Obviously, the internet has always been a toxic place, (the phrase “flame war” has been around for decades,) but it seems to have gotten so much worse over the last few years. I used to think decentralization of the internet would fix the worst of it, but Lemmy seems to have gotten worse alongside the rest of internet culture, proving me wrong. How do we fix/improve this culture of toxicity?
You can manage, or control, whichever, your-own territory: you can’t control other people’s/factions’ territories.
Fact of life.
It isn’t that anybody “can” make the internet safe, or healthy, rather, it is that we have to make good internet successfully compete in the ecology, & therefore remain viable when the DarkTetrad motivations { narcissism, machiavellianism, sociopathy-psychopathy, sadism } are trying to gut/murder good from the world.
Natural Selection! Successfully compete, & remain in the ecology!
Simple as that.
( PS: reading Logan, King, & Dr. Fischer-Wright’s book “Tribal Leadership” would be competence-growing, as it’s on the 5 culture/process levels, from gang/mass-shooter’s competitive-nihilism CultureLevel1 to “LIVING IS SELF-INHERENTLY AWESOME!!” CultureLevel5. They incorrectly call them “stages”, but caterpillar->moth is stages, these usually revert to CultureLevel2, subject-to-narcissism culture…
Here’s the book itself: https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/tribal-leadership-revised-edition
& here’s the TED Talk with the oversimplified intro to that work: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_tribal_leadership
IF the people managing or leading communities were all competent in those levels, & their natures & functions, THEN it’d be easier to de-toxify our portion of the world. )
_ /\ _
PS: part of the problem is the ideological-position, that conforming-with-opinion is the only valid option, & the alternative is being-against…
whereas in Science, diversity-of-perpsective is how we outsmart ignorance, & how we win.
That objectivity, that taking-multiple-perspectives, has to be IN our culture, for us to win.
Otherwise, it’s only this-conforming against that-conforming, ideology vs ideology, & that’s just herdbeast-herds-butting-heads-with-extra-steps.
Externalizing issues, de-politicizing them, so that people can SEE that losing-food-security-produces-migrations-and-wars, & it has nothing whatsoever to do with being “woke” or not: it’s a SYSTMS question…
that kind of thing’s required, too, but no discussion-forum is coded to provide the required-means, so … that potential dies, the way we’re doing things.
Too bad, it’d have been nice to be more-viable, but if it “can’t be afforded”, then Status Quo will have to be our epitaph, right?
< shruggeth >
Sociopolitical-strongarming prefers emotionally-loaded “debate”, whereas issues are things that just are, even when we’re ignoring them, & that requires a totally-different method-for-mitigating-the-problems-living-in-them.
Without sociopolitical-strongarming. & making that the proper place for issues to be seen/discussed, so that there’d be none of the “just keep in your head the context & the principles, & fight over whatever it is that you’re currently-remembering” … instead it’s all caused to be more rational.
That is a whole-society problem, though: countries which could have been saved by such a change, die, groups too, regions too…
It’s the same principle that Stephen R. Covey identified, decades ago, when he pointed it out that the lowest-3%-in-effectiveness didn’t externalize their goals, but the top-1% all of them did.
Countries need to externalize the issues, in issue-diagrams, instances need to do the same, industries, projects, communities, regions, etc, as a standard method for de-toxifying things & making the problem and not the politics be what people are concentrating into correcting.
Whatever…
_ /\ _