Comment by jnsaff2
1 year ago
What is the guidance regarding commenters who are obvious trolls, propagandists and bad faith actors?
Being kind to them is completely wasted effort.
Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded.
However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.
(I detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851.
I think the only way to handle this is by responding to bad arguments with better arguments and to false information with correct information—and to do this as neutrally as possible. Focus on clear information, and try not to let your feelings turn into aggression toward the other person. This is not easy, but it's in your interest to do it, because when commenters get aggressive with each other, fair-minded readers recoil.
For extra influence, if you can manage it: look for a way to connect with the other person, acknowledge some aspect of what they're saying, and implicitly make it clear that you're not trying to defeat or destroy them, but rather to understand. This is a big multiplier on how persuasive your comments become.
As for leaving bullshit unchallenged, I know it's hard to walk away from a thread that one feels is dominated by falsehood and distortion, but walking away is sometimes the most effective thing you can do. Here are a few thoughts which I try to remember in such situations:
(1) The internet is wrong about approximately everything. You can't change that, and you'll burn out trying.
(2) The one who walks away first usually comes across as stronger.
(3) Other people are not that different from you. When someone seems crazily wrong, they're most likely not bad or evil, but ignorant: they don't know what you know because they haven't experienced what you've experienced. For this reason, sharing your personal experience is probably the most effective thing you can do.
(4) When other people say things that produce strong feelings, try to let the feelings run their course in you before coming back to react. This is painful and hard, but it's in your interest.
Another point to consider is the old "don't feed the troll". Even if the other person is not really a troll (which I agree they usually aren't, they're just not thinking like you do) if you keep coming back for more you're just giving them the chance to argue their case for longer. So sometimes, if you want to promote your view, the best strategy is to let it drop and pick it up in another thread.
That's... not 100% honest, I guess, but at least it makes for easier to read and easier to handle conversations.
Conversely, arguing on HN has definitely helped me find the words to explain my own thinking to myself, so there's something in flogging a dead horse, sometimes.
It can be quite hard to be kind when it comes to a highly inflammatory topic such as Palestine–Israel. However, IMHO it’s not really a topic suited for HN. I find it hard to believe that whatever we say here on this topic will have any meaningful impact on the war.
Normally for political stuff I would agree, but the VCs have made this an issue that founders, engineers and everyone else in tech has to deal with because they've taken a hardline pro-Israel stance including firing people who so much as publicly state well known information. The battle between PG and the rest of the industry has ramifications for all of us. Even Paul Graham is barely powerful enough to offer a pro-Palestinian stance publicly.
Polite factual refutation probably works.
I wish this was true. It usually leads to those super long reply-battles dang was referring to.
It doesn't have to. One comment refuting a contention with clear references to support the refutation is enough to make one's point. There is no stronger position than the truth, as one understands it. And if one is wrong after all, because they misunderstand the facts or they are missing some facts, it's not a loss, but a win, to find out through a, ahem, Frank Exchange of Views.
yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the very end and then gaslight you about needing to backup my opinions as if there weren't at least 2-3 inks for every assertion I make.
one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing
I think that's in part because the sources that were once credible, i.e. NGOs, universities, media, and other cultural institutions, have taken a hit to their own reputation as a result of their institutional capture over the years.
For every article you can find in support of one camp, one could find a counter piece from other credible sources as well (i.e. NYT vs The Economist and The Atlantic). For every NGO one can quote, someone else can quote from someone who've resigned, or once run/founded the very NGO that they're now criticizing (i.e. Danielle Haas, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Bob Bernstein). You can even pitch the NGOs against one another, such as HRW and Amnesty against the ADL.
Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. After all, it would be rather surprising for a consumer of news to hold their view with that much confidence when even the mainstream sources they are relying on is in dispute with one another.
4 replies →
So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.
7 replies →
Some late thoughts on this (I've been AFK for a few days):
1. xkcd 386: Someone is wrong on the Internet: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39023516>.)
5. Reporting blatant trolling and suspect motivations to HN mods does often work. Email to hn@ycombinator.com and link directly to the offending content and/or user, with a clear but succinct description of the problem.
6. Voting (up or down) and flagging also have their place. For sufficiently contentious threads this may well lead to something of a high-attrition zone, but often the really egregious crud does sink to the bottom. I find that higher-rated comments tend to be more anodyne than insightful, though occasionally truth does out.
7. I've found that rather than direct engagement, either supporting a counterthread, or writing your own well-reasoned and well-supported counter-thread, is often suprisingly effective. Remember that yours is always the last comment when you write it, though a thread may well have additional life. Sometimes my late efforts prove far more successful than I'd expected, and often I'll see that others have succeeded where I've either failed or failed to try. And again, supporting others' salient and productive engagement even where you don't have time or energy to contribute is highly underappreciated.
8. You don't have to attend every fight you're invited to.
9. Truth is not a popularity contest. Voting systems ultimately don't select for truth or importance, and expecting that from sites such as HN or Reddit will prove disappointing.
10. The meaningful audience is typically not who you're responding to directly, but the overwhelmingly silent majority reading rather than contributing to discussion.