I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I love bicycling. It's my main transport mode. I ride basically every day--thousands of miles a year. But when I see bike themed web forums, I'm struck by how differently (how much more obsessively) those people discuss bicycling. They know so much more about models, components, accessories, etc. I wonder, which of us actually spends the most time in the saddle?
this is so spot on! and i guess when it comes to politics, this tendency is supercharged in two ways...
1. the regular feedback loop where the more insane the community becomes, the more normal ppl leave and that just contirbutes to ever more insane discourse.
2. thanks to geographical sorting and everything, it is increasingly likely that the only exposure you get to the other side of politics is online - which means you *think* other side is way more insane than the it actually is - and that will create the permission structure to drive your side of politics even more insane to "match the energy"
And i think the confluence of 1 & 2 are, myself included, ppl who lack the emotional intelligence to imagine "huh maybe evertyhing I know about the other side could be very biased and the other side of ppl are actually not the evil monsters I imagine them to be" - and at this point, it is a bit of self perpetuating prophecy...
Reddit recently introduced an automatic “top 1% commenter” tag on people’s accounts and it’s been so illuminating. I normally don’t pay attention to usernames but for some reason this has made me realize that the comments are often driven by a few people who comment obsessively, multiple times in every single thread on a subreddit.
If I could apply one rule and only one rule to all social media that have a timeline feed, it would be that the service must provide a non-algorithmic TL setting. When applied, you only get content that was either posted by people you follow or content has been directly reposted by someone you follow. That's it; nothing else. That would be a huge improvement. It would make Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc so much better for everyone who doesn't want algorithmic TLs.
So does this mean that the creators who feel pressured to change plotlines based on feedback from their insane fanbases are catering to a tiny minority of viewers? But the superfans are the ones shaping the online conversations that everybody sees, so they might really have an outsized effect on the perception of your project. Ugh. What a terrible dynamic.
You touched on this, but it is also important to note, that these power users define the culture around the subject. The lurkers do not post, nevertheless they read and will accept the consensus presented to them. These communities often develop a certain consensus opinions, which are then repeated.
This might be relatively harmless, when it comes to things like video game fandoms, where the opinions of a few influential posters can determine how entire franchises are viewed, but in other areas it is more harmful. People look for all kind of things online, what jobs they might find suitable, what politics are correct, how to treat health problems, etc. and then are presented with information where a large population has a very clear consensus. This makes the information incredibly convincing. But the actual information is based on the opinions of a few people, who are almost always heavily invested in the subject and managed to define the consensus.
At the risk of sounding weird, I want to inject this into my brain and everyone else's, "The important thing to realize, as you look at the astonishing amount of parasociality that some people are capable of, is that this is not really all that unusual. Most of the people you meet online are freaks."
I work in marketing comms for public policy and advocacy. Many of the X "personalities" are so weird in-person.
And, a great many "policy researchers" and lawyers basically post all...day...long. So they....post about marriage and the family, hard work, merit, etc.
Perhaps it is cope (ok, fine), but I don't want to be so obsessed with natalism, France, antisemitism, whatever that it is all I do all day. I want friends, to decorate my home, go to the gym, etc.
I don't want to be such a freak that I become known as the "France antisemitism queen of X."
I get this. I did a looooooooong thread about Hasan Piker last week on X. And I've basically forced myself, at the cost of great annoyance, to just not comment on him again for at least a month. He's always popping up, but I do not want to become The Guy Who Always Talks About Hasan. I had something to say, I said it, now I'm done. I will be normal and post other stuff.
I’m guessing Substack, The Free Press, The Dispatch, etc., commenters fall into the same 90-9-1 distribution. People who like to argue/discuss with strangers online. 🤷♀️
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I love bicycling. It's my main transport mode. I ride basically every day--thousands of miles a year. But when I see bike themed web forums, I'm struck by how differently (how much more obsessively) those people discuss bicycling. They know so much more about models, components, accessories, etc. I wonder, which of us actually spends the most time in the saddle?
this is so spot on! and i guess when it comes to politics, this tendency is supercharged in two ways...
1. the regular feedback loop where the more insane the community becomes, the more normal ppl leave and that just contirbutes to ever more insane discourse.
2. thanks to geographical sorting and everything, it is increasingly likely that the only exposure you get to the other side of politics is online - which means you *think* other side is way more insane than the it actually is - and that will create the permission structure to drive your side of politics even more insane to "match the energy"
And i think the confluence of 1 & 2 are, myself included, ppl who lack the emotional intelligence to imagine "huh maybe evertyhing I know about the other side could be very biased and the other side of ppl are actually not the evil monsters I imagine them to be" - and at this point, it is a bit of self perpetuating prophecy...
Reddit recently introduced an automatic “top 1% commenter” tag on people’s accounts and it’s been so illuminating. I normally don’t pay attention to usernames but for some reason this has made me realize that the comments are often driven by a few people who comment obsessively, multiple times in every single thread on a subreddit.
Agreed 100%. I was excited for the idea of online discourse, but I found out quickly that I was almost never talking to *normal* people.
If I could apply one rule and only one rule to all social media that have a timeline feed, it would be that the service must provide a non-algorithmic TL setting. When applied, you only get content that was either posted by people you follow or content has been directly reposted by someone you follow. That's it; nothing else. That would be a huge improvement. It would make Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc so much better for everyone who doesn't want algorithmic TLs.
So does this mean that the creators who feel pressured to change plotlines based on feedback from their insane fanbases are catering to a tiny minority of viewers? But the superfans are the ones shaping the online conversations that everybody sees, so they might really have an outsized effect on the perception of your project. Ugh. What a terrible dynamic.
You touched on this, but it is also important to note, that these power users define the culture around the subject. The lurkers do not post, nevertheless they read and will accept the consensus presented to them. These communities often develop a certain consensus opinions, which are then repeated.
This might be relatively harmless, when it comes to things like video game fandoms, where the opinions of a few influential posters can determine how entire franchises are viewed, but in other areas it is more harmful. People look for all kind of things online, what jobs they might find suitable, what politics are correct, how to treat health problems, etc. and then are presented with information where a large population has a very clear consensus. This makes the information incredibly convincing. But the actual information is based on the opinions of a few people, who are almost always heavily invested in the subject and managed to define the consensus.
This is a great piece!!
Agree 💯
At the risk of sounding weird, I want to inject this into my brain and everyone else's, "The important thing to realize, as you look at the astonishing amount of parasociality that some people are capable of, is that this is not really all that unusual. Most of the people you meet online are freaks."
I work in marketing comms for public policy and advocacy. Many of the X "personalities" are so weird in-person.
And, a great many "policy researchers" and lawyers basically post all...day...long. So they....post about marriage and the family, hard work, merit, etc.
Perhaps it is cope (ok, fine), but I don't want to be so obsessed with natalism, France, antisemitism, whatever that it is all I do all day. I want friends, to decorate my home, go to the gym, etc.
I don't want to be such a freak that I become known as the "France antisemitism queen of X."
I get this. I did a looooooooong thread about Hasan Piker last week on X. And I've basically forced myself, at the cost of great annoyance, to just not comment on him again for at least a month. He's always popping up, but I do not want to become The Guy Who Always Talks About Hasan. I had something to say, I said it, now I'm done. I will be normal and post other stuff.
Greetings from the 9%. A freak, but uncommitted
I’m guessing Substack, The Free Press, The Dispatch, etc., commenters fall into the same 90-9-1 distribution. People who like to argue/discuss with strangers online. 🤷♀️
Love reading this. Really makes you think ...