Slashdot Mirror
Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says (fortune.com)
While social media may feel like a trash heap at times, Microsoft released a new study on Tuesday that claims civility is spreading on the Internet... at least slightly. From a report: Microsoft's Digital Civility Index fell two points, to 66, in 2018, signaling that Internet users around the world are treating each other slightly better, although there's still plenty of room for improvement. The closer the index is to zero, the more civil people are toward each other. The survey measured the perceptions of teens and adults in 22 countries about their online experiences and the risks they face when spending time online. If the news that the internet is apparently becoming more civil comes as a surprise, U.S. readers may want to hold onto their seats. The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft.
https://imgur.com/gallery/18R0...
when more than one 'side' is way too many..
Browsing the internets on your phone? Stop bitching, pleb. You're a 2nd class netizen.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
I think it is partially due to the Anti-Cyber Bulling information going out. Also how most tech companies are tracking down on Trolling.
I think we need to indirectly thank Trump for this. By emboldening the "Deplorables" we are really seeing what the Racists and how they were using coded messages before. A lot of people may have begin to realize (as I have), how many things I use to say, actually hurt people.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it. I quoted "rude" because what is considered rude is a social perception.
It's just that people are now aware that it's massively under surveillance, that anonymity has been thrown out the window, and that anything they say, even under a pseudonym, can come back to haunt them. So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.
Exactly the same effect as when people realize they're being watched on CCTV cameras in supermarkets : many don't dare scratch their butts discreetly behind an aisle like they used to.
It's quite chilling actually, if you ask me... I preferred the wild internet to the self-censored one: at least you could see humanity raw, as it really is.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
There is no common ground anymore, so there is no point in trying to discuss things with people at the other end of the political spectrum.
I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time.
Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.
Certainly with news sites we're seeing polarization occurring. You can't just have news anymore- you have to have liberal news OR conservative news. People go to their own sites. There is enough internet for everyone now that conservative people tend to congregate around conservative sites and liberal people congregate around liberal sites.
If there is more civility, it's because we're isolating ourselves more now. We're going places where we are comfortable in our ideology. We don't meet in middle ground anymore, there are special havens online for people that think like we do.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Sunday nights there is a radio show called Beyond the Beltway hosted by a guy named Bruce Dumont.
It has a reasonably wide market I think on AM radio. He usually has an evenly matched panel of self professed liberals and conservatives of various stripes.
Last Sunday he had a young woman on who worked for Democrats causes in one form or another and made a crazy statement...
She had not heard of Northam's comments regarding infanticide, which pretty much blew up the internet for a few days until he went all black face.
The reason she hadn't heard it, and didn't believe it (she stated such on the show) was that it wasn't on NPR, PBS, and a short list of far left sites she frequented.
Perfect example of what you mention.
And I should mention, only one side has stopped talking. The side that dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as racists.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Civility, when enforced is not civility. It's other people/bots censoring you. (Like if Dice eliminated the AC option in Slashdot because usually AC posts are uncivil)
Freedom is the right to say anything you want. Consequences of that free speech are another issue.
Civility would be considering what you are saying before you hit the submit button so you can be the first poster. It's possible to be more considerate if you want to, you shouldn't be forced to be civil.
Brings to mind this Penny Arcade classic: gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Microsoft is a software company. They could have used technology to, say, web crawl pages published in the past year and look for ranked words that may be considered offensive or lewd. Instead, they did a survey, which had a minor variance from the results they had last time they did a survey. Big story there. In other news, Microsoft asserts that people on the internet are feeling pretty good about the end of the world.
No it's fucking not.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Ommlette du fromage
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I suppose you could say that the internet is more 'civil' than in the past, but the reasons why aren't what you think. If my small circle of friends is any guide, it's because everyone is scared to death to say ANYTHING that can be considered 'non-PC' or taken the wrong way by the internet lynch mobs. So they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all. Why risk saying something, even the most benign comment, that can be used to get you fired or destroy your life by a bunch of nameless people on the internet looking for trouble? It's just not worth it anymore, so the sane people just drop out. Even my 'woke' friends (hate that term, but they seriously do use it) walk on eggshells these days.
So yes I guess the internet is more civil than in the past, but only because a small but vocal group of people have effectively silenced the rest (this isn't a left/right conservative/liberal thing, this is something much more sinister). I really had hoped that people would eventually start getting tired of the latest outrage de jour, but people just seem to feed on it so it continues to grow to ever larger and more bizarre forms of outrage. After all, outrage and victimhood is power these days. Who would willing give that up?
And I should mention, only one side has stopped talking. The side that dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as racists.
That's not true. Both sides have stopped.
It was the right that split off first with things like Rush Limbaugh network, Fox News, Storm Front. The left mimicked the right- CNN went to the left when Fox became popular (it may have had a slight left bend before then because journalists themselves tend to be more liberal- but it wasn't a deliberate bias like today); news sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed popped up. The left never really managed a viable alternative to the right wing radio editorials like Limbaugh- but they tried to crack that nut too several times.
The phenomenon of ignoring the main stream and creating a "safe space" where everyone thinks alike, started on the right and was copied by the left.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line."
From mass permanent public shaming for singular statements or 30-year-old acts of indiscretion, people will simply drop out from internet communication if they think earnest honesty, openness, or youthful rebellion will come back to ruin their lives.
Fuck you and your study.
-Styopa
Personally, I have become a lot more civil. I'm trying to set an example for the younger Slashdotters out there.
But the haters and losers can't seem to handle my civility. That's OK, because like Ghandi, I can withstand their trollish nonsense and allow them to fuck right off. Plus, I've fucked most of their mothers, so it's all a wash in the end.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Firefox on phones comes with an ad blocker. Super useful for a lot of reasons.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I used to think 1984 was a crazy exaggeration and that it could never get that bad. Every year I am proved more and more wrong. Here, let's look at his principle of crimestop:
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Be responsible about it.
I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time. You dont believe in objective reality, and since thats what all my arguments are based on, there is nothing really i can say to you that will click.
You know what's really funny? Idiots like you that think their crap doesn't stink are the reason the orange putz became president in the first place. You walk into a conversation already believing you're better than everyone else and then call someone a nazi as soon they disagree with you. You may think you're a big man but you're really just a tool.
Civil and censorship?
If you listen to the full interview it is obvious that Northam was discussing a baby who was born with a disability. It is quite common for pro-abortion supporters to bring up fringe cases like rape, incest and disabilities because they get more support by ignoring the fact the the vast majority of babies are aborted because they are inconvenient for the mother to bring to term and raise. Yes I said inconvenient. The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of economic issues.
Now the question becomes: Is it alright to allow a child to die, which can be medically saved because they have a disability? Sure it is more expensive, physically harder and more intrusive to your lifestyle to have to care for a child that is disabled. But do we really want to live in a world where the law allows inconvenient people to be killed?
Most people don't think so, which is why some pro-choice Democrat probably leaked the yearbook photo.
And for the record when you kill a child after it is born that is infanticide.
I stopped calling everyone faggot online. You're welcome.
For once, Anonymous Coward posting expletives is relevant to the discussion!
Thanks AC!
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.
I think you'll find that most conservative pundits/hosts/whatever, when they take questions after a speaking engagement, will ask those who disagree to go to the front of the line.
Rush welcomes Liberal callers.
Fox almost always, if not always, has a representative of the Left included in discussions.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.
Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk
There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seems like the left is more willing to defend their bad actors... or at least the media is.
The one thing which moderates see as being the hallmark of the right is stubbornness. The hallmark of the left is projection.
I remember reading the local free news paper a few years ago. In it there was an article by a local reporter just starting out. The reporter had been given some expensive tickets by their parents to a BBQ put on by a local politician for fund raising. Obviously the reporter hated the politician with red hot anger, as the rest of the article went on to describe how they choose to boycott the whole ugly affair. But then they spent their time tracking the politician on facebook finding photos of the event. They then proceeded to rip everyone in the photos as the cause for all the cities troubles and for supporting the candidate. The final point of the author was that the politician was trash and that not going was the best decision they every made, they also threw in that the politician should be removed from office for all the types of people who attended.
Now my take away from the article was; what an idiot they were! Your parents already paid for the tickets, so the politician got the money anyway. You not attending didn't harm them in anyway. You stood in your corner yelling how awful they were and anyone associated to them must be as well. Instead why didn't you use that opportunity to confront the political at an event they couldn't just walk away from? Or how about you call them out in front of their friends and let them explain themselves? Or possible why not have a decent conversation and try to understand their motivations and reason, maybe talk some sense into them.
Whenever looking at politics I keep thinking back to this story. Politics is now just a game of "us" preventing "them" from doing bad things. Lets not sit down and try to understand each others views and come to some common ground. Nope, now we spent huge amounts of time looking for a way to shame or dismiss "them".
And yes I purposely was vague and left out details such as gender, race, and party affiliations; because it really doesn't matter.
"The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft."
We're all finally coming to agreement about certain politicians...
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.
Yesterday's Democrats are not today's Democrats.
Yesterday's Republicans are not today's Republicans either.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
First!
This implies that talk radio came from no where. It became popular on the right because they were excluded by other medians.
And they may have had a fair point with that, I wouldn't say they were excluded, but there has always been a slight bias against the right in media; it wasn't a deliberate bias though. In general, I think the kind of people who are most into journalism tend to lean to the left. Historically, the more artsy people have been left leaning, and journalists have been recruited more from the language arts crowd.
I think TV and radio may have had a gentle bias because of that towards the left. (newspaper media has always been polarized politically on both ends of the scale).left mimicked them and we ended up with the ridiculous polarization of the media that we have today).
What people like Rush, and Fox News did in reaction to that "accidental bias" against the right was to go full scale right-wing with a deliberate bias. In the course of three decades we've gone from small natural biases to massive opposing armies of biased journalism.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They all put on the 'other side'. They all pick morons to represent the 'other side'.
Fox news loves Antifa tards. MSNBC loves David Duke. Just two sides of the same dimwitted coin.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A 75th trimester abortion is not 'infanticide', it's 'adolesenticide'. I'm all for it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Cthulhu will eat you last.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.
The problem is most people are not qualified to be political, you can't have a politics that literally rejects the laws that govern the unvierse and is anti-science, and that is the entire republican party. Most americans would never accept that science shows they are not authorities on what they do and don't know about the world. AKA human perception is much more direly flawed then we've imagined. There is no sound politics that rejects reason and evidence, you can't have a functional world where people can't accept that science shows people are not very good at seeing the world clearly and building accurate political perspectives from the data.
Science on reasoning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The quote actually uses the word "non-viable." As in can't be saved by medical science. Aa in a baby born with Sirenomelia, who doesn't have the body parts needed to survive. Some babies just cant survive without an umbilical cord. With the proper care, we can tell this in advance. And forcing a lady to carry it to term is just cruel to her, and the baby, as once it is born the only thing that will happen is that it will die, slowly and painfully.
This is why we can't make any headway on this issue. Because people believe in this mythical boogeyman that is going to go through the pain and discomfort of carrying a baby for 9 months and decide ON THE FUCKING BIRTHING TABLE that they don't want it and it should just be killed, as opposed to giving it up for adoption. It's ridiculous. It's a fairy tale.
I used to think it was lack of education on the issue, but now I am convinced that people believe this shit, or are comfortable with lying about it for the "greater good."
I swear, I just wish medical science would come up with a different term for removing a dead foetus from the womb so we could stop talking about these "late term abortions."
That's weird. I heard it on NPR. The day it happened. They actual audio of the quote. And then again when the "infanticide" mischaracterizations started up. Maybe you should try listening to some of their podcasts, like Up First and Weekend Edition. I find them extremely non biased sources of news. Though maybe not as entertaining as an AM radio pundit.
Has placed a version of its own Social Credit System over the social media internet.
Police and gov reporting comments and the use of language.
NGO's, political groups, think tanks and governments working to change the way people are expected to publish in real time.
Telling people what content they can read and can link to.
Users looking to report users for what and the way they publish their comments, links.
People have to risk their profession, their reputation, their friends to comment on history, politics, science, art, culture.
The internet will just move beyond the boring social media approved content.
All the smart, fun, creative people will want to avoid a CoC, been reported on social media, tracked by their consumer OS.
Advanced new parts of the internet will be created to reflect the fun of early usenet, IRC, P2P, forums networks.
No more censorship, no self censorship.
People want their freedom of speech back. Their freedom not to be tracked by a political CoC.
The freedom to talk about a movie, DRM, a faith, a cult, political policy, history. To publish and to read what is published.
To LOL at a funny political meme.
To watch and read any media they want and to publish a link to that political content.
What MS is detecting as "civil" is just the fear of a CoC, police, mil and the results of publishing about politics.
People still want to talk, link, comment, read, watch and create.
The only part that is missing is a move to a new part of the www that will give back the freedom of the internet before social media and its political censorship.
Search engines that work hard to find content, not to hide and remove results.
The ability and freedom to publish does not need a select few to curate content for any gov, company, NGO, think tank, brand.
The ability and freedom to publish not a sin.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AKA strawmen. If someone actually believes strawman arguments, then a strawman seems like an accurate representation of the position. So this may be more ignorance than malice.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
There are actual idiots making the arguments.
It's more cherry picking morons to represent your opposition. Neither side is doing that by accident or stupidity.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That was not a productive reply. I used to be a Democrat and became a Republican when Democrats decided to turn into Bolsheviks. Politicians on the right tend to be rather abrasive, but the Republican grassroots is far more civil today despite everything the left says. I will have a much easier time talking about gay rights at my shooting range than about gun rights at a university.
Alas, there is nothing Bolshevik whatsoever about the Democrat Party.
Today's "BUT MUH SCIENCE(tm)!!1!!" fundamentalists are yesterday's religious fundamentalists dressed up in new clothes.
Of course. Not one woman has ever drowned her kids in a bathtub.
Not with the supervision and consent of 3 doctors. Did you read the bill, or just ignore that part? Stop feeling your way through public policy issues and start THINKING your way through them.