I like the perspective, yet I would like to add that 1990s Internet wasn't nearly as monetized as it is now. Therefore the incentive to keep people on websites (and algorithms rewarding disagreement - see Jaron Lanier's arguments on social media) wasn't as high. Yes, that means more visibility as already pointed out, but also that parts of the Internet have been actively designed to be worse!
I was not on any political newsgroups in the '90s but I was on Usenet. Google Groups used to support Usenet (sunset February 2024) and about five or six years ago, I went searching for myself and hoo boy, the CRINGE of my posts. I was so young.
Great piece of reporting and insights. We do a lot of social listening/monitoring at work and use an AI tool. What’s interesting is not the positive or negative sentiment we uncover but the neutral. The listening platforms are terrible at picking up sarcasm, for example, so it often ends up as “neutral.” I think the death of a thousand cuts comes from that squishy middle, the tiring back-and-forth of it all.
One thing the reporting and study bears out is that (looks around room) most of us probably just move on with our lives. And AI isn’t (yet!) telepathic; it’s never going to tell us what we think or feel afterward, unless you’re part of a motivated base, then you’re probably running hot a lot.
This is so counterintuitive and wonderfully hopeful. Thank you. Yes, we can raise the level of discourse! Yes, communities can develop and enforce standards of comportment while still promoting and supporting the free exchange of thought and ideas. Yay!
I have to wonder, however, if some context to understanding the language used three decades ago (by Italian researchers, no less!) isn't missing. Calling someone "retarded" didn't carry the heft of damage in 1997 that it does in 2024.
I like the perspective, yet I would like to add that 1990s Internet wasn't nearly as monetized as it is now. Therefore the incentive to keep people on websites (and algorithms rewarding disagreement - see Jaron Lanier's arguments on social media) wasn't as high. Yes, that means more visibility as already pointed out, but also that parts of the Internet have been actively designed to be worse!
I was not on any political newsgroups in the '90s but I was on Usenet. Google Groups used to support Usenet (sunset February 2024) and about five or six years ago, I went searching for myself and hoo boy, the CRINGE of my posts. I was so young.
Great piece of reporting and insights. We do a lot of social listening/monitoring at work and use an AI tool. What’s interesting is not the positive or negative sentiment we uncover but the neutral. The listening platforms are terrible at picking up sarcasm, for example, so it often ends up as “neutral.” I think the death of a thousand cuts comes from that squishy middle, the tiring back-and-forth of it all.
One thing the reporting and study bears out is that (looks around room) most of us probably just move on with our lives. And AI isn’t (yet!) telepathic; it’s never going to tell us what we think or feel afterward, unless you’re part of a motivated base, then you’re probably running hot a lot.
Fantastic! I wonder what this study would say about Substack? Are we deluding ourselves that it’s this happy place?
This is so counterintuitive and wonderfully hopeful. Thank you. Yes, we can raise the level of discourse! Yes, communities can develop and enforce standards of comportment while still promoting and supporting the free exchange of thought and ideas. Yay!
I have to wonder, however, if some context to understanding the language used three decades ago (by Italian researchers, no less!) isn't missing. Calling someone "retarded" didn't carry the heft of damage in 1997 that it does in 2024.