(untitled)

Why are people so fragile and aggressive at the internet the last 10+ years?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

At or on? There are things to hate about the internet, but most seem to just hate the patriarchy or something and do it ON the internet. I've developed a love/hate relationship to the web. I wasted my teens and twenties on it. I like content creators, corny sites like on Geocities. I used to use Gaia Online, Club Penguin, Newgrounds, that sort of thing. I grew up on 4chan, I got really into music albums and films and got all kinds of cool recommendations by the biggest hipsters in the world. But I miss the 90s. People used to actually talk to each other. You can talk further in depth on the internet in a way, but the in-person social connection is a necessary thing, at least periodically. I got into coding, so now I'm becoming one with the internet. My life has been very much defined by the internet. But yeah, social media and stuff makes people angry, if that's what you mean. It's bi-partisan and provides targets for the aggression. Easier to troll when there's no consequences, as well.

>>34167 Oversocialization because of social media. The social media algorithms also create echo chambers for different groups (who use social media). This makes everyone look more inwards and less open for honest discussion of topics (which requires that you listen people who have different opinion than you and you need to have the ability to also agree to disagree with someone in a civil way).

>>34169 >social media and stuff makes people angry, if that's what you mean. It's bi-partisan and provides targets for the aggression. Easier to troll when there's no consequences, as well. Yeah, I talk about acting like assholes for no reason >But I miss the 90s. People used to actually talk to each other. You can talk further in depth on the internet in a way, but the in-person social connection is a necessary thing, at least periodically. That's the thing I also miss about pre-2010 internet. Even with disagreements, flame wars and silly dramas, there were still proper conversations instead of crap like "Lol! Kill yourself glitterboy!" spamming all the time.

>>34170 Social media hasn't created the echo-chambers in the way you're speaking of them. Think to before the internet/mass media - you either took on the fundamental beliefs of your home town or you were ostracized. There have been and are multiple examples of more significant 'echo chambers' in society. The internet has made it possible for people who wouldn't have been exposed to other sets of ideas to see these ideas. It has made it so that the people you see in these 'echo-chambers' have chosen to be a part of them. Let alone that non 'civil' discussions are made more public because they are a general anomaly and because they generate more of a spectacle for onlookers (through voluntary sharing), and the internet has just made it so that echo chambers and extreme views are more visible to the average person, not more common. If I look across a corn field, trying to count how many, say, dogs are in the field, cutting down all the corn makes the dogs more visible, it doesn't increase the number. Terrible analogy, but just to get the point across here for that last thing I said.

maybe all these arguments were discovered to be nearly ineffective, the adversaries in them unable to be pursuaded by logical arguments, due to more basic disagreements, and so the more economic strategy of 'KILL YOURSELF, glitterboy' is popular because it is optimal.

censorship creates bubbles. people sit in their bubble banning opposition then get cozy sitting among yes men, then go outside and sperg out when suddenly opposition occurs again or when someone of the opposition pops his head in before getting derezzed. The other thing is i genuinely believe internet simply got too easy to use which allowed more morons to participate online. I would bet first years on internet were best because only nerds smart enough to jump through all the hurdles could go online.

I got a few theories. Most fundamentally it's arisen from confusion of information as well as discomfort in most people having an inflamed body and unconsciously expressing that discomfort. The internet's anonymous side has also got a fair bit of propaganda born from 4chan and such inspired depictions as a dangerous wild west. ShiIIs and bots tend to resort to derailing discourse such as ad hominem attacks and the culture further still seeks to get normal users to adopt such attitudes in order to be cover for this low level behavior. The most popular sites tend to be dopamine machines and the effort of interaction delays and builds the reward, furthering negative behavior. Politically we are primed to appeal to emotion and violent grandstanding has become the status quo in order to prevent normal people from having constructive conversation, and this approach leaks to other non-political discourse. Our education system also grooms us to be non-intellectual thus making the effort to interact on such a level frustrating. Stuff like that, death of a 1000 cuts that kills productive, friendly discourse. I'm inclined to think anything that will be mentioned in this thread is a valid take to some degree as well.

In a prisoner's dilemma, there are only two options: to exploit or to cooperate. In a prisoner's dilemma, everyone is an enemy to be exploited until their long-term usefulness outweighs the gain of momentary exploitation, which makes them an ally instead. In a everyone versus everyone war, being in a big ally formation - a tribe - is a safer way for the individual to exploit other tribeless individual or a weaker tribe. Considering all of those outside of one's tribe are enemies until proven useful and the population scale, most people one meets both irl and online nowadays are enemies. It is naturally safer to cooperate irl due to the complexity and average longevity of relationships, on the web, however, everyone's far more inclined to attack due to the anonymity and superficiality of the online bonds as well as ease of becoming a member of a new tribe. The weak of the irl, being weak, have grown used to getting exploited, considering people develop their social strategies as they grow, the weak thus have learned to exploit others themselves, since thinner chance of others cooperating with them made exploiting others statistically more profitable. Irl they fuarrrking suck so no one cares, but internet is different, it is detached. The weak simply play it naturally to how they've learned it - exploiting others. By interacting with other people online, they are poisoning the space around them by introducing greater chance for one to get exploited. Taking into account that we, once again, learn to play efficiently in a space we're being exposed to, that successful exploitation is always more profitable than successful cooperation and the afformentioned anonymity and superficiality of the web leave no strong options for defence against pests exploiting others, the kids raised by the internet have been and will continue to grow increasingly more violent by the day, generation by generation; and the best part about it - those are irl people doing irl stuff, too. And *the* best part? We're efficient. Should the internet keep raising kids furthermore, it will all become a slaughterhouse soon; a festering tumor of neurosis decomposing the minds of millions will fuel the world war of all versus all, a war of sheer terror of being. The chaos spreads, welcome it.

>>34182 I've writing this for too long being half awake, so it has kind of became a little bit incomprehensible, sorry.

The answer is and always will be brain damage at the core.

>>34182 Only thing I disagree with is your implication that this is limited to the internet and not all of humanity.

>>34195 You can say its present both irl and online but there is a trend that its more online simply because online you are more often operating in low repercussion places. Any community that doesn't give benefits based on your reputation is a community you can drop or swap to a new account so the incentive to uphold reputation is low to nonexistent since you can comfortably reset. Another example is the microcosm of online-games. The pattern repeats itself here with how people behave in guilds (fixed group) vs random matchmaking groups (endless supply of new faces who don't know your past deeds). The last point i would make is IRL a person can get violent with you. So you cant monkey around as much as IRL where you will behave to avoid a fight. What i also noticed related to this is the spergs online often admit getting bullied irl in school. It does look a bit like the previous posters theory of irl losers getting back at other people online.

Simple, cuise progressive Culture has made some people expect overly-high standards of treatment when they're talking.

>>34167 When have people not been aggressive on the internet? As far as I remember, and I’ve been on the wired since 2004 at the least, the internet was always a place that brought out peoples cruelest and most sadistic impulses. I’m not just talking about beheadings and animal crush videos, but just the general trend of tearing people down, picking on them, vicious gatekeeping and sick exploitation. Why is the internet today full of culture wars soykaf? Well, you can thank American garbage political culture for that. Well that and the rise of social media, which isn’t anonymous or pseudo-anonymous, has led to this virtue signalling culture where everyone is puffing up their chest and trying to collect as many likes as possible.

You can also blame the consolidation that started in the early 10s. Small forums closing down and moving to Reddit, IRCs switching to Discord, etc. This meant that having influence over a service's administration gave you immense power over the internet, allowing you to sway public opinion in any way you like. Then there's the oppression racket that started around this same time. That gave sociopaths a new way to infiltrate administrations: just claim to be marginalized in some way to elicit sympathy, bring up some (non|barely)-existent bigotry problem in a community, leverage it to get whatever you want out of them, and if anyone has a problem with you then call them the appropriate -ist or -phobe until they're derezzed. This had the effect of pushing people toward genuine bigotry, which only helps the whiners as it makes their boogeyman real.

>>34901 At least in my corner the problem started with ISP laws. And self hosting putting you in danger of getting raided and all electronics stolen by cops. I have no clue who lobbied for this - likely the people who benefited building monopolies but i can say gov beating down private people caused people to stop running their own servers.

>>34915 The internet kinda is like kicking dead whales down the beach now, the tech elite want us to have to have everything on their servers rather than have it on our own storage devices.

>>34167 There's some good response in this thread, but for my money the biggest is the intentional bot campaigns designed to swing public favor. I would've hoped the openness of bots like Chat-GPT3 would've made this more obvious, but I suppose that was expecting to much. It goes something like this: >Be Russia, hate the USA >Design bots to make people angry at each other >If keyword = met, reply "trannies" >Copy/paste all over the internet, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, etc. >Everyone now thinks everyone else is a horrible human being who believes stupid bullshit and unable to hear counterarguments >Bots are mimicking people who actually think like this, but make the problem seem much worse than it actually is Such an example was obvious back in 2016, and it's only become easier to do these days. Now copy/paste that strategy with China/Middle East/whoever else doesn't like your country. The internet was a mistake.

>>34940 >the evil commies did it! nah, primary enemy is your own gov using divide et impera to retain control which includes destroying any clusters of resistance way back like 5+ years 4chan had a fed post with badge&timestamp saying "since we cant control you we will have to destroy you", i didn't take it seriously back then but now you can find various institutions work on it in public more or less

>>34940 Its not the internets fault that people are incapable of forming intelligent conclusions about situations and prefer to jump to conclusions and cause drama. So what if it was made with gpt3, if the same thing were written by a human, would it make a difference. The problem with the internet is not the internet but the fact that people think it an all knowing oracle that will solve their problems for them. This hyper social short sighted mass hysteria was around even before the internet, the internet just brought it out in people. Information is a two way street, it can influence people, but people can chose to react to it in different ways and ultimately synergize. Again look at the clusterfuck that is politics, it was a greasy ceaspool of corruption even before the internet, the issue is with how in the open it is all know but people still just cant see how much more crap they contribute to the burning soykafheap that is modern day society. >>34942 Its all and any governments, this is the dichtochomy of people and their controllers. The nature of government is that it will always exploit and control everything regardless of rules and regulations, it will always do more. The ablity for them to put their filthy claws into people is opened by the peoples lazyness, weakness and stupidity, thinking that someone else will fix it for them and that everyone else is there to serve them. It it the peoples fault for having put themselfs in a situation where they are dependent on them and actually support their opressors, thinking any one of them is on their side and not just like with everyone else, everyone wants to do things for their own benefit and larps as saviours. Humanity and the earth are a sick filthy pest ridden ball of trash who keep soykafting in their own mouths and love it. Everyone knows things arent right, but nobody cares, people do not have the government they need but the one they deserve. I dont blame klaus schwab and co for doing all this crap knowing full well how people are, they are just like their leaders, everyone wants to be on top, noboody wants to rock the boat or they might not get their chance to soykaf down on someone else for once.

I think the most terminally online people are also the most unhappy, and use the Wired as a sort of venting ground, which kind of soykafs it up for everyone else. That's why people are so needlessly hostile, it's frustration at IRL stuff re-directed.

>>34943 The public is retarded as a consequence of the rulers will to retain power by keeping the voting masses stupid. Such musings were already done by ancient greeks regarding democracies but its pointless and leads nowhere. To add something more constructive what we need is filters, if we filter content automated just as they spam automated then they will either be forced to have bots post constructively or remain hidden from our sight alongside with human useless posts. We could even use the same models to filter. This would bring quality back regardless of how much noise they can generate.

>>34167 depends on what you're referring to by "fragile and aggressive". There is alot of what we can talk about, but, it's mostly how the internet gives you a distorted view of the world and this "point of view" is made with your personal traits and tastes. When Europeans colonized other countries, and found out that there's other skin tones, they we're shocked since their social point of view of the body was totally different, equal and just like them. What the corporative internet does is, exagerate filters and fit for your tastes to create this little world of yours. Filter isn't bad, but use too much of it and you create delusions. These things makes people more vulneranle, because they are comfortable and everytime they see something different and out of their patterns ofnwhat is society, they go crazy. This is the primitive and intelectual side or our brain speaking at the same time. We are animals. (Also, this isn't the only problem because there is ALOT that cooperates for this kind of societal behavior).

>>34942 >primary enemy is your own gov using divide et impera to retain control which includes destroying any clusters of resistance Foreign governments have an interested in subverting other governments. Bots are useful for this. Yes, governments can also do it to their own people, they are not mutually exclusive. This is should be common sense.

>>34949 Subversion is accomplished by fostering existing domestic groups into movements that can overthrow. Its not only cheaper but also gives a layer of legitimacy since it puts natives at the front. That's why it doesn't make sense for foreign governments to attack your local nonconformists. They have a good reason to use bots to spread their ideas but there is no reason for them to destroy boards.

>>34958 I think you're confusing certain activities of one group with another. There are multiple government agencies (amongst others) using bots to accomplish different objectives. My original example of that of Russia with the 2016 US presidential election, where Russia specifically pitted BLM and conservative leaning racist groups against one another by using fake accounts on social media. Suddenly people started to think BLM was an anarchist group and cops were all KKK members, this tension was pushed to the extreme for a while until we saw the riots in 2020. This falls into subversion. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this has been known, public information for a long time and is why it's such a good example, but many other cases exist. Likewise, the USA government could've seen the growing alt right movement as concerning, and would want to do something about that. As such, perhaps they use bots to spam the image boards associated with that with meaningless messages in hopes that people lose interest. Same tool used by two different organizations with two different goals. My overall point was that a significant chunk of internet content, depending on where you are, is bot generated propaganda.