PG: The biggest source of stress for me at YC was running HN

This outrage is neither happening in a vacuum, nor is it simply a reflexive reaction to outrage on the opposite side.

Real actions in the physical world are at the root of this outrage.

The internet, in all of its forms, simply increases awareness of what's going on around the world.

In the past, there was a relatively miniscule amount of information you could get about what was happening, and you could only get it through some gatekeepers. Now you can see what's happening, often as it happens, in cell phone camera footage and in direct reporting from people who are there, and the opinions of your fellow men are not filtered and reduced to a trickle by gatekeepers.

A pessimistic view is that, like the babel fish, such increased communication will only lead to increased conflict, yet there is evidence that increased understanding and compassion can come from it too.

So thinking about that... One the one hand, suppose I log into reddit and see police officers clubbing some people drinking beers (this specific instance was in a foreign country).

Yes, on the one hand, I'm just more aware of a bad thing in the world. But on the other, if a million people get outraged watching a clip like that, it seems it does create a "magnification" effect where potentially the outrage is entirely disproportionate compared to crime that isn't brutal and on video (e.g. rich avoiding taxes) but may actually be much more important.

That's ignoring how easy it is to be inundated with extremist views and the speed of information overload with no verification.

True, but kind of misleading, at least in my opinion.

One of the issues with social media is that it's too easy to promote and share information about real-world events that provoke outrage, while paying no attention to broad-level statistics that give a better representation of what's really happening overall.

The greater truth IMO is that, in a large society, a massive number of essentially random things happen every single day. Plenty to construct any type of narrative that you want. If we want to have unity, there is no way around having to sweep some individual events that are outrageous under the rug to some extent.

There have been so many hoaxed outrages and fake news, that's very clearly not the case.

It's not just that by any means.

I think it's largely a communication problem. People are reacting to what they perceive the other side is saying, without actually taking the time to hear what the other side is saying. They're encouraged both by their side and by the inevitable outrage from the other side. There is also an incredible amount of intentional misrepresentation of the other side (for and from both sides).

If someone posts "B" in response to "A" they're usually doing so because they don't really understand what someone means by "A". They're looking at things at face value while adding in their own filters and biases and respond to that mess, instead of asking questions or seeking out information elsewhere.

On the other hand, the counterresponse to someone posting "B" is often also tone-deaf. It is either assumed the person ought to know what "A" means (even if the people run in different social circles, have access to different news sources, or don't have as much free time to educate themselves); or it is assumed they person does know what "A" means and is being intentionally (as opposed to ignorantly) inflammatory.

Seldom does someone on either side ask for clarification from or help to elucidate the other side.

All of this seems to happen much more on the internet than in "real life."

I think it's very much both: you're right that awareness of what's going on is increasing and the GP is right that social media is optimized for outrage, and we can add a third thing that the circulation of misinformation is also increasing. I'm not talking about deliberate misinformation, just that people repeat things so quickly and interpret them through the prism of their own assumptions. e.g. the Covington kids case. Correction of the misinformation may follow, but it never spreads as far or as quickly, and in many cases may not bother existing for all the good it does.

> The internet, in all of its forms, simply increases awareness of what's going on around the world.

The internet is not just a signal booster, but also an amplifier. Ideas which would otherwise be fringe become quickly mainstream. That's not always a bad thing, but it often is.

The echo chamber effect is also incredibly powerful, psychologically. Especially through social media, outrage begets community. At first, you're a person who is angered at something that's happening in the world, but then you find others who feel similarly. Now you're a part of a community. Not only that, by discussing it in public, you're taking action. Now you're part of a movement! Now you're fomenting real change and making a difference in the world!

This is true no matter where on the political spectrum you lie. No matter what opinions you're defending, those dopamine hits feel the same.

In my experience, asking people for clarification, regardless of which side of a discussion they are on, leads to inflammation. People seem to be attached to the idea that they perfectly understand the others point of view and therefore the other perfectly understands their own point of view. To them, more talk will not help.

Typically i find when you ask for clarification you find the person doesn't even understand their own point of view. Probably also partly why they react so badly to being asked for clarification.

Unfortunately, we are stuck in this world where most do not actually listen to, let alone evaluate, the content of arguments, just the context. And in online discussions the context is diminished. What to do apart from wait for the world to catch up?

As the years wear on, I find Reddit, FB comments, and Twitter (and in my decade of lurking, HN less so) to be great examples of the importance of the Nonviolent Communication framework.

> compared to crime that isn't brutal and on video (e.g. rich avoiding taxes) but may actually be much more important.

You must have missed all the posts from /r/aboringdystopia and /r/latestagecapitalism that regularly show up on /r/all

I find it helps to compare against causes of death such as lightening strikes, falling out of bed, pools, Tylenol overdoses, and car crashes. None of those generate outrage. People worry so much about various violent acts (terrorism, school shooting, police shooting, etc.), but do they wear Faraday cages with lightening rods? Do they stay clear of cars and swimming pools? Do they own a bed or a bottle of Tylenol?

Social media is but a small part of the problem. Traditional media is still largely deciding which issues will be part of today's buzz, and it is those issues that determine elections. The degree of power here is astonishing and disturbing.

> The internet, in all of its forms, simply increases awareness of what's going on around

I think this gets overlooked too much by people in tech sociological bubble.

The shape of the world is at any point in time a function of (1) the various frictions to information flow that are present, and (2) exploitation of the same by the powerful.

The shape of the pre-information-age world in particular contained within it latent sources of conflict and instability (examples abound, I won't specify here) that could only be maintained by keeping some people voiceless and others in the dark.

What we're witnessing now is a tumultuous transition period as we reach a new equilibrium.

Two of the forces that will determine the shape of that new equilibrium: (1) People acting in their interests based on new information and (2) new restrictions on information transmission better adapted to the evolving state of technology.