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

I think there's a larger point in what he said. Basically all current social media ends up optimizing for creating outrage, spawning mobs, less thoughtful discussion and more vitriolic arguments, etc. It's becoming a real concern to me that this is going to drive us into some kind of civil war or something if we don't find some way to check it.

The outrage seems to be like a drug. Nothing generates engagement quite like it, even if it's toxic in the long-term. So all social media platforms that embrace it grow bigger until they become near-monopolies, and all that don't so far have had a hard time growing userbases, making money, and generally fade into irrelevance.

It would be a real service to society IMO if we could find a way to somehow generate enough engagement and energy to challenge the big players without the outrage culture.

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.

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."