so here's the bit you missed for context:
I don't think it's an unfair assumption that someone posting about online conversations being "overshadowed by paranoia" might be a bit paranoid about reactions to the things they say.
It is way too common these days that you are called all kinds of names just for expressing an opinion someone disagrees with. It is also common that opinions are misrepresented. These are all "innocent" reasons to be afraid to express opinions. Being justifiably called out on your opinion is far from the only reason people might be afraid to express their opinions.
I tried to read your first comment again and I see no omitting or misrepresenting. I left out some things for brevity but I am convinced that the point I was trying to make is valid.
And this is one of the assumptions I was talking about. You have zero evidence this is what the OP was talking about, it is conjured out of thin air. When you basically accuse people of something as bad, you should have something more substantial.
How? Again, I see no misrepresentation. And to clarify what I mean, let me ask you this - why did you even start talking about expecting to find a place where voices are suppressed? Claims of this type are not neutral. They come with implicit assumptions. How would you like if I said to you in this discussion something like "if you went to Tildes to express fascist opinions, you were sorely mistaken"? Can you not see how suggestive it is? People have to have a reason to say something like this. You don't - there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this was the reason he went to Mastodon. You just made it up.
I did not have a problem with the "paranoia" on itself, I had a problem with the way you framed the paranoia as if there were no "innocent" reasons to be paranoid, only something nefarious that the poster might say and needs to be introspective about. As if the internet was not full of people willing to twist your words and then crucify you for it.
BTW, this is how I interpret what the original poster wanted to say (and dear @HeyNiceLunchBox feel free to correct me) - it was a search for the spirit that existed in those days when innocence was assumed and your words were interpreted in the best plausible way until proven otherwise.
You did exactly the opposite - you assumed the worst without anything that would suggest that this is what HeyNiceLunchBox thinks. The way I see it, you criticized something that you inserted into their mouth yourself.
If I thought it was just one guy twisting someone's point and moralizing about it, I would be OK with that. The problem is that this has become so common lately that it is turning into a norm. And I am really tired of this.
Hell, I got banned from multiple subreddits because the mods were too quick to assume everyone was put to get them when I was actually supporting them. You can get crucified for any position by people supporting anything these days.
You keep trying to paint me as some sort of spin doctor making accusations here which was never my intention -- my initial comment was written as I read the post and was my gut reaction to reading it. I don't have any reason or the inclination to start making things up to frame OP as a bad person.
I accept that this is true -- but I don't think this is the thrust of the post. If it is, then why the mention in OP's post of "profile descriptions" (i.e bios) and "server rules"? Are people being called names or having their opinions being misrepresented through those areas? I've not seen that happen and it doesn't really make sense to mention them otherwise.
User bios are used to express a person's individuality, and more often on the Fediverse than on other platforms people are members of an oppressed group. Most instances also make specific reference to discrimination against specific groups in their rules.
I drew parallels between what I knew about the Fediverse culture, historical criticisms I'd heard of the Fediverse which took a similar tone and the flawed logic of other interpretations and came to a conclusion that made sense to me. I wasn't trying to make things up or misconstrue OP's point.
I make a lot of qualifications throughout both my comments that are left out completely from any quotes you've taken -- which to me looks like I said what I said as if it was unqualified fact. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to say such things as if they are facts. From your responses I don't think you did this deliberately and I apologise for assuming that you did.
I don't agree that there was nothing to suggest that my interpretation is possible because of a couple reasons.
Firstly, I wrote it in the first place. I know you'll just have to take my word for it, but I wouldn't waste my time and energy on writing a critique like that (or indeed, defending it) if I didn't think there was some merit to my points. Secondly, other people have had similar concerns about OP's post throughout this comment section. If I was the only one saying the things I said I might be more inclined to agree with you but the way I see it is not limited to just me.
I'll say it again, if OP wants to explain how I'm wrong about what I've said they can, and I'll happily make a full retraction. In this instance, I'd be very happy to be proved wrong.
This post is very close to being an exemplar of the problems OP was attempting to describe.
I think its kind of enlightening as to the dynamics involved though.
From what I can see, I think the problem is how people handle ambiguities and "if"s.
I dont know what you mean. IF you mean something terrible, then here is my response.
IF you were going to Mastadon expecting discriminated people to be silenced, then here is my response.
IF you're so paranoid that _____ will happen, then here is my response.
And if not to any of those things, then I have nothing to add. But I don't need to say that, because it's implicit.
The whole response only means anything if all those ifs are true, and means nothing if they aren't.
Because if someone says something innocuous, you don't have to say anything. But if someone says something evil, you have a moral responsibility to knock them down a peg. Which turns into people only responding to the worst interpretation, which from the outside ends up looking identical to just asserting the worst interpretation. But to the person saying it, they don't think they are asserting anything. Because they said IF.
If someone is looking to get away from racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. then Tildes is great for that.
If someone is looking for a "free speech" forum, they couldn't possibly pick a worse place than Tildes.
"Don't be an asshole" is the motto here. And everyone who inherently understands that statement does fine here. Meanwhile, those who have to ask clarifying questions on what constitutes asshole behavior inevitably get banned. I really think you either get it or you don't. The Tildes philosophy page does a good job explaining everything.
As for the "old web" feeling Tildes fosters, I think the barrier to entry (invite only), the small community, and the fact that most of us are a bit nerdier in terms of our interests makes Tildes feel that way. It's nice! And while Tildes is very left-leaning overall, I do find that people are less interested in discussing wedge issues on this forum, which is also nice. Even though I am extremely progressive in my political leanings, it is exhausting to constantly be exposed to rage-bait and debates. It's also exhausting that we can't talk about the latest graphics card release without it devolving into identity politics on many other parts of the web.
For what it's worth, I think you may feel this way because tildes is (as you noted) very left-leaning. I am best described as a centrist, and for me it does very much feel like people constantly bring up wedge issues.
Just a thought. I agree with your post, overall.
I certainly feel like there's a lot of obnoxious "of course this is the best way to proceed and everyone agrees" whenever certain buzzwords come up. It ends up feeling at times like reddit bro-liberal circlejerks.
Comment chains like that bring out my worst contrarian impulses. “Of course everyone agrees” rhetoric is way up there on my list of things that make me lose respect for someone. I say often no because it can be said, not due to deep seated conviction one way or the other.
Tildes is absolutely not "very left leaning" and it's bizarre to think that it is.
One insignificant data point - I also think Tildes is "very left leaning". I have no data or evidence to support that statement, it is just my estimate. It is interesting to me that you consider that bizarre.
Tildes would be considered very left-leaning from a US politics perspective for sure, but from a European perspective it's maybe a bit left of center at most. Your perception of what's "very" left leaning is going to vary wildly depending on what you're used to -- as someone who is in much more left-leaning groups outside Tildes (and I'm not even close to the extreme end), Tildes almost never has super popular opinions any further left than social democrats (which is about the rightmost group that can be called a leftist at all and which is frequently insulted by other leftists for it) and the mainstream appears solidly liberal.
Ehm, I have written this as a very late-night mind dump and now I am tempted to delete it. It is very subjective and please take it with a huge grain of salt.
I am a European and I think I have a pretty Europeany perspective. It is hard to map the European left to the US left. Also, European countries differ significantly - left in France or Spain is more left than east-European left.
Many of my views would probably be considered left in the US also - an atheist, pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, unemployment support, abortion legal, that kind of stuff... but some things that seem pretty much "assumed" without too much questioning here at Tildes seem pretty "far left" to me.
If you are interested what exactly - all that stuff about "late stage capitalism" for example. I live in a pretty left leaning bubble (by our standards) but I do not know anyone who would not consider capitalism as a generally good and successful system (with EU-style safety net - not the US 19th-century style version; to us, US capitalism seems like very early stage capitalism).
And there are other things... like pretty much everybody I know is all for equality of women in the traditional sense (equal rights, equal pay for the same work etc.), but I don't personally know anyone believing we actually live in "patriarchy".
There is more stuff that I cannot remember right now but I pretty often just skip something here that I consider a weird US folklore - it seems so far from my views that I don't want to participate in what feels like extremist blabbering about socialism. That is something that I - someone who grew up in a communist country - consider brutally naive, almost delusional - I would estimate that I view this the same way you might view creationists? (or some group that is so far that you don't even engage - maybe Qanon or something - I am not comparing those groups, I just want to express how distant it is from my views).
No offense, I hope it is not your case, given the fact that are, as you say, "someone who is in much more left-leaning groups outside Tildes".
If I had to say that in one sentence, I would personally label "social democrats" as, ehm, "standard" left and everything left of that as extreme left.
EDIT: Please do not take this the wrong way. Maybe I should not have used words like "blabbering"... but it is just how it feels to me. I am pretty sure my views seem like blabbering to some people. After all, we are talking about perception here, we are not discussing the merit of those views.
It also depends - and this is my fault - on how you interpret the "very". Does it mean "the average views are really far to the left" or "overwhelmingly, people lean left?"
I meant the latter. But I should've used more precise language.
I am 100% on the same page as @honzabe in that I also think a lot of commentors here fall into the former category - having views that are really far to the left - when it comes to geopolitics and economics.
Yeah my point is mostly that your assessment of whether Tildes is very left leaning or not is highly contextual, especially gor an international site.
I think there are a fair number of actual leftists here (I myself am a socialist after all lol), but that they're outnumbered by liberals and that most of the leftists here are not particularly extreme in their views. I haven't seen a single Marxist-Leninist or Maoist here, for instance.
In any case, it's weird for people to bring up Tildes being left-wing or not in this thread, which has nothing to do with geopolitical or economic views or Tildes users and more to do with their views on how to manage a social space, which is pretty orthogonal to actual political discussions here on Tildes.
It's bizarre because a bunch of stuff that is described as "very left leaning" ends up being "respecting lgbtqia people", "thinking abortion should be free, safe and legal", "thinking education is good and should be free", "thinking public transport is good and should be available at low cost to users", "thinking healthcare should be free and easily accessible", and these are only "very left" if you live in a dysfunctional hell hole because in very many countries these are just things that most normal people mostly agree on, even if they disagree about models to provide them.
I don't know about other people, but since you are responding to my comment - this is not why I consider Tildes "very left leaning". As a European, I consider all the things you listed just normal, not even left leaning, let alone very left leaning (in my country, most of them are not even debated, parties across the whole spectrum, except maybe some marginal ones that do not even make it to the parliament, just accept them as a status quo). I described in other places in this discussion what I consider very left leaning.
And it's been a while since my last visit to the US, but I remember a pretty great country - despite certain flaws still one of the most desirable places in the world (and some hard data, for example immigration stats, suggest this is still true). A dysfunctional hell hole seems like a very leaning position - I would call it an extreme position. And I just realized this might be part of the reason why I consider Tildes very left leaning - because it is not that uncommon to encounter something like this - clearly left leaning people with extreme positions.
Maybe it is just a part of that extreme polarization that the US is going through right now. I hang out in left leaning places and the American ones seem extreme left - I guess the right leaning would seem extreme right just because of the general movement from the center toward extremes. Just a theory.
It's bizarre to think that it's not in my opinion.
I find myself left-ish leaning on most social issues but right leaning on some other issues (like guns) and those opinions do not seem to be commonly expressed on tildes from what I've seen.
Maybe you've forgotten that climate impact, gay/trans rights, etc. is still an ongoing debate for some. And guns are certainly still a contested issue.
We don't see that debate here because this site is pretty much all left leaning and agrees on these topics already.
Ok.
I've been online since the 90s and have noticed what feels like distinct periods in the tone and style of online interaction. At the same time, I've changed and evolved as a person, so some of it is the internet has changed, and some of it is that I have changed. In the earliest days, the technical barriers were so high that you had a small, self-selected group of people online. As such, the conversations revolved around a smaller set of issues and topics than today, and your online self and IRL self very much felt like being in different places.
As that changed, I think the expectation shifted so that you need or should reconcile your online and your IRL behavior. We all saw how anonymity fueled bad behavior and unproductive speech. And that has pushed the internet in two directions: free-speech-focused and more moderated speech.
You tap-danced around your issue, so I don't know if what you are thinking is what I am thinking. But I'll share an anecdote just from this morning. I typically look at three social media places: Tildes, BeeHaw local using Jerboa, and Kbin.Social All, which shows me content from all over the fediverse.
When I fired up Kbin, I saw a feed of more bombastic and polarized content. Posts were using standard meme templates, but then where the punchline would be, there were statements about Israel being an apartheid state, anti-capitalist rhetoric, why you should feel bad for using Windows, etc. Content almost aimed to be confrontational or polarizing. I've also noticed on the fediverse that people are more prone to nitpick others' posts aimlessly, no matter how well-written and well-intended. It is just a grouchy group of people. Some of the content is nice, and I have a few pleasant conversations over there where I feel I'm giving insight to help people understand world issues. But it is exhausting never knowing when a noisy crowd with loud opinions will come and brigade your conversation.
On BeeHaw (local content), I see a much smaller set of conversations that are a little more technical, and you still get some FOSS absolutists who can be a little rough around the edges. But overall, there isn't any mean-spirited conversation because BeeHaw has a "be nice" policy. We can still talk about issues, and if I go into a thread with misconceptions about bankruptcy law or a matter of historical fact that can be found in an encyclopedia, I can mention those things and not face a virtual lynch mob.
Tildes is much like BeeHaw local, but with less emphasis on technology. I see more conversations about books and real-world policy than at BeeHaw. Still, it has the same feeling: if you participate in a conversation in good faith and with good manners, you don't have to worry about being virtually shouted down.
So, I'm not sure if that helps answer your question. Overall, the internet and the people have changed, and where and how we have conversations have changed. I gave examples of the types of conversations I see and where. I think places like Tildes are good places to have a conversation and even ask or talk about delicate social issues, so long as you are coming into it with good faith. I don't see people on BeeHaw or Tildes looking for ways to be offended. That said, if you inadvertently say something offensive, be sure you know how to learn from the incident and apologize or clarify.
I don't think you can have a place with pleasant conversations where people don't have to give any care to what they say. But I also don't think you can have a place with pleasant conversations where people nitpick posts, looking for ways to be offended. You want people to give their posts some thought and care, and you want people to read the posts somewhat generously to account for the lack of tone, context, and background that makes text communication difficult.
I hope that helps, and I'm happy to answer any more specific follow-up questions.
I will gladly take less+longer posts where users can at least try to explain themselves than the, seemingly, rapid fire beatings of a twitter/reddit
I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet as it exists is as saturated with discord as your post implies. My Instagram is free from all of that politics, mostly consisting of little snippets of what my friends and some creators I like are up to in their lives. I barely use Facebook, but again it's rarely political or antogistic when I do go on there. The same goes for the other services that you list. Where I use them, I have curated my experience so that discussing any of those problematic issues is far from the norm and I don't see much of it. So perhaps that is on me, but I don't think that it is so hard to exist on the modern Internet as all that.
Through a combination of being invite-only, incentivising higher-quality submissions, excellent moderation, and skewing generally a bit older and more educated (I don't have a source for this, but I do get the impression that this is the case) Tildes manages to walk the tightrope you describe quite adroitly. But this involves concerted effort from users to contribute what they think is valuable, and to consider the human at the other end of their keyboard. The slow growth and slower pace of posting definitely helps with this, as does the culture of writing longer comments.
Are you familiar with the concept of Safe Spaces? Until I came out I was a little dismissive of the idea, as I had never really felt unsafe on the Internet or in public. For many people the Internet is not a Safe Space. If you're trans or gay then there are a lot of people out there who make it their mission to harras and frighten you off whatever platform you're on. If you're a woman, Internet culture can be extremely misogynistic. If you are non-white then online spaces can feel dismissive of your experiences and identity. The more of these groups that you are a part of, the less welcoming a place the Internet can feel. And so there are those online who try to fight back against this, and to try to enforce norms to make social media a safer space for everyone, which can and does lead to aggression.
If you were to walk into a gay bar and start spouting homophobic slurs or trying to debate whether or not being gay is moral, then you would be rightly kicked out for intruding into a place where people go to escape from all of that kind of bullshit. Places such as Mastodon and other parts of the fediverse simply want to curate safety for their membership. When algorithmic social media serves you massively liked/upvoted comments from some antisemite into your normally pretty chill feed, it can feel very jarring and trigger a fight-or-flight response, and those with the loudest voices and shortest tempers are often the ones who choose to fight.
My personality tends toward the conciliatory, and so if I were to discover I had said something offensive to another person, my learned response is not to go on the defensive or double down, but to try to understand what I did or said that was wrong, and to learn from that in future. This isn't always possible, especially if you are met with vehemence and anger. But I think more people on all sides should be willing to try to understand their fellow Sapiens and give each other a little latitude when it comes to expressing opinions. Where we judge someone as genuinely willing to better themselves and to try to understand another point of view, then my opinion is that those of us who have the capacity have a duty to put forward our perspectives to facilitate that.
Edit to add after rereading your post:
This and the tone of your post makes me think that you are not engaging in good faith with people affected by the issues you complain about. Perhaps some introspection about how you relate to others and whether or not you are speaking appropriately to abject strangers is in order?
oh that's a rly nifty feature, I can just highlight text and Tildes will auto-quote it for me. so helpful omfggggg~
Anyway, this comment rly spoke to me. I think it's essential to show that anyone can communicate in bad faith, and this divisive culture on the Internet is not one-sided. I think that's where I had some trouble empathising with OP; it sounds like there is nothing they did wrong, and it is very... disturbing, ig.
I do communicate in bad faith not just on the Internet but off the Internet too. I think my experience in more politically-active scenes on mainstream social media has given me 'brainrot' and such. I have treated the people I love the most in such a careless, narcissistic and borderline abusive way. It is a mind-breaking and despondent thing to realise that you are not only in the wrong, but have become the thing you hate and condemn. I'm trying to be better about this today, and a good thing I can do is just... listen and change.
I forget the problems we have today — aside from subjectivity and individual perspective — are intersectional and complex. There is no easy way to solve a genocide like the one in Palestine, there is also no way to solve racism, sexism, transphobia. There is no future where someone doesn't get hurt and you can save everyone. This line of reasoning is why people don't wish to try, staying in the now is more familiar. The future is uncertain, and painful. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
It is genuinely hard but not impossible to do this in a culture as egocentric, superpowered and individualistic as the US. Even on social media — you can dodge America's dominant influence on the WWW, but you can't exactly escape it unless you go to more niche areas. Kind of like Kensington Market in Canada and also more ethnic places like New York's "Chinatown".
Either way, I really like this sentence and what has been said. I try to do this, and it is rly alienating and isolating. One of the worst things to feel is an unspoken "you're not welcome" in a community you love and give towards because of being 'human'; forced to make a choice between the truly right thing and the ""right"" thing. Both political sides have done this, whether in-person or online.
I was really bitter towards this idea once as I was kicked out and ostracised in safe spaces, but as I grew up... I realised that the communities I was kicked out of (excepting the ones where I genuinely was an asshole, and that was the reason why) were run by people who were immature.
Safe spaces are, solemnly, absolutely necessary. I'm glad they exist and places like cohost and Mastodon instances exist too.
I don't know if this comment makes sense, but I wanted to provide a different perspective to this than just saying 'I agree'.
While we can't say for sure without better clarity from OP, I think there are some places, especially on the fediverse, where what the OP describes feels very fair. What I mean is there are feeds of federated content where every post is very polarizing, explicitly containing vehement views on the Middle East, anti-capitalism, political talking points, etc. And these are the primary feeds of these sites, not some out-of-the-way corner. Those parts of the internet are very different to comment on than Tildes, Instagram, etc., and are generally more stressful to interact with. OP may be thinking of that, but it also feels like they are tap dancing around something, so who knows?
I have a feeling a lot of people have gone into private servers. Often on Discord. The way I see it right now is the old internet used to be like public gathering with pseudonymous friends. The current internet is like a public space in real life. Except it's not the one that big social media firms want you to believe. It's not the idealistic "town square" where humanity gathers to exchange ideas and peace and harmony and singing Kumbaya and stuff.
It's a real world crowded public space in a big city. Everyone is a stranger. You keep your head a swivel. You watch out for pick pockets. You watch out for criminals. You don't just talk to anyone who approaches you have to be careful.
They wanted to digitize the world. To create a mirror world online without physical limitations. They succeeded. The real world is a dangerous place. And so that's how the internet is. The era of community internet is over.
I've tried to dive into those private servers but it was too much effort for me with little reward. There's cliques and social drama. People want to keep their own establish little circle of social milieu or whatever. You are the outsider and that's their purpose for you. It's nothing like the old internet that was primarily public spaces that anyone could get into once they understood the nature of the community.
Places like old internet is very few and far between anymore. My only suggestion is to find specific topics interest and find where those people are. The general internet (ie social media) is easiest for ideological pushers to proliferate their ideas to a wide audience. More specific topics of discussion aren't as appropriate for them to just spout off.
That doesn't mean there won't be users who hold bigoted beliefs in those places. It's just not appropriate topic of discussion. You cannot control what people hate. If the admins and moderators (or even users) of that place don't do anything about it if or when those people run their mouth then just leave.
I feel this is a problem not just with the Internet but with friend groups in general, or at least I've seen it too. People do this sort of nonsense all the time IRL, I think it's just that people have way less tolerant of it when people treat a real live person like that in front of them vs. seeing it said to someone online.
I like your description of online public spaces. Yes, the internet feels more like an actual public space now than in the early days when it felt like a group hangout.
Noah Smith published multiple interesting articles revolving around this theme. A good starting point might be The internet wants to be fragmented.
Having the community principle of "assume good faith" and having it actually carried out by the userbase with few exceptions goes a long way. Unlike my experiences on places like Reddit and Twitter, where comment threads often felt more like contests of wit and outrage rather than anything resembling an enriching discussion, I don't dread seeing the "new comment reply" when I see it on here, because I trust that I'm not about to get raged on or strawmanned.
As someone who's genuinely curious about the world and is always seeking to improve my own understanding of it, it has been maddening seeing the state of discourse on mainstream social media sites. Ignorance is not treated as an opportunity to learn, but a weakness to exploit. Even what might otherwise look like "just asking questions" was apparently turned into a trolling tactic, which is great news for someone like me who likes asking questions.
This all led me to becoming nothing more than a lurker for years, and while I still mostly lurk here, too, the much more charitable culture on Tildes has given me some confidence to chime in more often. I'm thankful that a place like Tildes exists now, and I'm thankful for all of you carrying out this culture every day.
Yeah, even in the circlejerks that I mentioned in another comment, you aren't going to get crucified for saying "maybe going all-in on getting all of America to use public transit every day within seven years is not our best option" the way you might on some subreddits. For the most part, everybody is civil and open to exchanging actual ideas.
What happened to the old internet? Money.
I have a friend that says, "If you want an answer to a question, post the question online then add an answer that you know is wrong. People that might not engage with the question will come out of the woodwork to list all the reasons why the answer is wrong."
I think outrage sells. Look at Fox News. They manufacture outrage, then feed it to the viewers. The viewers don't get upset and turn the TV off, they sit there and get more outraged. Here's a post talking about how Facebook priorizes outrage in your feed.
You're being baited. Companies are trying to get you upset because you'll stick around and argue more, and the longer you're there the more ads they can put in front of you.
Why is Tildes better? What's missing here? Ads. Does Tildes care about how much time you spend on the site? Probably not.
Money, as it does with all things, ruined the internet.
I think that one of the important things to realize about this "old web" that you're talking about is that it basically never really existed. These problems you perceive only seem so big because the social spaces on the web have been heavily consolidated over time. The web is not a monolith; it is a bunch of islands in a vast sea. Every "good" social space had moderation, and when people didn't like the moderation or people they'd just move on to another one. And then of course there were very lightly or completely unmoderated places, but those naturally pushed out a lot of good people and attracted trash.
The other thing about those small communities is that they were also a lot more social in nature; posting something to Reddit or Twitter is like sending letters into the void, where strangers will send you their reactions. Smaller groups are full of people you eventually get to actually know. There is a concept in sociology called Dunbar's Number which is basically the maximum number of people a person can hold social relationships with at once; it's commonly estimated to be around 150. Here on Tildes we have many times that number, but only a small portion of them post and an even smaller portion of them post regularly, so those types of relationships are still possible.
Tildes is not perfect, because when it comes to social groups there is no such thing as perfect. There are definitely a bunch of people who have been driven off of this site by the types of conversations that have happened here, and I sincerely miss some of them. We've also had people who have had to be suspended, and I think we've even had permanent banning. But the thing I like about Tildes in particular is that it has a "restoritive justice" like moderation policy; if you are causing problems, you'll be talked to rather than just punished. Punishments only come if you can't learn to behave yourself.
If you want the internet to be more permissive, then you will want to encourage more communities like Tildes or any other smaller site you like. If you want to do something difficult but worthwhile, you can try to start one of your own! Otherwise you can do what I do; abandon the big corporate sites and try to convince everyone you know of how bad they are.
The old web had a core user base of nerds and alternative folks. The commercialization of the internet, decreasing price of computers, and introduction of home broadband allowed your mom, your grandma, your racist uncle, your classmates from high school, and your 12-year old brother onto the web. Basically, normies killed the old web, since they had no concept of its etiquette.
My take.
I started using Twitter really early, I went to a conference put on at the New York Times where the organizers were quite shocked and maybe even a little offended that we were live tweeting the event because it could have been the first conference that was live tweeted.
By the end of 2016 I swore off social media and deleted most of my accounts. For me LinkedIn in particular had an almost demonic element because I'd spent a lot of time on it trying to develop a business and instead it had brought in an endless stream of losers, grifters, rip-off artists, bullshit artists and salespeople who couldn't sell and I was staring into the abyss of financial ruin.
When Twitter went into the crapper a year ago I was inspired to finish a project that I'd been thinking about since about 2004, about building an intelligent RSS reader that used machine learning to do content-based recommendation, something quite different than the "collaborative filtering" approach most commonly used in recommenders. Technically it came together really well so I had social media revolution on my mind.
A few months later there was the panic at Reddit and a lot of ferment around things like Threads and Bluesky and I thought about it and got involved in Mastodon and also Tildes.
Immediately I noticed Mastodon was a lot nastier in 2023 than Twitter ever was for me. Right away I had people talking to me in dehumanizing language simply because I wrote a reply (now they'll say I'm a "reply guy") and saw quite a people who just totally "lost it" from comments that were really innocuous. (After a few orders of magnitude more area under my followers × dPost curve I did have somebody blow up at me on Twitter back in day... but that one really was my fault)
Then there were the people who saw "fascists" under every bed just like the John Birch Society saw communists back in the 60's. (I half expected to hear something like "Joe Biden is rich, white, old, male and cis... what a fascist")
I was thinking about quitting but I decided to give it another go so I got very systematic about blocking keywords (the f-word, "republican", "DeSantis", ...) and blocking negative individuals, particularly people who post angry image memes.
After a while I wasn't bothered anymore and in fact I discovered there was quite a "silent majority" of people on Mastodon who avoid all that polarized crap and now I enjoy hanging out with them.
Nowadays whenever I hear somebody say the word 'censorship' I kind of feel like I'm about to get into a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness who just has a bent world view. I'm fascinated with the idea of this book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action
where Habermas develops this idea that we could build some kind of communication process where people would really respect what other people have to say and everyone would seem heard but it seems so unrealistic to me in 2023. We've had so many spams, scams, scams that get spammed, influence operations (Russia funds right wing organizations today the same way they funded left wing organizations in the early 1920s) and other forms of disingenuous communication that it's tempting to say "delete them all and let God sort them out".
My RSS reader YOShInOn downloads maybe 6000 articles and picks out 300 to show me so I am seeing the top 5%, I just don't have the time or energy to see everything, in fact a lot of what is out there will wreck my equanimity. (My wife hates it when I get upset because of some interaction I saw on social media) Really there are 1000x more messages about any topic than people are able to receive and the default has to be "the message is not transmitted" because for every message you can receive there are astronomically more messages you can't receive.
If speech is "free" it is free like a puppy in that every message crowds out other messages, particularly when messages are repeated in time and space. 150 years ago in the US or Europe if you had something to say you raised some funds and started a newspaper, today people feel entitled to have a megaphone.
I curate my social media feeds, and I still see such negative comments every so often. For example, someone called a content creator a race traitor on her birthday cake video. Anyone could post the most innocuous thing online and get dragged into something ugly. So I understand how you might be afraid of getting your head bitten off when all you wanted to do was participate in the discourse. I guess being chronically online makes people forget that they can ask for clarification before they make a judgement.
I mostly follow creators on YouTube and IG. The even-handed ones tend to have a respectful community. Maybe start there? Some people also stream live chats and hangouts on their Patreon.
As for real life -- well, living is political so there's not much advice I can give other than try to hang out with emotionally intelligent folks who can tell when it's appropriate to bring up those topics. 😅 I have family and friends who are addicted to TikTok, but they don't just repeat everything that they hear.
Just post whatever it is you're feeling and let the comments go at it, if you feel like you do. Have a conversation about whatever it is in the comments. Discussion from all sides was what the internet usually amounted to "back in the day" when you posted much of anything.
Best way that we had in the "old internet" was people posting comments or IMing/emailing you about something you posted. Or if you were on IRC, you could get some real time (probably not politically correct these days) feedback about your opinion in real time.
People are faster to jump on you more recently if you deviate from accepted norms that are put forth as accepted consensual reality, but I guess that's all relative depending on the circles you run in, or post in.
Or maybe it's more platform-ized in terms of who and what gets responded to, and the tone and nature of the response. I dunno. I don't have social media outside of Tildes.
I'm just some random internet person and I'm happy to keep it that way these days.