he’s a b3aR… whos t1r3D…
If the OP had a mechanism to opt-in to aggregated comments, rather than individual community comments, there could be an identifying notice that the comments of that post were being “hosted” in whichever community on whichever instance and were governed by their rules. Essentially, commenters would be guests in that forum and be expected to comport themselves accordingly. I don’t think it needs to be complicated for mod teams.
Consolidation is one of the things the fediverse tries to mitigate. I see your point, but federated services need some amount of redundancy and autonomy for the whole thing to work.
In order to be civil, thoughtful, and graceful, a person needs to reflect and understand complexity. The platforms of the internet incentivise the opposite. Extremity is louder than resonability so it floats to the top of the discourse.
Additionally, seeing 100, 1,000 or 10,000 people on a platform, from around the world, express shocking or anti-social viewpoints represents an infinitely small sub section of the population. A group that includes provacateurs, bots, nation-state actors, and wing-nuts.
The real trouble comes from others who aren’t taking time to reflect, who see this content every day and begin to believe that it must be valid because they keep seeing it. Slowly they twist and adopt pieces of rhetoric because there isn’t enough of a counter balance of opposing views sharing the same weight in their feeds.
Not sure if this is the right solution for me, but really appreciate the in-depth post and compelling info. thank you!
Coooool…isn’t that where the ham comes from…? :)
The original idea was that the “trick” was the default (some type of mischief or vandalism) but the costumed (annonymous) tricksters would give the person a chance to be spared by offering a “treat” instead.
We’ve gone so soft…
…needs of shoe-horning linux on to microsoft device :(
If people communicating in a public space are of differing opinions regarding a topic, and all can claim truthfully to have reflected thoughtfully, and understood the complexities of the topic, then disagreements about the topic can still be communicated gracefully to one another. If left unpersuaded, they can agree to disagree and part peacefully. The act of the discourse is valuable even in disagreement, either to re-enforce ones own convictions or to soften a stance when presented with new information.
I’m fairly confident that the OP isn’t referring to discourse and debate but rather comments or posts that unnerved them. I suspect the comments were some shade of anti-social, ignorant, or violent from their perception. I’m speculating on the specifics, as I’m working from the same post you saw.
If you want to talk about objective and subjective thresholds of truth vs. fact and determination of what is considered valid, I’m not sure this is the right place. The OP seemed to be concerned at the prevalence of concerning rhetoric online, at least, that’s what I took from it. A broader philosophical discussion might be better served in it’s own post/comments.
I’m curious about the tone of your reply. My perception is it seemed combative and contrarian, though I can’t be sure that you intended it that way. Your comments seemed to be directed at me specifically rather than at the ideas only. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?