In real life, only a few people hear what you say but they feel socially obligated to react in some way. So you get bland, polite reactions. They're the people that, if they'd seen your post on social media, wouldn't have replied at all.

In a nutshell: on social media, you broadcast to a huge potential audience, and your actual audience chooses you. In real life, your ideas only get to a small number of people who may not have chosen to listen to you. The interest levels of these two audiences are naturally very different.

That's either wildly optimistic, or most people spend a lot more time building up their online persona than I do.

maybe dang could give us an idea about the average number of views related to number of comments and votes.

is it 10 to one? 100 to 1? is it a similar factor for most stories? actually, i don't think it's linear because higher upvoted stories have a higher likelihood of being read because some of us use tools to only see stories with a high vote threshold

> In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website add content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk.

good idea to only do it after discussion is closed.

Facebook and Instagram, not so much unless one does exactly like you say, building a following.

Not all online communities are social media. The key feature of social media is that you chose WHO to follow instead of WHAT to follow. That's the part that makes it "social", because you create a graph of social connections as a fundamental part of being a user of the site. This is, not incidentally, what makes social media extremely attractive to advertisers.

For me Reddit, HN and TikTok are all social media.

And I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media supports my view at least in part, of these sites as such:

> Social media are interactive digital channels that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks.

Check.

> Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.

Yes I think so.

> User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media.

Definitely true of all three.

> Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social media organization.

Check.

> Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.

Also true IMO.

You can see the impression count on Twitter, and typically it's much, much greater than the number of replies or other interactions.

There is a vast chasm of difference between online micro-communities (eg, I'm a regular in a couple Twitch channels with 10-20 viewers) and the average large subreddit, and this is one key reason why.

For example, if I'm just chatting with someone at the park, I don't expect them to welcome a serious critique of views they espouse.

But if I've known that person for a long time, and we're invested in each other, then I'm more likely to challenge or at least discuss touchy matters.

Internet discussions, depending on the forum, tend to be somewhere in the middle. Being in a particular forum signals that people want to discuss certain topics. And anonymity allows a certain boldness, but it also means greater risk of being misunderstood or being treated uncharitably.

It goes from "I'm talking to a person" to "I'm responding to brabel". In a physical conversation it's impossible to achieve the same level of "dehumanization" because you're staring at the person.

That's my Sunday couch quarterback explanation.

More like you are responding to a graffiti he has left on this website. Just like people draw (often stupid) messages on the walls of public toilets.

Reading online is like reading in a book: You can learn a lot, on topics where you’d need to travel 1000km to find the first expert.

Unfortunately, writing online isn’t made with the same dedication as writing a book: We don’t spend time collecting proof and links and quotes and performing regressions and meta-analysis before presenting our results. But HN rules entice people to do that, and people doing it was the strength of HN until ~2010.

If that’s what one calls depersonification, I’d argue that an engineering book is very depersonated too, and it’s its strength. No emotions, just raw information all the time.

It's hard to stare into someone else's eyes and feel... nothing.

It's pretty easy to look at text on the screen and forget the person on the other end is like you.

if i know someone in person, or at least have developed a deeper online relationship (through remote collaboration for example) i am going to treat time like i would in person, whereas if i don't know them as i don't know you it becomes much easier to say "you are wrong!" because i don't have to fear your negative reaction. as you say here, anonymity allows for a certain boldness

i occasionally find my self starting a comment on hn with "that's wrong" but once i write the actual explanation i realize that i can make my point without that aggressive lead, so i remove it. and then i go over the text and see where i can reduce the boldness without weakening my argument, for example by prefacing statements with i feel or i believe or i understand instead of stating them as absolutes or indisputable facts.

but this is usually a second editing step that i have to consciously think about. though maybe after doing it often enough, it can become a habit or second nature to my writing

This is 2 dogs interacting but my thoughts are that it is similiar. In this metaphore the internet is the gate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goRogFQWkZU

as they like to say in china: don't start a fight, if you loose you go to the hospital, if you win, you go to prison

as i stated nearby, just the risk of changing your mood because i disagree with you, as this comment might do, is deterrent enough to have me try to make my point in a more friendly way.

this comment is intentionally snarky, because i feel the idea of physical violence as a risk just doesn't fit into my understanding of the world.

If you don't purposely act as a rude and offensive person in real life you probably wouldn't encounter violence. If you are the type of person who levels insults and slurs, argues about religion or politics, or makes accusations of misconduct, you may encounter violence. As a rule, "upper class" people have codes of politeness and don't do these things, but it's not necessarily so for others.

If upon initial judgement and they find you not interesting, they basically tune you out, and won't attempt to find out what interesting things you have to say.

if they find you not interesting then why would they hang around? They've already made the decision. To them, you'll have nothing interesting to say ever.

I currently have the issue of appearing interesting, but not actually being so in reality. It’s shocking how many people approach me these fast, but for the most party anything will fall apart outside highly casual acquaintances.

>Asymmetric communication is wonderful – it’s how we learn of ancient peoples, news stories from around the world, etc. But it has a major drawback, too.

>Because asymmetric communication takes less effort on the part of the communicator, they can refuse to engage with their audience in a focused fashion. Indeed, that is the benefit of being able to write: being able to reach an audience without having to focus on them while you are talking.

The special thing about online is that when an obscure topic comes up, someone from the 0.0001% of people with deep knowledge of that subject can chime in. That dynamic basically never happens IRL, because you need a million eyeballs.

Like, outside of NASA, where would you encounter such a cluster of people with specific knowledge as in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31136285 ?

I'd love to see those rules enforced someday. There are plenty of examples of such arguments to be found here.

I think there’s very little traditional trolling on HN (you likely won’t hardly ever see it without showdead on). The problem is when you open a thread that blatantly off topic (but it’s ok because nowadays we play really loose with submission guidelines, and use more general guidelines to invalidate more specific ones)

The problem is these make it onto the front page, and it’s just disingenuous flamewarring all the way down. You’ll never beat that.

There are plenty of interesting things to talk about in this world. Not all comments are worth publishing or reading; some are deemed more valuable than others. Editorial discretion is one of the distinguishing characteristics of different discussion fora. Just like you could read a different newspaper if you disagreed with the editorial bent of one, a great thing about the Internet is that you can always start your own forum if you disagree with the editorial choices of an existing forum owner. And the startup costs are a whole lot lower, too.

The only way a speaker could fail to realize his argument is in bad faith is if that is a question not of his own state of mind but of the listener's opinion.

However, as soon as they are sat in front of someone and are picking up on the visual clues in facial expressions and body language which make it clear that what they are saying is actually affecting a real person with feelings, almost everyone has a profound sense of empathy or guilt.

That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with social media I've ever seen.

On the internet, people often are honest, and say what they really think. This reflects their (often divergent) beliefs about the world.

Again, in the context of meta-discussions like this, most people do not know what a belief is. For example, it does not mean only religious belief. It does not mean "a false idea that someone else has". Beliefs are actually foundational concepts and viewpoints in everyone's brain.

And the most core beliefs are generally reductionist regardless of who you are. Think about looking off into the distance. You can't have an infinite concept of what's out there so it all fades to a point.

A big part of the problem in many of these online conflicts is that the opposing parties are effectively occupying different realities. But even more difficult is that each is 100% certain theirs is the correct version. And even more difficult is the fact that as I said, they don't understand this concept of worldview or realize that no worldview is perfectly accurate. Actually most don't understand the difference between a worldview, a normal viewpoint, and a true fact about the universe.

Even more difficult is the fact that worldviews are closely linked to group identity. So much of the behavior is raw tribalism (trying to protect/promote your own group subconsciously) attached to worldviews, but the people think they are just defending true facts about the world.

But let's not pretend this is exclusively an online phenomenon. One-to-one debates can be civilised in person. But as soon as you get more than a handful of people involved there's a real possibility of violence - even if it's only ridicule and condescension.

The odds of physical violence scale quickly as the numbers increase.

Psychopaths can be empathetic. I had a nice discussion with a self-professed psychopath here on HN and that was my take away. Instead of feeling bad in the gut like you would if you were to insult a stranger face to face, a psychopath would learn that some actions are not OK even if it's hard to imagine the impact they're having.

Same with Internet discussions. I'll try not to be an arsehole online, but it's much harder to connect with a person through text, whereas in person I loathe the feeling of making somebody feel bad. It's a visceral emotion that's completely absent when chatting through text.

But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh anything remote work has to offer. It’s so much better to build relationships with real physically close humans. It’s the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major subsconcious implications for communication between humans.

One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some parts of US.

> people in real life seem so much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online

This is just to avoid conflict. I'm sure they feel the same way internally

I wasn’t brave enough to say this, but since you have, I want to agree. Gaming, Discord, forums, etc - filled to the brink with mentally ill individuals.

Oh no!

You are commenting right now here on HN. Are you ok ? ;)

All the social norms that have 100,000 years of biological and sociological development that are kept in-check by visual feedback from others around us are taken away online.

This also applies to things like sales - face-to-face direct sales is far more efficient and effective than doing the same by phone or online. You can close deals far higher $$ amounts face-to-face because people can "read" each other. Online works just fine for simple, low $, low risk transaction - that's Amazon's sweet spot, for instance.

I've been in high tech sales for 30 years - with early experience at HP selling test equipment with average selling price (ASP) of $20K-$1M. I'm still in that general market. The sales training you get at Fortune 20 companies addresses most of this difference both directly and indirectly. The latter in includes noticing how direct sales works and what can be sold that way vs. what can not with telephone and online sales (the risk level of $1M piece of equipment even for the largest corporations absolutely requires a lengthy face-to-face process).

One thing that I have to admit, and this is a bit weird, but on deals that big by the time "orals" or the main presentation happens the decision is 90% already made in favor of one of the bidders. That kind of back room selling/negotiation i'm not a part of and may very well be face to face all the time.

At which point, someone else said "That's him sitting over there" pointing to a player on the opposite side of the table. Next thing it was "Wow, really pleased to meet you!".

It was a lasting lesson to me about what people say online and how they actually behave in RL (and taught me to ignore people saying they would firebomb my house if they didn't get their points back).

Unfortunately there are unstable people who get really confused between RL and what goes on in their head; the media have a field day with them.

Ignoring those hot button issues, I still need to be careful not to be critical of people.

- At work I've had a co-worker nearly get fired for telling another she "doesn't know what she's talking about". He got "written up" but ended up finding a better job a short time later.

- At work I need to avoid certain words that might be viewed as a "micro aggression".

- I need to avoid offending certain family members or they'll start yelling or storm out. Some family members get super offended if you make any kind of suggestion on how they can fix a given problem.

- Around strangers I need to avoid anything that might piss someone off and have them retaliate with force. I once honked at a car for not moving during an advance green and he followed me for miles. (The guy was flashing his lights and flipping me off the whole time).

(Edit: Added line break for lists)

Some members of the species aren’t really looking for a fix when they are complaining about something but just need to vent. Life is much simpler if you simply nod and say “oh, that’s horrible”.

that's one way to simplify things, but I'm glad that altruistic individuals who actually want to lift a finger to help still exist; albeit rare.

Unsolicited advice is generally offensive. If they wanted your advice on how to fix their problems they would ask you. If they don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that you are superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.

It is not generally offensive to offer a suggestion about how to solve a problem, what's offensive is abusing people time by rehearsing the same complaints over and over again while ignoring any kind of solution. If they whine constantly about a problem but never seek any way to solve it, it is just attention-seeking behavior.

>If they don't and you go ahead anyway then you imply that you are superior to them and just come off as obnoxious.

No. It implies that the person has already had the problem and solved it successfully or they have the knowledge to solve it successfully or they are trying to brainstorm what they would do.

I know a lot of construction workers and lawyers (for some reason), and while lawyers like a good argument (and backstabbing) off client time, neither of the groups likes problem solving or doing the professional version outside of being paid for it. Well, except for some (usually broke) newbies anyway.

From my experience the perception is usually rather negative. I think the reason for this is it's hard to impossible to have the full context which can include effort spent already on something as well as actual need and other information that is just not available to the other person.

If you go to a debate club in real life you will be able to debate just as well, because everybody who is there is there to debate. Ot would be weird for someone to be there if they did not.

If you talk to some random person at work it is very likely that they just want to get shit done with as little hassle as possible. This usually does not involve debating about things endlessly.

I love a good debate. I grew up with debates in comment sections and I am of the type that you can mud-wrestle with until you realize I enjoy the thing. Yet even I don't always want to debate. Sometimes I prefer to eat my food in silence, or not talk to the guy sitting next to me on the subway.

I like debate when I am in the mood for debate. This is often, but not always and not anywhere.

Online it seems you can get away with more honest talk without consequences. Or at least it used to. Now it's getting more like offline.

You should maybe ask yourself why you need to convince them.

> The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts for yourself and move away ASAP.

That's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and to yourself. The last part (avoiding the other person) is obviously a completely valid option, but only one of several.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Word games are a big thing here, in the land of words, disconnected from reality. We can argue literally anything. Black is white, up is down, desirable is undesirable, disease is health.

Thus we get a lot of bullshit.

Science is one great shovel for clearing that away.

Another (more recent) reason for my multiple personae is that I hold some unwelcome views about politics, society, religion etc. They can result in actual physical harm or state intimidation where I live.

So not only do I have different personae in real life and virtual, but I have multiple virtual personae too for different interest areas. The anonymous ones are where I'm most open and honest.

- In person, I think people are more likely to ‘fill the space’ in small groups and so the average thing that is said is low-entropy and polite whereas online (at least here) there is more of an attitude of only contributing when you have something to say and I think on average it is easier to have something to say that is critical than positive (and often there may be many unique seeming criticisms and fewer positive things even if the latter should carry more weight). In large groups where it is more likely that critical opinions may exist, I think people are just less likely to speak up in the real world.

- there may be more criticism online but that doesn’t mean the feedback is good online or in the real world. I think it’s very hard to tell apart the useful (ie good) feedback from the useless.

Hiding behind a pseudonym/anonymity allows people to hold back less.

You probably don't talk much to teens/children irl. You do online.

Less / no social repercussions to being a cunt.

People who are bitter and angry and troll on forums may not go outside much irl, so you don't meet them.

If you are outside the US, you get to experience the exported political polarization from the US which you may not have where you live.

I believe this is myth, was it even proved?

I've seen it being repeated for at least decade yet it always felt like "one quick, somewhat logically sounding explanation" but is it even real?

I guess to gather it one would need access to a randomized subset of the populations browsing histories and forum posts. Maybe the NSA can help? (/s)

What does it mean - facebook/tiktok?

What if you just aren't aware of other sites/apps (discord, reddit, etc) that they do use?

It wouldn’t surprise me to find out a non trivial percentage of folks are flaming trolls online to work out anger or whatever they can’t IRL.

In person interactions can have greater immediate consequences than online actions. If someone is in your social group, you might see them again and have to deal with the consequences of actions/behavior. Positive impressions can reward you in the future.

#2 Reputation and anonymity

You can't easily reboot your IRL identity and reputation, but usually can on forums like HN

Literally. If people acted IRL the way they do online, there'd be a major uptick in face punches.

Of course there are problems with people acting as adjudge and dishing out physical punishment, but that doesn't mean that Justice isn't served in some instances

There’s also an aspect to online discussion where there’s a naturally slower cadence. Things can escalate very quickly offline because you’re physically there and engaged. You’re incentivized to not escalate it cause pain/damage. People escalate very quickly for no reason all the time. I’ve experienced the result of this first hand plenty - again, people are horrible at managing their emotions. Most people are not really any smarter than a three year old when it comes to managing their emotions - they just put up a big barrier to make it seem like they’re better at it. When violence is a subtext - like a dog that might bite you - you’re cautious about your approach and try to build trust before you do shit that could get you bit. Online - people face no repercussions and will escalate because no consequences.

Tbh - if there were consequences then people wouldn’t say shit as much. Some people here will point out FB/Twitter comments but I really want you to think about that - are there really any significant consequences except for celebs? For most people - their shit isn’t read and no one is going to read what they said in the past. If you change that dynamic - people will change their behavior online. If it becomes clear how many times Jim said the n-word negatively towards some folks online - he’d be socially outcasted and a loner for life. But most people just don’t know… thus Jim does not suffer and does whatever he pleases without issue.

I’ve seen this in forums with many real names attached. If you’re not going to see or be affected by someone - you just don’t give af because why should you? Being nice to your common man that you don’t know? What am I, a good person? No! Also - niceness isn’t rewarded on the Internet very often due to the prolific amount of trolls living in BFE with nothing better to do. (Know many of these people. People forget how boring most of the US is. We don’t all live in major cities with great attractions)

In person, it's hard to arrange, say, a local amateur astronomer group and have meetings once a week or once a month with telescopes someplace dark. Online, you can talk about astronomy with others who are interested and share links, tips, trade anecdotes, etc. any time of the day or night.

It's a completely different social environment and this significantly impacts how people interact, thus it impacts individual behavior either in real terms or perceived terms.

I think the most interesting comparison I've had is knowing of someone's reddit username and how they acted in real life. They were significantly different. The person in real life was kind, thoughtful, patient. Their reddit account however was filled with hate, know it all, and eager to argue.

I think the old saying of an individual is a different person at work/home/play may also extend to online too.

People expect this, so doing anything "off script" around other people makes them EXTREMELY uncomfortable. If they are strangers, they usually "filter you out", pretend they don't notice, and create distance. If they are associated with you, they will immediately begin pressuring you to stop in increasingly less subtle ways.

Everything about our social interactions is completely scripted. We are choosing between pre-approved scripts that we learned movies and shows. In our public behavior, we are literally just executing software that has been uploaded to our brains.

You mostly don't notice this because that's all you've ever known. However, if you deliberately force yourself outside the script YOU WILL NOTICE, and you will notice very, very intensely.

As a consequence, most of the "interesting" people that you meet in real life are hiding, taking on the same exterior behaviors as everyone else.

"Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."

IMO, seeking "harmony" sounds like a logical reaction to the toxic political activism we've experienced across the spectrum in the past decade. I find myself doing this too; why would I want to expend the emotional labor to convince people of things that matter to me? It doesn't benefit me in any way, and cathartic things like shaming aren't really healthy.

I can also use my time effectively online: thanks to the asynchronous element of internet discussions I can find topics and arguments as I please and I can also withdraw from a discussion if I see the thread is going in a direction that won't be interesting. When talking with someone it's much harder. Thus, IRL, good discussions tend to happen with good friends who I can trust to not waste my time, and during specifically allotted time slots when I'm meeting them, and we both also have to be in the mood for a serious conversation.

I think the immediacy can make it scarier for many of us to respond.

road rage

committee membership

sports parenting

online activity

I've seen my fair share of 'Keyboard Warriors'[0] over the years. For some reason people feel more empowered once there's a keyboard there, because hey, computers are cool, let's ride that wave.

[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Keyboard%20W...

In the limit I think this probably comes down to primate dynamics regarding in vs out-groups.

The only reason that civility could be retained is when there's strong representational or economic incentives to do so.

If you're on Facebook? (Wouldn't know since I've been off their stuff for years), one irrationally bad comment could have a lasting stain on your future representation. People defriend/mute you, and though it may not mean anything to you, it's definitely a negative incentive for a lot of people who attribute much too much emphasis of a snap decision a peer did out of boredom/indifference.

Secondly, economics. If you're a person accumulating weath as a function of influencer/content creator in all its many forms, you're usually a "nice" or an ass-hole persona. If you're the nice person attracting an audience around optimism, showing up to dump drama on your people will start to polarize your communities. Think of the notable people on the internet and think of those that skirt the line. There probably aren't many you can point to that are equal parts positive/pot stir.

There are so many things I have to be careful not to say to my parents and older relatives lest they burst a blood vessel, as well as my senior neighbors and coworkers. My peers, however, are used to hearing all sorts of things and are usually happy to discuss or debate any topic without taking things personally or as an insult to their heritage or tradition.

I think that there are always going to be generational differences, and that it isn't helpful to blame generations. Instead, we should all work to identify and solve issues rather than point to the "others" and say they are at fault.

- I've observed that people in real life seem overly concerned about keeping things "harmonious"

In real life, leaving is not just closing a browser tab. When you are stuck with people, you try not to make it a bad time for you and the others.

- They also seem to lack patience in various things

Same reason, it is harder to ignore people in real life

- In contrast people online seem so much more generous

People online are often in front of a larger audience, your post can be seen by dozens of people, and you want to project a positive image. Also, online, you only show what you want to show, maybe you just took the seat from an old lady on the bus, but no one is there to see it.

Online, people are different, I am different, you are different. It is simply a too different situation for people to be the same.

Then there are channels to discuss things

Your family will prefer to hear about job, children, partner, dreams, personal activities, achievements... and not about if invading Ukraine, Syria, Iraq... was a smart decision

But there are meetups, for example, where people want to discuss certain subjects, and are prepared to, I wouldn't want to discuss programming with most of my friends

> But what else is there? What's your experience with people online vs in real life? Why do you think this is the case?

People are different everywhere, work, home, family gatherings, alone, with friends, partner...

And online is the same, from real life, and on different websites

Being pseudo anonymous also help you to talk about something that otherwise you would only discuss with a person privately, or not at all, about yourself, or generally controversial

I might not share political stuff on Facebook, to avoid alienate friends that will get annoyed without context or proper discussion, a connection that was made to share mostly personal stuff, not politics. But I can go 'all in' on Reddit or Twitter or other proper channel to discuss those subjects, since I don't care about each person personal feelings and emotions since I don't know them, and either way I am just trying to get specific point across, weather I am right or wrong

If you tell your boss all your personal opinions you will probably be fired soon, or your work might be judged on personal grounds rather than professional, possibly creating a discriminatory environment

In conclusion, everyone disagrees about most things, so avoiding conflict is necessary for a healthy life. You should discuss things with people that want to hear from you about it, are prepared to handle it and give you something in return

There’s also the anonymity aspect in some venues, which further removes behavioral barriers. If I can’t be blamed/identified in real life then the consequences of my online speech are null and there’s no incentive to not troll or “talk my real feelings out”.

Basically we all have a “dark” side: opinions, prejudices, and ideas that are deeply repressed by our need to conform in society. Online there’s no need to conform to anything.

People in the real world aren't exchanging information or socially entertaining themselves in whatever way we do online - what are we doing online? It's not about personal connections in any real sense. It's not about exchanging information - it's mostly infotainment.

What are we doing? Is there anything comparable in humanity pre-Internet?

If you met them in person, you realise they're physically completely harmless, you could even classify them as 'weak'. This visual / physical context is everything that is lost in online communications. One perceives someone as a threat using a vector of things: online, we lose most of that frame of reference.

One overlooked element is that, online, people lack of empathy and understanding for their audience. Part of communicating effectively is your ability to see yourself through the shoes of your audience. Online, this is lost since you can't picture your audience, so you have to act like it's the lowest denominator; and explain yourself really clearly and politely in order to pass a clear message (being well understood).

Most people, especially younger people I find, completely lack the social skills of writing online to strangers. Not only they're unable to picture their audience or put themselves in the eyes of the reader, but they seem to not give a flying rat about it in the first place, leading to two very different persona: in-person, shy, quiet, reserved, and online, loud, insensitive, inconsiderate belligerent idiot.

However, I disagree with you that people are more "kumbya" in person than online.

My experience has been people are much more aggressive and mean in person. People are constantly shit-talking, passing undue judgment, road raging complete strangers. It's absolutely terrifying.

Online, I still feel there is ugliness, but I tend to find people will put together clear and reasonable arguments. Especially in communities like this one.

For bravery and boldness:

Online, you can dip out of a conversation any time you want, so you can make bold claims and back out of defending them when you start losing. You can also sneak away, quickly look things up, refine your argument and return with everyone else having no idea that you started off talking complete bullshit. In real life, to do that you have to actually call an Uber. Whatever conversational mess you got unto, you have to sit in.

For aggression:

I think people are generally nicer online (although our perceptions of that are skewed by very stupid twitter replypersons), when they are posting in a community they want to continue to post on (and are reasonably bright.) In real life they are also nice when speaking to strangers or mild acquaintances. In both cases it is because all people know of you is what you're saying, so you don't want to scare them off. For friends and loved ones, however, you can argue abstractions much more aggressively because they know that you love them and that the subject is irrelevant to that.

So online people are bolder because they have escape hatches, but less aggressive because they want to impress. Offline people are more timid because they have to stand by what they say, but more aggressive with people they have real relationships with because they can rely on those to put that aggression into context.

At parties with people who aren't close, you get the worst of both worlds. People afraid to be bold and people afraid to offend. [edit: that's what alcohol is for, though.]

Or you can walk away from a conversation where you have aggrivated the other person, or when the other person turns out to be a raving lunatic. Not everyone is dead set on proving themselves right or avoiding the insecurity of being wrong.

I might be naive.

I'm not convinced by this argument.

Yeah, because of the danger of a physical altercation, that potential drawback is taken away while interacting online

What's the drawback of making some alt accounts/sockpuppet accounts and going harass someone you dislike? Getting an Ip ban at most I'd gather rather than getting your nose broken by a punch from someone on the street

There is little to no credible deterrence in online discussions

Anonymity clearly is not the cause.

On the Internet I can bash anyone on any topic without obvious indicators that there is a real human being on the other end of the conversation that I may be hurting.

Also this community tends to attract contrarians who believe they know better that the majority of people on many topics, for better or worse.

I find, for example, that folks sometimes 'read into' what I write -- something that I, in fact, did not write -- in order to bolster their own arguments. This is a form of attacking the Straw Man, and I think the low-bandwidth text format is the reason for this sort of projection.

Secondly, I believe there's a flipside to many of the things that can go wrong when interacting online. Maybe if you read something without knowing the other person, and without having a ten-year history with them, and you can re-read and take time to ponder your answer, it also allows you to be more thoughtful and not let all the baggage people have with each other in the way?

In the civilized world, men will not be so quick to argue fiercely with other men as the probability of a violent outcome is higher. Contrast with women, who will often verbally assault without limit, simply because they enjoy the benefits of the fact that it is not as socially acceptable for a man to pound their face in, and because other women are not as likely to resort to violence.

It is ironic that the threat of violence is necessary to keep society peaceful and civilized in a scalable way.

There are routinely two groups of people I can speak total truth to, and those are (a) total strangers, and (b) very close friends. Online forums fall in the former category, as do random people who chat me up on trains that I know I will never see again.

Anything in-between requires some tiptoeing here and there.

People communicating in person to tend to be more likely to avoid conflict and insults. (I think this is because it's easier to walk away from an online conversation, while you're stuck with someone in physical space). But in my experience, a jerk is a jerk. Online or offline.

Maybe not such a good thing, as not everybody loves me, around these parts...

But the good news is, I piss off just as many people IRL, as I do, here.

When you’re talking with someone in person, it’s probably because of some relationship you have to them (neighbors, friends, school or work relationships).

Online interactions are much more self-selecting, meaning I’d expect people in those conversations to be more passionate about the topic(s).

If someone is disinterested in a topic in real life, you get an obvious signal of their disinterest. If someone is disinterested online, they dematerialize and are replaced by an online NPC who is, on average, quite a bit more interested than the typical person.

So irl I will often realize hours after a conversation that I would have disagreed with something, at which point responding likely doesn't make sense, whereas responding a few hours later is pretty normal online.

Online these limitations often fall away resulting in displays of ugliness (and occasionally vulnerability) that are the real person behind the facade, unconstrained with the need to form a relationship with some internet being or group.

This is actually my biggest reason why I like cities: friends like these are all close by.

Online conversation topics frequently lead to heated opinions.

The difference, I've seen (and personally undergo) online vs IRL is that I have time to source and reword statements that aren't inherent in "real-time" voice communication

If I voice my opinion in real life, and I'm with the wrong person, the situation can go South really quickly. So I shut up and be non-political IRL.

PS: I'm saying this as a progressive leftist, as well.

i know people who are generally grumpy and mean irl who are really happy and friendly on their online time, and vice versa. dont think its one way or the other, as people process emotions and stuff differently. there might be generalizations you can make or feel you observe, but imo they break down into these contradictions when looking at unique individuals. perhaps a psychologist has a better answer...

Online, I'm arguing/conversing/telling jokes with text. there is very little other signal getting in the way. also a large degree of online conversation happens with the voice in my head. My output comes from essentially arguing with myself.

My witt it's mostly sarcy, with heavy play on words. Because thats whats its like inside my head.

My arguing a point will be transactional and I try to be logical but my love of Monty Python influences my out put fairly heavily.

etc etc. its about signal to noise, but not just for the amount of signal, but how the noise changes the pitch and perceived value of the signal.

Mostly you just need to catch certain people at the right time to have those kinds of discussions.

“Overly” concerned… most people I’ve met that think harmonious social interactions are unnecessary ended up actually just being assholes, jerks, or weirdos.

In the middle of that mud we can also find honest feedback, often unfiltered and not-sugar coated.

IRL people are often too overly concerned about too many things that don't matter.

On line anonymity allows every one to act like that one dad on the sideline of his kids game cursing out the refs.

Well, "Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People" - https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most... The more polite summmary at the end is: "If you consume any content on the Internet, you're mostly consuming content created by people who for some reason spend most of their time and energy creating content on the Internet. And those people clearly differ from the general population in important ways."

Like talking to somebody who's talking in sleep.

Reading/browsing is a kind of trance.

very few folks are comfortable being the [nerd, asshole, dweeb, etc] in real life. being labeled as not nice, will exclude you from social activity.

when people go out, they just want to relax and being critical is hard work, plus many of them know they are bad, so they shy away from it.

online your words is all you have, so you have to rep yourself harder to stand out.

in the real world, your looks can get you far in both directions.

Boy, are you in for a surprise. HN is often an echo chamber.

The "punch" here is metaphorical and could be any stakes that the person would be at risk of losing: social etc.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing/mike-tyson-video-...

There are some cultures where direct communication and quickly exposing conflict is normal. It seems to me that they consider it impolite to waste people's time by hiding conflict. I have personally experienced this from German and Dutch people, and I believe it's also the norm in Scandinavian and Icelandic countries.

If you're experiencing a huge skew between places like Hacker News and "real life", I guess you might live in North America.

However, this isn't to say that indirect communication is useless. North America is odd because there's a tradition of valuing democratic free speech even when it's upsetting. But personal manners have become increasingly indirect - to preserve harmony, to avoid premature judgment of differing experiences, to preserve pride, to provide space for enthusiasm. These aren't always bad things either.

So, I would say, for North America in 2022, harmonious small talk isn't exactly useless - it's how you slowly gain the credibility to say more substantial things. An Oklahoman educator I follow online, who has remarkable success engaging right-wing and rural Americans to discuss science, said "Nobody cares that you know until they know that you care". This might be especially true for the North American mode.

I think people portray themselves differently in different contexts. Everyone is a caricature, but which side they emphasize depends on who's watching. Someone might be a skirt chaser among college friends, a board game freak on Instagram, and a virtue signaler on LinkedIn. It's still the same person, with the same opinions.

The other side of the coin is algorithms. I like chess memes and basically the internet will highlight all of my friends who are into chess memes. When I'm angry at anti-vaxxers, suddenly everyone else is. Whenever I complain about the drop in KFC quality, I find that everyone I know is just furious about KFC.

It's why I stopped using FB and Twitter; it's basically a warped mirror. Plus the algorithms encourage being a caricature. It's the PewDiePie effect - the difference between a gamer and a millionaire celebrity gamer is that the celebrity is always hyperactive and screaming at stuff. There's also a kind of tribal effect in play.

It is obviously online is different from offline. Usually, online brings our inner character out.

If you learn Buddhist, this is very easy to understand.

> The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT) is a postulate which asserts that normal, well-adjusted people may display psychopathic or antisocial behaviors when given both anonymity and a captive audience on the Internet

Also there is spell-check and programs that correct your grammar, so people seem well read and articulate but it's things like Grammarly that are making them seem 'Highbrow'.

Worth noting that most communication is done asynchronously meaning people have loads of time to articulate their feelings and post perfect replies, whereas in real life we have a short real-time window to articulate our thoughts.

Long discussion goes here, but human language is a socially-contextual performance art which has roots in the creation and teaching of the construction of tools. Vagueness, non-verbal messaging, social signaling, and all of the other aspects of language are built in order to transfer that tool knowledge with the minimum amount of effort. To be even further reductionist, you don't have to make that spear out of the exact same rock I used as long as you get a point on the end of a sufficiently long stick. Language's inability to be precise and have millions of shades of meaning based on other things besides words is a feature, not a bug. It's an evolutionary survival trait, probably needed by any sentient creatures.

Contrast that to what we're doing now on HN: typing messages back and forth. That is not the use of human language, at least not as we understand it today. Printed text is not language. Symbolic representation of sounds has a singular, yet fundamentally different goal: the unambiguous transfer of knowledge. The closer that knowledge that we want to transfer is to the human experience, the worse printed text works for that purpose. This is why fiction can be a 12-part novel while a chemistry formula might take up one page.

So when we see text messages flying back-and-forth, it engages a different part of our brain. Continuing my simplification, when we view and interact with text, we're really looking to play some advanced video game where the correct text and replies "proves" an exact version of the world that others might not share. This is why so many online arguments end up end semantic wordplay games. It's not that people are petty, it's that we're trying to take that hominid brain system and bolt it into a logical, mathematical framework. Tech folks commonly say something like "If a implies b, and b implies c, then a implies c" Unless you use a set theory definition of a,b, and c, this can be shown to fail rather easily. [1]

tl;dr, when I type the word "dog", think of a dog, and have a conversation with my grandmother about her dog, although we want to think of the word as being the exact same thing in all three contexts, it is not. It just appears that way. That's why you think people are acting so differently. They're not. It's just different things are going on in different social/physical contexts without our realizing it.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Syllogistic_fallacie...