The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© The ConversationHere
and
Now
opinions
Why social media design makes it hard to have constructive disagreements online
By Amanda Baughan SEATTLE©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
21 Comments
sourpuss
No it doesn’t.
Boku Dayo
No, the leftist and liberal social justice warriors who don't "practice what they preach" make it difficult to have constructive disagreements online.
Sven Asai
That’s right, B.D. They have the opinion supremacy for many decades gone and many decades to come. Whatever you say, whatever differing opinion or true words you try to spread, you just only can speak it onto a big red communist concrete wall.
kurisupisu
I find that JT provides more interesting news in the comments section than in the articles-especially when moderation is not restrictive.
sourpuss
You’re all wrong.
Express sister
What do you mean?
Concerned Citizen
The problem is not social media, it's us, the users. A change of heart to be more respectful of other's opinions and feelings would be welcome. Most people have sincere reasons for their opinions and this ought to be respected even if we disagree.
Sven Asai
@BigYen Quite hard an accusation…lol No, I am open to all logical and fact based argumentations, agreeing or opposing, but I am of course not open to only copied or repeated mainstream ideological phrases as those are very much left-biased and aren’t in fact a thinking product or own opinion of that certain discussion participants.
Strangerland
No it doesn't. American media is garbage. All of it.
Yeah, but there's ONLY trash in America.
So, all American media should be weeded out then.
I actually agree with you for once.
Jsapc
A fantastic list of actual providers of fake news and conspiracy theories, making people dumber by the day. Good job.
bass4funk
And the left has what?
bass4funk
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger penned a blog post last week declaring that the site is “badly biased,” “no longer has an effective neutrality policy” and clearly favors lefty politics.
Sanger – who is no longer with involved with Wikipedia – wrote that it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to present information from a neutral point of view, and nowadays the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia “can be counted on” to cover politics with a liberal point of view.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
Yeah, it makes all even more sense now.
Jsapc
Because anonimity turns a lot of people into lying trolls ready to say absolutely anything (like an obvious white racist incel claiming he's a "black man who voted for Obama twice") for the sake of their argument. Also, people willing to disregard reality when it doesn't agree with their point of view. It's impossible to have a "constructive disagreement" with someone who thinks the earth is flat, that democrats sacrifice children or that Trump won the last election.
Jsapc
First, "Accusatory accusations" is a pleonasm. Try to use proper english.
Second, what do you want proof of? That Tucker is the goober-in-chief?
Jsapc
Thank you for admitting that fox is the mainstream media and that nobody watches cnn. That's something we all agree on.
GBR48
I tend not to engage in one-on-one arguments on here. I used to respond to anyone who wasn't obviously trolling me on the JTimes site, but that was because the software would send me their response. I don't often return to a page here simply due to lack of time. Apologies to those who think I am ignoring them. I'm just really busy and don't get much time to be on here. I knock these comments out rapidly.
In a sense, having an argument on the net is a bit like having one with a stranger in a pub. Probably an unwise and unproductive use of one's time.
Coming from a family many of whom hold strong and sometimes extreme views, I've witnessed lots of arguments, none of which were in any way constructive for any party. Sometimes reading an online argument is interesting, but in general, I don't feel that arguing interactively is a good way of saying something or listening to something. There is too much of a temptation to try and 'win' the argument. It can get in the way of an attempt to voice an opinion.
Posting your opinion with your rationale for others to consider may be more beneficial.
It is good to be able to comment on here. I hope the comments are not shut down as they were on the JTimes. It is certainly interesting reading such a diverse bunch of responses, all equally passionate about Japanese life and culture, one way or another. I hope this virus is beaten down by the vaccines and I can get back there again soon.