- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
Most online debate is actively harmful to our thinking. Every hour spent arguing on Twitter is an hour we could have spent reading a book, writing an essay, or having a genuine discussion in a better environment.
The Internet promised us a marketplace of ideas. Instead, we built a gladiatorial arena where ideas go to die—time to find better places to think.
I don’t use Twitter I but have discussions on Lemmy pretty frequently. Obviously, you don’t always find a compromise but there were occasions where someone else convinced me of their point of view and vice versa. In the other cases, at the very least, it often helps me to get a new perspective on a topic.
While I consider myself pretty left leaning, back on Reddit I also frequently read in the conservative subs. Just to get a more holistic picture of their world. I still disagree with the vast majority of that but I found it helpful to learn their standpoints rather than just demonizing the whole bubble.
I think discussion is good and important - at least as long as both sides are respectful and open enough.
The author identifies 4 things that ruin it
None of which really apply to reddit/lemmy/etc.
I’ve always felt that systems like what we have here are better and it’s good to see someone clearly articulate why (indirectly, by pointing out fundamental problems with Elsewhere).