You Will Never Win an Argument On the Internet—Here's Why
www.joanwestenberg.com
The Internet promised us a renaissance of discourse. Armed with instant access to all human knowledge and the ability to connect with brilliant minds worldwide, we imagined our online debates would elevate human understanding to unprecedented heights.  But two decades later, we scroll through our choice of social poison, watching

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.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    8·
    5 days ago

    Every platform’s algorithm rewards conflict over clarity, dunks over discourse, and pithy dismissals over patient exploration of ideas. A thoughtful thread exploring the nuances of monetary policy might get a few polite likes. A savage quote-tweet demolishing a bad take? That’s engagement gold.

    It’s framed as that this is about the whole internet, but seems like they are mostly talking about Twitter culture.

    • Rimu@piefed.socialOPEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      Mostly, although I think it applies more broadly to varying degrees. Even to Mastodon (although without the Algorithmic amplification aspect).

  • rbn
    7·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Rimu@piefed.socialOPEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      The author identifies 4 things that ruin it

      • Character limits force complex ideas into oversimplified snippets
      • [bad]Threading mechanisms make it easy to miss context and talk past each other
      • Like/retweet mechanics reward zingers over nuance
      • Notification systems interrupt deep thought with constant micro-distractions
      • Algorithmic amplification ensures the most inflammatory takes rise to the top

      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).

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    5 days ago

    I guess the fediverse isn’t the internet? Around here I frequently admit to being wrong and acknowledge when someone has a point, so I can confirm some people are winning arguments around here.

    My idea of winning an argument is (usually) turning a disagreement into a valuable conversation. The twitter/bsky thing is too short form to have ever made that feel like that was possible. The medium is the message.

    • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      Yeah, the audience is smaller and also scientifically minded. If someone admits to being wrong, that’s often seen as character strength. But I guess, also just having a higher education allows you to not feel attacked in your whole self-worth, if you’re occasionally wrong.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    4·
    5 days ago

    I still enter online debates with the mindset of “show me the correct data, I’ll change my opinion” but apparently that in and of itself is rare, so…