HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why are people in real life so different?

188 points by samh748 ↗ HN
Aside from the trolling and otherwise immature behaviour we see in certain online communities (usually ones with a lot of very young people), I've actually observed that people in real life seem so much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online.

Maybe there's a sample bias because of the online communities I visit (like HN) and the real world that I live in, but in general, I've observed that people in real life seem overly concerned about keeping things "harmonious", with all the small-talk, the lack of real listening, talking past each other, not voicing differing perspectives, etc. They also seem to lack patience in various things, whether that's discussing or examining something (can't think of examples right now), and would rather "go back to their own lives". In contrast people online seem so much more generous.

I'm guessing this is partially because "being on the internet" naturally filters people. But what else is there? What's your experience with people online vs in real life? Why do you think this is the case?

263 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 255 ms ] thread
sysadm1n
> What's your experience with people online vs in real life?

I've seen my fair share of 'Keyboard Warriors'[0] over the years. For some reason people feel more empowered once there's a keyboard there, because hey, computers are cool, let's ride that wave.

[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Keyboard%20W...

sulam
It’s not just keyboards. People feel empowered to behave more aggressively when they are in anonymous (or perceived-to-be anonymous) situations. You see it in driving, people behave very differently behind the wheel, and their aggressiveness goes up when they’re alone in the car vs being observed by people they know.

In the limit I think this probably comes down to primate dynamics regarding in vs out-groups.

turdnagel
You think people feel empowered because computers are cool? I think it's more likely because of the (pseudo-)anonymity. When people are unafraid of the consequences, as there would be if you acted like a jerk in person, they're more likely to be nasty. A similar phenomenon can be observed on the road - people feel safe in their cars - hence "road rage".
jphoward
People don't feel guilt online, generally, because they either forget the person they are talking to is a vulnerable human, or they just imagine them as someone deserving of their vitriol.

However, as soon as they are sat in front of someone and are picking up on the visual clues in facial expressions and body language which make it clear that what they are saying is actually affecting a real person with feelings, almost everyone has a profound sense of empathy or guilt.

systemvoltage
Would this apply to remote work culture?
CoastalCoder
Yes, in my experience. But the difference is somewhat diminished because even though you (mostly) don't see the people in person, you do get the benefits of a long term relationship. E.g., you get a better sense of what's safe to discuss candidly with each person, and in some cases you're invested in each other's welfare.
systemvoltage
Yeah, I can see that. What I usually used to do when working remotely is to try to at least meet each coworkers once. Ideally, once a month to have lunch if they’re not too far away.

But, I feel like the in-person advantages far outweigh anything remote work has to offer. It’s so much better to build relationships with real physically close humans. It’s the best part of being alive I feel. Obviously YMMV, but we should acknowledge that hiding facial expressions with masks or behind internet tubes is not ideal and has major subsconcious implications for communication between humans.

One of the reasons why I love visiting Asian cities like Hanoi and Jakarta is that people are less allergic to being close to each other. Complete opposite of Sweden and some parts of US.

drivingmenuts
It could, but you don’t get a paycheck from online forums. Remembering that someone is paying you will sometimes work to curb excessive misbehavior.
sph
In other words, our mirror neurons and empathy aren't made for online communication. On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.
throwawayboise
> On the Internet, we're all psychopaths.

That might be the best one-line summary of the problems with social media I've ever seen.

TheOtherHobbes
Nearly. In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online, but not when they're disagreeing about fundamental values.

But let's not pretend this is exclusively an online phenomenon. One-to-one debates can be civilised in person. But as soon as you get more than a handful of people involved there's a real possibility of violence - even if it's only ridicule and condescension.

The odds of physical violence scale quickly as the numbers increase.

sph
> In Internet debates we're all sociopaths. People can be very empathetic online

Psychopaths can be empathetic. I had a nice discussion with a self-professed psychopath here on HN and that was my take away. Instead of feeling bad in the gut like you would if you were to insult a stranger face to face, a psychopath would learn that some actions are not OK even if it's hard to imagine the impact they're having.

Same with Internet discussions. I'll try not to be an arsehole online, but it's much harder to connect with a person through text, whereas in person I loathe the feeling of making somebody feel bad. It's a visceral emotion that's completely absent when chatting through text.

ilaksh
Except that it's not. The concept most people don't fully understand here is that of worldview.

On the internet, people often are honest, and say what they really think. This reflects their (often divergent) beliefs about the world.

Again, in the context of meta-discussions like this, most people do not know what a belief is. For example, it does not mean only religious belief. It does not mean "a false idea that someone else has". Beliefs are actually foundational concepts and viewpoints in everyone's brain.

And the most core beliefs are generally reductionist regardless of who you are. Think about looking off into the distance. You can't have an infinite concept of what's out there so it all fades to a point.

A big part of the problem in many of these online conflicts is that the opposing parties are effectively occupying different realities. But even more difficult is that each is 100% certain theirs is the correct version. And even more difficult is the fact that as I said, they don't understand this concept of worldview or realize that no worldview is perfectly accurate. Actually most don't understand the difference between a worldview, a normal viewpoint, and a true fact about the universe.

Even more difficult is the fact that worldviews are closely linked to group identity. So much of the behavior is raw tribalism (trying to protect/promote your own group subconsciously) attached to worldviews, but the people think they are just defending true facts about the world.

UmbertoNoEco
They still have a point though. I have had some friends, co-workers or acquaintances who from time to time express what there are to me very outlandish opinions, but most of the time I just let them slide or jokingly counter them because I know, that in the great scheme of things it does not matter very much. Had the same opinions being expressed by some faceless person in social media I would have reacted very differently. I dont think of myself as especially different from the average user and the experience using social media reinforces that point.
AnonCoward4
I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of creeped up to the internet as well.
deadalus
It is not easy to see the humanity of someone over the internet. In real life, we realize that 'others' are just like us and that the differences are minuscule.
tlb
HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules against bad-faith arguments. But you can find groups like that in real life too.

The special thing about online is that when an obscure topic comes up, someone from the 0.0001% of people with deep knowledge of that subject can chime in. That dynamic basically never happens IRL, because you need a million eyeballs.

Like, outside of NASA, where would you encounter such a cluster of people with specific knowledge as in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31136285 ?

otterley
> HN is a strongly self-selected group of people, with rules against bad-faith arguments

I'd love to see those rules enforced someday. There are plenty of examples of such arguments to be found here.

tlb
Please downvote or flag them.
the_only_law
I’ll try, but there’s no way if the core argument expresses a sentiment a large enough portion of the thread participants agree with.

I think there’s very little traditional trolling on HN (you likely won’t hardly ever see it without showdead on). The problem is when you open a thread that blatantly off topic (but it’s ok because nowadays we play really loose with submission guidelines, and use more general guidelines to invalidate more specific ones)

The problem is these make it onto the front page, and it’s just disingenuous flamewarring all the way down. You’ll never beat that.

dang
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
otterley
I meant for real, Dan - like bring down the ban hammer more forcefully. Let's get serious about cleaning up this place.
mixmastamyk
Agressivenes in moderation (hah) can be counterproductive. Also, everyone has a bad day once in a while.
throwawayboise
It's a bit of a balancing act. If you're too ban-happy you'll get an echo chamber (some would say that HN already is one) and if anything goes the trolls drive out serious participants. I think it's remarkable that the discussion here is as good as it is, compared to e.g. reddit or other forums.

There has to be a little room for jokes and sarcasm and "devil's advocacy," as that's part of how real people talk about things.

ethbr0
Exactly. The only people you should really be banning in an online community are repeat offenders who understand the rules and continue to disobey them in a way egregious enough to be harmful to the community.

That's a far smaller set than "people who post bad / stupid / annoying things."

otterley
It depends on your goal. If you want to make a community in which you minimize the number of people who post bad, stupid, or annoying things, you would run it differently than one where you welcome that sort of conversation.
dang
You seem to be assuming that we don't enforce HN's rules. We do enforce the rules, but only on the posts we see. We don't see every post—there are too many.

You, or anyone, can help by flagging posts that break the site guidelines, and in egregious cases by emailing hn@ycombinator.com.

otterley
Do you maintain metrics on the ratio of flagged posts or comments to those you take action on? Or categorize why such posts are flagged/removed?

I've only ever heard you say "trust us, we do this," but I can speak from experience that I have personally flagged some posts and comments that end up remaining anyway.

This is, of course, your site and you can moderate it as you please, but the quality of participation has been falling (IMO -- yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines saying not to complain about it) and it's been turning off participants who otherwise would have very wise, informed, and useful things to say.

For example, a distinguished engineer who did a lot of seminal work in performance benchmarking while at Sun and later wrote Linux's original source control system is gone now, dissuaded by the emotional and nonsensical conversations he was getting into here. IMO his opinions and insight are at the 99th percentile of in terms value here, and this site is far worse off for the absence of people like him.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a big debate here; just wanted to give my two cents.

PopAlongKid
>dissuaded by the emotional and nonsensical conversations he was getting into here

If they were conversations, then he must have been contributing to the emotion and nonsense, otherwise he could have just ignored it.

I don't know who your engineer is, but in some professional forums, I have seen prima donnas leave in a huff because they just couldn't stand to be challenged and couldn't refrain from going off-topic by discussing the personality of the other person(s).

otterley
> If they were conversations, then he must have been contributing to the emotion and nonsense, otherwise he could have just ignored it.

This is the precisely the kind of crap I'm talking about that brings HN down, where commenters just assert facts with no information whatsoever.

notreallyserio
The only fact asserted here is that conversation involves more than one party.
tptacek
Flagging doesn't just alert the moderators. It can also directly kill comments. Your one flag won't do it (of course), but the idea is that you're not the only one flagging. So it's worth doing (carefully!) even if you don't believe the mods are going to follow up.
dang
I fear that a reply like this can come across as dismissive, but you have to understand that people have been saying that the quality of HN has been falling ever since HN started 15 years ago. There's a strong bias (if not several biases combining) to feel like it's always getting worse. Since people are saying this all the time, it's hard to give much weight to a bare statement along those lines. Positive generalizations aren't that different, btw. The main thing I've learned is that everybody overgeneralizes. Most likely we're hard-wired for it.

Because of that, specific examples actually carry more weight. The case you're describing sounds like someone it is really bad for HN to lose. But I'd need to see links.

Internet forums are super weird and there are limits to what one can do about it. I wish it weren't so. The way that large online group dynamics interact with individual psychology is bizarre, and often leaves people feeling wounded and aghast (I've tried writing about this a few times, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 or - using a somewhat melodramatic metaphor - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).

It's easy to imagine that the admins should just "get serious about cleaning up this place", until you realize that different users have completely contradictory images of what that would involve, most of which aren't well-defined enough to be doable in the first place. And that's not even the hard problem! The hard problem is that what people experience is the product of a small number of external datapoints and a large number of internal ones.

p.s. I don't think we have a guideline against saying that HN's quality is dropping?

otterley
> people have been saying that the quality of HN has been falling ever since HN started 15 years ago

I agree with them. I’ve been sticking with it for these 15 years, but I’m sure you’re aware of a certain site that does a pretty good job characterizing how the comments on many of the most popular stories have devolved.

> Internet forums are super weird and there are limits to what one can do about it. I wish it weren't so.

Respectfully, this is a cop-out. This is your site. You can do anything you want to make it fit your vision, from making it members-only, to making every post subject to review. I’m not trying to tell you how to run your business or anything, but to throw your hands up in the air and say (paraphrasing), “Internet forums are hard, what can you do” strikes me as forfeiting responsibility.

> different users have completely contradictory images of what that would involve,

It doesn’t matter what users think. This isn’t a democracy. This site belongs to you and its owners. How it’s run, what the rules are, and who can be a member are choices you exclusively get to make. You are responsible for its tone and character. Don’t burden the members with this responsibility without giving them the direct ability to enforce it.

dang
> You can do anything you want to make it fit your vision

That is definitely not true. Sure we could make arbitrary changes, many of which could easily kill the site. But the set of changes that can be made to make HN better fit its vision is far from obvious.

> I’m sure you’re aware of a certain site that does a pretty good job characterizing how the comments on many of the most popular stories have devolved

No, what site is that?

otterley
I don’t know that the changes would “kill the site” but I think it depends on how popular you want it to continue to be. Both public fora and exclusive clubs coexist in this world. I doubt one can have a truly open forum that has the decorum/behavioral norms and intellectual rigor of an exclusive club, though.

I'm somewhat surprised you're not familiar with n-gate!

hqdo
> Respectfully, this is a cop-out. This is your site. You can do anything you want to make it fit your vision, from making it members-only, to making every post subject to review. I’m not trying to tell you how to run your business or anything, but to throw your hands up in the air and say (paraphrasing), “Internet forums are hard, what can you do” strikes me as forfeiting responsibility.

I would argue that the way HN is at the moment is the best fit for the vision of the people who own/run it.

The fact that everyone is "sticking" with it for over 15 years seems to suggest that whatever dang and the team are doing is "still" working.

kX4A8o4mVmX8aW
Flagging goes both ways. There's a flagged post in this account's short history where I pushed back on a transphobic comment. Now various comments up from mine and down another branch are all flagged. Transphobic and anti-transphobic comments are all flagged to oblivion.

Probably the hope is that there are more nice people than not-nice people so on the whole the not-nice comments will disappear. From that one experience though it looks like it's at least as much about who's fastest to flag.

dang
For sure flagging goes both ways on political/ideological flamewars. How could it be otherwise? That's not what HN is for.

The thing to do with egregious comments is not to feed them by replying, but to flag them (and in particularly bad cases, to email hn@ycombinator.com to make sure we see it).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

FooBarWidget
I think dang is already doing an inhuman amount of work. He's easily the most active and most thoughtful moderator I've ever seen. He's a machine. Hard to imagine how things can be better than it's now unless we overhaul then entire moderation model and make it more distributed, like Slashdot (not saying that Slashdot specifically is better; it isn't) .
CyanBird
Dang needs to hire some of the old moderators of TeamLiquid's forum heh, that'd be interesting to see
MathCodeLove
I very rarely see a bad faith argument gain any traction and not get immediately shot down here. Not to say it doesn't happen, but IME it's more common that a bad faith argument gets called out and flagged than it is that the bad faith argument gets support and stands.
Lammy
Other peoples' intent is fundamentally unknowable. Labeling someone's speech as "bad-faith" is repackaging an individual's subjective dislike of certain arguments into a justification for denying everyone else the ability to evaluate that argument and make their own individual judgement.
lazide
Which, if there is enough consensus, is generally pretty accurate and saves everyone a whole lot of brain processing. Only so many things can be evaluated and judged a day per person.
otterley
First of all, we have to make reasonable inferences of intent all the time. Being able to do so lies at the heart of criminal law (see mens rea). We'll never be able to probe into the subjective heart of someone, but we do our best based on available evidence and tolerate the errors, while always trying to converge closer to objective truth.

There are plenty of interesting things to talk about in this world. Not all comments are worth publishing or reading; some are deemed more valuable than others. Editorial discretion is one of the distinguishing characteristics of different discussion fora. Just like you could read a different newspaper if you disagreed with the editorial bent of one, a great thing about the Internet is that you can always start your own forum if you disagree with the editorial choices of an existing forum owner. And the startup costs are a whole lot lower, too.

puffoflogic
The only bad faith argument I've ever seen on HN is calling any argument you disagree with and can't refute a "bad-faith argument".
skinnymuch
Keep in mind, many times people making bad faith arguments don’t even realize it.
puffoflogic
I think that demonstrates that the meaning of "bad-faith" is, well, in bad faith. A correct definition of "bad faith" makes it a question of the speaker's state of mind. Not only can the speaker always judge this for himself, but he is the only one who can judge it.

The only way a speaker could fail to realize his argument is in bad faith is if that is a question not of his own state of mind but of the listener's opinion.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
CoastalCoder
For in-person discussions, we should probably factor in the nature and depth of the relationship.

For example, if I'm just chatting with someone at the park, I don't expect them to welcome a serious critique of views they espouse.

But if I've known that person for a long time, and we're invested in each other, then I'm more likely to challenge or at least discuss touchy matters.

Internet discussions, depending on the forum, tend to be somewhere in the middle. Being in a particular forum signals that people want to discuss certain topics. And anonymity allows a certain boldness, but it also means greater risk of being misunderstood or being treated uncharitably.

brabel
There's also the fact that when you're online there's a zero risk of being punched in the face when you say something the other person is likely to find unpleasant.
abnercoimbre
I was going to say it's mostly about the threat of physical violence (or lack thereof.)
ethbr0
Equal parts "non-zero threat of physical escalation" and "empathy triggered by proximity to another human."

It's hard to stare into someone else's eyes and feel... nothing.

It's pretty easy to look at text on the screen and forget the person on the other end is like you.

trhway
it is lack (or significantly lower risk) of pretty much any threat. In real life people with different opinions are punished in many ways, not just physical (is anything i'd say the pure physical punishment is frequently not the main concern). Being anonymous online (or hard to reach in some other way, like say residing abroad) allows at least some freedom of speech.
earleybird
The idea that there are folks who believe that people with differing opinions should be punished that I find disturbing.
_fat_santa
It's dehumanization. We use that word in a bad way most of the time but in the case of online discussions, it's quite normal. Like I know that you're a real person and you know that I am a real person; however, when were talking online that fact can get ignored by our brains.

It goes from "I'm talking to a person" to "I'm responding to brabel". In a physical conversation it's impossible to achieve the same level of "dehumanization" because you're staring at the person.

That's my Sunday couch quarterback explanation.

imtringued
>"I'm responding to brabel"

More like you are responding to a graffiti he has left on this website. Just like people draw (often stupid) messages on the walls of public toilets.

eastbound
But you’re discussing topics and sometimes bringing data or links to resources that are impossible in real life. Oral language conveys an extremely poor density of actual information, compared to a book for example - that’s why politicians win using oral language.

Reading online is like reading in a book: You can learn a lot, on topics where you’d need to travel 1000km to find the first expert.

Unfortunately, writing online isn’t made with the same dedication as writing a book: We don’t spend time collecting proof and links and quotes and performing regressions and meta-analysis before presenting our results. But HN rules entice people to do that, and people doing it was the strength of HN until ~2010.

If that’s what one calls depersonification, I’d argue that an engineering book is very depersonated too, and it’s its strength. No emotions, just raw information all the time.

jsemrau
Also in real conversation it's unlikely that one just adds a quick comment and leaves.
em-bee
i would not go that far. just the risk of putting you into a grumpy mood is deterrent enough. who wants to sit next to a grumpy person for the rest of dinner for example?
zamadatix
It seems like a lot of internet internet comments think physical violence is a near unthinkable action to respond to non physical violence with and a lot of others think most people are a couple sentence exchange away from getting punched in the face.
AbrahamParangi
I think with a few sentences it is often going to be possible to convince someone to punch you in the face.
ninjanomnom
I know a few people who can easily be pushed to violence but, speaking personally and for most people I know, there's no words for which I would punch someone.
the_only_law
I’d argue even more than physical violence, irl you risk making yourself a total pariah a lot more.
analyst74
As a very logical person who developed social intelligence much later in life. One very surprising thing I noticed, unthinkable to my younger self, is that many people only engage with people they are interested in.

If upon initial judgement and they find you not interesting, they basically tune you out, and won't attempt to find out what interesting things you have to say.

chasd00
> If upon initial judgement and they find you not interesting, they basically tune you out, and won't attempt to find out what interesting things you have to say.

if they find you not interesting then why would they hang around? They've already made the decision. To them, you'll have nothing interesting to say ever.

the_only_law
> if they find you not interesting then why would they hang around?

I currently have the issue of appearing interesting, but not actually being so in reality. It’s shocking how many people approach me these fast, but for the most party anything will fall apart outside highly casual acquaintances.

elzbardico
On the other side, you only need to be really interesting once, or at most a few times. After they judge you attention-worthy you can basically stay quiet and they will drive the conversation for you, speaking as if there's no tomorrow.
em-bee
but online the relationship has the reverse effect.

if i know someone in person, or at least have developed a deeper online relationship (through remote collaboration for example) i am going to treat time like i would in person, whereas if i don't know them as i don't know you it becomes much easier to say "you are wrong!" because i don't have to fear your negative reaction. as you say here, anonymity allows for a certain boldness

i occasionally find my self starting a comment on hn with "that's wrong" but once i write the actual explanation i realize that i can make my point without that aggressive lead, so i remove it. and then i go over the text and see where i can reduce the boldness without weakening my argument, for example by prefacing statements with i feel or i believe or i understand instead of stating them as absolutes or indisputable facts.

but this is usually a second editing step that i have to consciously think about. though maybe after doing it often enough, it can become a habit or second nature to my writing

accountofme
The difference is danger. The internet, when you are safe and sound in your home saying what ever shit you want with close to zero chance of getting punched in the face for it. Talking to someone on the street is different, you mouth off and there is a high chance you will get beaten, thus we are more polite.

This is 2 dogs interacting but my thoughts are that it is similiar. In this metaphore the internet is the gate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goRogFQWkZU

em-bee
i don't know where you live, and maybe the wild west was like that, but in the rest of the civilized world, physical violence is rather frowned upon, so the risk for it to happen unexpectedly is really quite low, unless i am talking to someone who is already unhinged. otherwise we would have to have had a serious argument that escalated to a shouting match before physical violence becomes even remotely a risk factor.

as they like to say in china: don't start a fight, if you loose you go to the hospital, if you win, you go to prison

as i stated nearby, just the risk of changing your mood because i disagree with you, as this comment might do, is deterrent enough to have me try to make my point in a more friendly way.

this comment is intentionally snarky, because i feel the idea of physical violence as a risk just doesn't fit into my understanding of the world.

t-3
> i feel the idea of physical violence as a risk just doesn't fit into my understanding of the world.

If you don't purposely act as a rude and offensive person in real life you probably wouldn't encounter violence. If you are the type of person who levels insults and slurs, argues about religion or politics, or makes accusations of misconduct, you may encounter violence. As a rule, "upper class" people have codes of politeness and don't do these things, but it's not necessarily so for others.

em-bee
that is a weird perspective, if i may say so. i don't think rudeness has anything to do with class. there are plenty of polite and friendly people as well as rude people everywhere.
t-3
The “and“ is important. Rudeness alone is rarely enough to provoke violence. Perceptions of what is acceptable vary quite a bit across class and culture as well.
em-bee
sorry, lazy typing, i really meant both as you said it. and i still disagree. yes, there are differences, culturally and maybe even class wise, but not in a way that they can be generalized, at least not until you get to a very local focus.
warrenm
I addressed this a few years ago in a blog post (submitted to HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31413840)

>Asymmetric communication is wonderful – it’s how we learn of ancient peoples, news stories from around the world, etc. But it has a major drawback, too.

>Because asymmetric communication takes less effort on the part of the communicator, they can refuse to engage with their audience in a focused fashion. Indeed, that is the benefit of being able to write: being able to reach an audience without having to focus on them while you are talking.

bschne
Firstly, online communities are usually less comparable to all of your IRL social surroundings, and more comparable to special-interest conferences, festivals, or other places where many somewhat more like-minded people with a shared context meet. There's definitely a lot of self-selection going on here.

Secondly, I believe there's a flipside to many of the things that can go wrong when interacting online. Maybe if you read something without knowing the other person, and without having a ten-year history with them, and you can re-read and take time to ponder your answer, it also allows you to be more thoughtful and not let all the baggage people have with each other in the way?

scarface74
In real life, there are things we are told not to talk about in polite company - money, religion and politics. Besides that, “over sharing” makes people uncomfortable.
cf100clunk
Introduce different scenarios to get unpredictable results from people whom you may easily have prejudged as mature, critical, or patient (to use some of your own words) such as:

road rage

committee membership

sports parenting

online activity

samh748
I don't understand why comments so far are talking about people online being inconsiderate. I'm talking about the opposite. Was my post unclear?
uberman
Your post was clear, however I think most people disagree with your observation.
lr4444lr
It's the same root cause, I think: offline, you have much more context, plus intonation and body language, which lead to the expectation that you will be better understood. Online, it's hard to forget this is absent if you are not careful. The results can go either way.
paines
Maybe you preceive things differently than others...
adra
If not unclear then by far unrepresentative of the internet as a whole. People on the internet are way more likely to be garbage variety drive by haters that seem to cling to mildly controversial topics like it's their sole outlet for aggression.

The only reason that civility could be retained is when there's strong representational or economic incentives to do so.

If you're on Facebook? (Wouldn't know since I've been off their stuff for years), one irrationally bad comment could have a lasting stain on your future representation. People defriend/mute you, and though it may not mean anything to you, it's definitely a negative incentive for a lot of people who attribute much too much emphasis of a snap decision a peer did out of boredom/indifference.

Secondly, economics. If you're a person accumulating weath as a function of influencer/content creator in all its many forms, you're usually a "nice" or an ass-hole persona. If you're the nice person attracting an audience around optimism, showing up to dump drama on your people will start to polarize your communities. Think of the notable people on the internet and think of those that skirt the line. There probably aren't many you can point to that are equal parts positive/pot stir.

meotimdihia
it's not strange at all. We are different when we are in different environments.

It is obviously online is different from offline. Usually, online brings our inner character out.

If you learn Buddhist, this is very easy to understand.

gammabetadelta
the incentives are different online vs. irl.

very few folks are comfortable being the [nerd, asshole, dweeb, etc] in real life. being labeled as not nice, will exclude you from social activity.

when people go out, they just want to relax and being critical is hard work, plus many of them know they are bad, so they shy away from it.

online your words is all you have, so you have to rep yourself harder to stand out.

in the real world, your looks can get you far in both directions.

kansface
People who comment or make content online represent a very small minority - maybe a few percentage depending on the platform. That is decidedly not a representative sample.
yodsanklai
Being anonymous make it easier for people to express their "true self", and there's more empathy when you actually see people you're talking with.
rhn_mk1
You're anonymous on the streets in a big city too, but people don't become their "true selves" just because of that. On the other hand, swathes of the internet are not anonymous, and that doesn't stop immaturity.

I'm not convinced by this argument.

CyanBird
> become their "true selves" just because of that.

Yeah, because of the danger of a physical altercation, that potential drawback is taken away while interacting online

What's the drawback of making some alt accounts/sockpuppet accounts and going harass someone you dislike? Getting an Ip ban at most I'd gather rather than getting your nose broken by a punch from someone on the street

There is little to no credible deterrence in online discussions

rhn_mk1
I'd go even farther: what's the drawback of not making some alt accounts and still doing the harassment? There will be no physical altercation. And indeed, this is what happens. Alts are used to evade bans.

Anonymity clearly is not the cause.

Tao332
While this is sometimes true, I like to think the nastier elements are an emergent side effect of the medium, and not some "true self". Maybe it's an aspect that's suppressed in polite society, but not the whole personality.

I might be naive.

uberman
Do you actually feel that there is more "real listening" happening online?

On line anonymity allows every one to act like that one dad on the sideline of his kids game cursing out the refs.

s1artibartfast
#1 skin in the game.

In person interactions can have greater immediate consequences than online actions. If someone is in your social group, you might see them again and have to deal with the consequences of actions/behavior. Positive impressions can reward you in the future.

#2 Reputation and anonymity

You can't easily reboot your IRL identity and reputation, but usually can on forums like HN

Tao332
> skin in the game

Literally. If people acted IRL the way they do online, there'd be a major uptick in face punches.

AnonCoward4
Which means the internet is the better place to be for any person. The problem is usually if one side is not anonymous, then it's different, otherwise anything is fair game in regards to discussions I think, but maybe you find a good counter example.
s1artibartfast
Not necessarily although there are advantages. While generally taboo, physical violence does have positive effects on Curbing some Behavior
AnonCoward4
Yeah, however that is not what happens if you just let that behavior described above slide. Punching someone because they said something to you is usually wrong especially if they don't even know each other (so it can't be personal, really).
s1artibartfast
I've definitely been in a number of situations where what passes for craft and hateful online speech what get someone severely beaten oh, and I don't think that's necessarily A Bad Thing. It's not a solution to the greater problems of society, but a punch to the face or the threat thereof it certainly keeps people from verbally assaulting people in real life.

Of course there are problems with people acting as adjudge and dishing out physical punishment, but that doesn't mean that Justice isn't served in some instances

AnonCoward4
I disagree that physical violence is justified for any anonymous conversation however hateful it might be. If it is not anonymous then there are things like slander where things get more blurry, however I am not a strong proponent of vigilante justice, so I would not call it just either.
Tao332
I mostly mean things that don't have sides: like stalking behavior, death threats, flagrant proud racism, harassing victims of tragedy, etc.
lr4444lr
To quote a great pugilist who recently laid his hands on someone outside of the ring (and not for the first time), I think the answer is really simple:

"Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."

muzani
A similar quote I love from Conan the Cimmerian: "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
elteto
The experience of communicating online is a very impersonal one: I type what I want to say in a square box and off it goes. I can’t hurt the feelings of my audience if I can’t even comprehend who that audience will be.

There’s also the anonymity aspect in some venues, which further removes behavioral barriers. If I can’t be blamed/identified in real life then the consequences of my online speech are null and there’s no incentive to not troll or “talk my real feelings out”.

Basically we all have a “dark” side: opinions, prejudices, and ideas that are deeply repressed by our need to conform in society. Online there’s no need to conform to anything.

3qz
The main reason is that almost all content online comes from people who are mentally ill. Commenting or creating anything online is really weird. Normal people don't do this, so you're interacting with a very different group of people on your computer than in real life.

> people in real life seem so much more complacent and uncritical compared to people online

This is just to avoid conflict. I'm sure they feel the same way internally

Bancakes
We have a word for people who live life read-only, consuming their surroundings - NPCs. Not sure who's really mentally ill in this situation.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
chasd00
To paraphrase the climax of the movie War Games, "In some games, an NPC is the only winning character".
HomeGear
>The main reason is that almost all content online comes from people who are mentally ill.

I wasn’t brave enough to say this, but since you have, I want to agree. Gaming, Discord, forums, etc - filled to the brink with mentally ill individuals.

tester756
what "mentally ill" means in this context? like literally?
swayvil
Suffering a distortion of perspective. From focus, trauma, drugs, obsession...
matt_s
There’s a huge difference between having a distorted world view because of ignorance or knowledge or whatever and being clinically diagnosed with a mental illness. For example, someone that seems very self involved, a trait of immaturity and youth, isn’t the same as someone with narcissistic personality disorder as defined here: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/materials/Narc.P...
swayvil
Never discount the power of long, intense, sustained focus to wreck your perspective.
Der_Einzige
I'm glad you and the one above you said it. My addiction to discord scares me more than anything - because everyone else on there is extremely mentally ill... So why am I drawn there?

Oh no!

wolverine876
> mentally ill

What does that mean? We're all 'mentally ill' to some degree, in some situations, etc.

> almost all content online comes from people who are mentally ill

Wow! But I agree: Almost all content online comes from people, and all people are 'mentally ill' - or just normal.

smnplk
"commenting or creating anything online is really weird"

You are commenting right now here on HN. Are you ok ? ;)

ham-sandwich
This seems deeply correct. Do you have an idea why it seems half the people on Reddit and twitter are trans?
jimkleiber
I think many things but I'd say speed of conversation is a big one. On the internet, I think we give people more time to respond than in person. An email, a few days. A HN post, a few minutes to hours. A text message, a few minutes to a few hours. In person? Often a few seconds at most. (Maybe on phone or video call as well)

I think the immediacy can make it scarier for many of us to respond.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)