Damn this couldn't have come at a better time for me. I've been thinking a lot over the past months how it used to be that when you disagreed with someone, you'd still have something shared with them. Not quite the same as the social media aspect, but when TV was all broadcast on a few channels, you'd probably find a show in common. When the only news was national newspapers and broadcasters, you might both be reading the same paper but disagreeing on the articles. My thinking was going down the lines of "this meant everyone had a shared truth" which is kind of like the social media bubble that the research seems to disagree with, but also down the lines of "this meant everyone had, to an extent, a shared identity" at least within a large group like a country, linguistic or ethnic subdivision.

There was something special about the old internet. The idea that the acrimonious disagreements might have been less bitter due to their nature is tantalising. There's also something to bear in mind for Lemmy: the old internet, as much as the interest groups it spawned, was united by a shared interest in the internet specifically - and technology in general. The internet wasn't as necessary and ubiquitous, so most people there had to have some other motivation to be on it. That itself was a shared interest that allowed people to find commonality. Lemmy is the same: people here are a subsection of the internet, brought here because they're drawn to openness not provided by unfederated platforms. That is its own commanlity, and it won't exist if Lemmy outgrows those other platforms.

You're a {slur} for believing such {op's source}.
Real {imagined good guys group} like me know the truth and we're better than {punching bag other group}.
{slur} {slur}!
Others are always in bad faith, but not us, duh.

At least that's how it looks like looking at the reports I get.
So many people talk at each other rather than taking to each other.

entities with interest want to sway public opinion for their own goals. they'll play the "us VS them" card, and its super effective.

Nowadays? Was it not divided when some were forced to drink from different fountains? Was it not divided with literal slavery? Civil War? Only wealthy landowners making all decisions? Only the clergy had ability to read?

Which period wasn't so divided? Since apparently it is nowadays?

The demographics of the internet users have changed over time. At the beginning it was researchers, then graduate students, then normal University students. Then the affluent civilians, then the metropolitan civilians, then everyone.

Each of those demographic changes, includes a shift in the average discourse. The way researchers disagree with each other heatedly is going to be different than the way the common person disagrees with other people.

I would argue the state of the internet discourse, is a commentary on the state of direct democratic discourse. Many people are simply not equipped to have a constructive debate.

Of course the algorithms in their pursuit of engagement, just magnify this effect ensuring that the most outrageous of commenters get seen by the most people.

Rising prices, stagnant wages, impossibility to own a house, governments run by idiots who only listen to the richest assholes. Is it really any wonder why people are pissed?

Some valid points, but then they haven't offered any solutions and promoted the same platforms who use algorithms that are the cause of the problem by their own research.

For some people, all semblance of rationality and respect for others disappears once they realise they're anonymous and behind a screen, causing topics with nuance and complexity which deserve to be debated and discussed properly, to be reduced into morally black and white issues. Instead of making any logical arguments, groups of people will just say "If you disagree, you suck" and so it spirals.

Piped link

https://piped.video/watch?v=fuFlMtZmvY0

What the old internet did was keep your interests partitioned. You could be a well respected Pokemon fan while at the same time being a beloved member of a local white supremacist group. Without the partitioning people are more likely to allow themselves to be seen as who they are as a whole. By social media enveloping multiple interests and people not wanting to maintain a separate identity for each interest, you get people who share a great recipe but are known to be a huge misogynist. Call me crazy, but I'd rather know more about the person I'm getting information from. What they do beyond a shared interest informs me as to how trustworthy they are a person and whether I want to support them and be associated with them.

Repartitioning the internet is not a solution. I keep seeing it touted as the rose-colored glasses nostalgia that it is. This example is no different. I feel it all boils down to wanting everyone to sit around their own campfires where they can sing kumbaya together while ignoring the ones who are wanting to strip others of their rights. The history of humanity is our steady stripping away these partitions, not putting them up.

This video is highly recommended by Tournesol community:
[54🌻] Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell: The Internet is Worse Than Ever – Now What?

#Tournesol is an open-source web tool made by a non profit organization, evaluating the overall quality of videos to fight against misinformation and dangerous content.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/watch?v=fuFlMtZmvY0

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.