Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says (fortune.com) 230
While social media may feel like a trash heap at times, Microsoft released a new study on Tuesday that claims civility is spreading on the Internet... at least slightly. From a report: Microsoft's Digital Civility Index fell two points, to 66, in 2018, signaling that Internet users around the world are treating each other slightly better, although there's still plenty of room for improvement. The closer the index is to zero, the more civil people are toward each other. The survey measured the perceptions of teens and adults in 22 countries about their online experiences and the risks they face when spending time online. If the news that the internet is apparently becoming more civil comes as a surprise, U.S. readers may want to hold onto their seats. The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft.
Microsoft Tay says otherwise. (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no common ground anymore, so there is no point in trying to discuss things with people at the other end of the political spectrum.
I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time.
Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.
Certainly with news sites we're seeing polarization occurring. You can't just have news anymore- you have to have liberal news OR conservative news. People go to their own sites. There is enough internet for everyone now that conservative people tend to congregate around conservative sites and liberal people congregate around liberal sites.
If there is more civility, it's because we're isolating ourselves more now. We're going places where we are comfortable in our ideology. We don't meet in middle ground anymore, there are special havens online for people that think like we do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sunday nights there is a radio show called Beyond the Beltway hosted by a guy named Bruce Dumont.
It has a reasonably wide market I think on AM radio. He usually has an evenly matched panel of self professed liberals and conservatives of various stripes.
Last Sunday he had a young woman on who worked for Democrats causes in one form or another and made a crazy statement...
She had not heard of Northam's comments regarding infanticide, which pretty much blew up the internet for a few days until he went all blac
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And I should mention, only one side has stopped talking. The side that dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as racists.
That's not true. Both sides have stopped.
It was the right that split off first with things like Rush Limbaugh network, Fox News, Storm Front. The left mimicked the right- CNN went to the left when Fox became popular (it may have had a slight left bend before then because journalists themselves tend to be more liberal- but it wasn't a deliberate bias like today); news sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed popped up. The left never really managed a viable alternative to the right wing radio editorials li
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you'll find that most conservative pundits/hosts/whatever, when they take questions after a speaking engagement, will ask those who disagree to go to the front of the line.
Rush welcomes Liberal callers.
Fox almost always, if not always, has a representative of the Left included in discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
They all put on the 'other side'. They all pick morons to represent the 'other side'.
Fox news loves Antifa tards. MSNBC loves David Duke. Just two sides of the same dimwitted coin.
Re: (Score:2)
AKA strawmen. If someone actually believes strawman arguments, then a strawman seems like an accurate representation of the position. So this may be more ignorance than malice.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actual idiots making the arguments.
It's more cherry picking morons to represent your opposition. Neither side is doing that by accident or stupidity.
Re: (Score:1)
The one thing which moderates see as being the hallmark of the right is stubbornness. The hallmark of the left is projection.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This implies that talk radio came from no where. It became popular on the right because they were excluded by other medians.
And they may have had a fair point with that, I wouldn't say they were excluded, but there has always been a slight bias against the right in media; it wasn't a deliberate bias though. In general, I think the kind of people who are most into journalism tend to lean to the left. Historically, the more artsy people have been left leaning, and journalists have been recruited more from the language arts crowd.
I think TV and radio may have had a gentle bias because of that towards the left. (newspaper media h
Re: (Score:2)
That's weird. I heard it on NPR. The day it happened. They actual audio of the quote. And then again when the "infanticide" mischaracterizations started up. Maybe you should try listening to some of their podcasts, like Up First and Weekend Edition. I find them extremely non biased sources of news. Though maybe not as entertaining as an AM radio pundit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you listen to the full interview it is obvious that Northam was discussing a baby who was born with a disability. It is quite common for pro-abortion supporters to bring up fringe cases like rape, incest and disabilities because they get more support by ignoring the fact the the vast majority of babies are aborted because they are inconvenient for the mother to bring to term and raise. Yes I said inconvenient. The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of economic issues.
Now the question become
Re: (Score:2)
A 75th trimester abortion is not 'infanticide', it's 'adolesenticide'. I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote actually uses the word "non-viable." As in can't be saved by medical science. Aa in a baby born with Sirenomelia, who doesn't have the body parts needed to survive. Some babies just cant survive without an umbilical cord. With the proper care, we can tell this in advance. And forcing a lady to carry it to term is just cruel to her, and the baby, as once it is born the only thing that will happen is that it will die, slowly and painfully.
This is why we can't make any headway on this issue. Be
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Not one woman has ever drowned her kids in a bathtub.
Not with the supervision and consent of 3 doctors. Did you read the bill, or just ignore that part? Stop feeling your way through public policy issues and start THINKING your way through them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.
The problem is most people are not qualified to be political, you can't have a politics that literally rejects the laws that govern the unvierse and is anti-science, and that is the entire republican party. Most americans would never accept that science shows they are not authorities on what they do and don't know about the world. AKA human perception is much more direly flawed then we've imagined. There is no sound politics that rejects reason and evidence, you can't have a functional world where peop
Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe (Score:2)
Today's "BUT MUH SCIENCE(tm)!!1!!" fundamentalists are yesterday's religious fundamentalists dressed up in new clothes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to
Re: (Score:2)
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.
Yesterday's Democrats are not today's Democrats.
Yesterday's Republicans are not today's Republicans either.
Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe (Score:3)
That was not a productive reply. I used to be a Democrat and became a Republican when Democrats decided to turn into Bolsheviks. Politicians on the right tend to be rather abrasive, but the Republican grassroots is far more civil today despite everything the left says. I will have a much easier time talking about gay rights at my shooting range than about gun rights at a university.
Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachoth (Score:2)
Alas, there is nothing Bolshevik whatsoever about the Democrat Party.
Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time. You dont believe in objective reality, and since thats what all my arguments are based on, there is nothing really i can say to you that will click.
You know what's really funny? Idiots like you that think their crap doesn't stink are the reason the orange putz became president in the first place. You walk into a conversation already believing you're better than everyone else and then call someone a nazi as soon they disagree with you. You may think you're a big man but you're really just a tool.
Re: (Score:1)
You just proved that AC's point.
You proudly stand up and proclaim that you are the problem.
Nice move.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped calling everyone faggot online. You're welcome.
For once, Anonymous Coward posting expletives is relevant to the discussion!
Thanks AC!
benefits of censorship (Score:1)
when more than one 'side' is way too many..
I am wondering on the factors. (Score:2)
I think it is partially due to the Anti-Cyber Bulling information going out. Also how most tech companies are tracking down on Trolling.
I think we need to indirectly thank Trump for this. By emboldening the "Deplorables" we are really seeing what the Racists and how they were using coded messages before. A lot of people may have begin to realize (as I have), how many things I use to say, actually hurt people.
Re: (Score:1)
dog whistle
noun
1. a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.
2. a rhetorical device meant to imply racism where no evidence of racism can be found.
Re: (Score:1)
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
And violence. If words are a form of aggression then it is acceptable to respond with aggression and force to stop aggressive people.
It really is a damning line of reasoning that is used to abuse innocent people for wrong think. It's kind of scary how quickly and popular it became.
Re: (Score:1)
That's how we get cops being murdered in cold blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I want the "words will never hurt men" back in schools.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious... why do you single out a particular word as "actually hurting people" and dismiss everything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, when I said "I'm curious" I meant that I was curious why you did that. I assume the smartass reply means you don't want to share the reason?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.
Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things by creating an environment where their ideas are normalized. It's not just N-bombs, or "vicious" verbal attacks, but also the maintenance of a culture of abuse.
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations? Or at least try to explain to me how this is different from discredited "video games cause violence" trope, only with "ideas dinkypoo finds objectionable" substituted.
Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.
"Legitimize violence" is a nonsensical standard, as it uses judgment and actions of external actors that you have no control over to judge your actions. That is, how other people might react isn't a good standard for evaluating one's actions. For example, if someone goes on a killing spree after reading this post, am I contributory
Re: (Score:2)
...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things ...
Citations?
You are being disingenuous [washingtonpost.com], this stuff is not hard to find if you want to. You clearly don't. Now ssssssshhhh, the adults are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting.
If only you could do better than "It says orange man is bad so it must be wrong" head-up-ass posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I find your post deeply offensive, hence it must be you enacting violence on me.
Re: (Score:2)
It is telling that you would rather herp a derp about Trump than speak about original point - speech is not violence.
You don't get to talk shit about herp a derp while willfully misconstruing the argument, you disingenuous douchebag. It's not that speech is violence, it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that speech is violence
I am glad we agree that speech is not violence, and treating it as such is wrong.
it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.
"Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility. The fallacy you are trying to sneak into this argument is that if speech can be shown to promote an action, no matter how reasonable such action in response to speech is, then speaker should be held responsible for such action. An example of this principle would be, you ask me to get a coffee, I go rob a coffee shop and n
Re: (Score:2)
it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.
"Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.
No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.
"Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.
No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.
No, it isn't a conditional, as it can't be evaluated objectively. How could you possibly create objective standard around "can promote others to act in violence"? This is how you end up with blasphemy laws.
Feelings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it.
TFA makes it clear that people are not becoming more civil, at least if it can be believed. History tells us it's better to believe Fortune than Microsoft, and I'm going to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not getting more civilized (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that people are now aware that it's massively under surveillance, that anonymity has been thrown out the window, and that anything they say, even under a pseudonym, can come back to haunt them. So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.
Exactly the same effect as when people realize they're being watched on CCTV cameras in supermarkets : many don't dare scratch their butts discreetly behind an aisle like they used to.
It's quite chilling actually, if you ask me... I preferred the wild internet to the self-censored one: at least you could see humanity raw, as it really is.
Re: (Score:1)
So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.
Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring [github.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring [github.com]
Someone should suggest this project adopt Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance is a factor, no doubt. In this century my emails to friends and family are as vulgar as ever, but we are all very careful about the speling of certain words. Speaking of our prezident, Mr. t. Rump, for instance, or any US erected ofishul. We obfuscate words like tererist and Central I.A. Even events/people/organizations in other countries require such treatment.
This is slightly more convenient than encraption and it offers a bit of creative exercise.
Re: (Score:3)
You might not like it, but how is that not more civilized? People behaving because of social mechanisms is the very definition of civilized. Being polite and well-mannered, regardless of why, is another. Both fit quite well.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people only act decent out of fear of punishment or reprisal, and are complete monsters otherwise.
This. A million times this. Most "christians" are good because they believe in some supernatural sky god that will punish them for eternity, and not because they are innately "good".
We're animals. We love to hunt and kill. Millions of years have not bred that out of us. Professors, preachers and pundits will not drive it from us. We're animals.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really true. The religious like to believe that the non-religious are immoral monsters because they don't believe in the threat of eternal punishment, but it's a lie. People, religious or otherwise, get most of their morality from the people around them, particularly as children. Morality the world over is fairly uniform, and isn't really that different in any social species.
Yes, we're animals. Yes, religion is irrelevant. No, we're not naturally monsters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Christian and Christian belief is hard to talk about in absolutes because there are thousands of individual Christian religions many of whom have divergent beliefs. So if you say some Christian group believes that anyone who doesn't follow their understanding of Christian faith will go to eternal damnation I'm absolutely sure you'll find one that does.
My understanding is that anyone who rejects God will not go to heaven, because to be in heaven is to be in the presence of God. If you reject him why would yo
Re: (Score:2)
Cthulhu will eat you last.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me react as I read the sentences. Ones I don't quote, I don't exactly object to, although sometimes I think I'm being a bit generous.
So there must be a moral objective standard to judge the difference between good and evil.
This doesn't actually follow from your premeses. You can believe that there is good and evil based on a moral subjective standard.
Then you must assume there is a moral law creator.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Why must there be a moral law creator for there to be a moral law? Unless you stretch the definition of moral law creator to mean that you yourself could be the moral law creator, but that seems to stand in c
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all your points, but I also want to add:
No, because all crimes are crimes against a perfect, infinite Creator, the punishment for such crimes is likewise infinite.
So if you commit crimes from a guy with $1 billion dollars guy does that mean your punishment should also be $1 billion dollars, but if you steal from a pauper you pay nothing?
This doesn't make any sense on the face of it, before even pointing out that a crime against God is essentially bankrupt terminology.
I think the narrative has been lost (Score:2, Insightful)
Civility, when enforced is not civility. It's other people/bots censoring you. (Like if Dice eliminated the AC option in Slashdot because usually AC posts are uncivil)
Freedom is the right to say anything you want. Consequences of that free speech are another issue.
Civility would be considering what you are saying before you hit the submit button so you can be the first poster. It's possible to be more considerate if you want to, you shouldn't be forced to be civil.
Re: (Score:2)
People need to recognize that no-one owes them a platform though. If that channel decides they don't want certain content, that's their prerogative.
Penny Arcade said it best (Score:2)
Silly Microsoft (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's fucking not.
Microsoft: Internet is becoming more civil
Internet: Hold my beer!
Slashdot: Microsoft can stick that fucking beer up its ass
Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
So yes I guess the internet is more civil than in the past, but only because a small but vocal group of people have effectively silenced the rest (this isn't a left/right conservative/liberal thing, this is something much more sinister). I really had hoped that people would eventually start getting tired of the latest outrage de jour, but people just seem to feed on it so it continues to grow to ever larger and more bizarre forms of outrage. After all, outrage and victimhood is power these days. Who would willing give that up?
Re: (Score:2)
... they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all...
this is it, all the horrible stuff is still there, but now it's done in private groups, mostly shared among like-minded people. every now and then somebody gets access to it, leaks the stuff, and the group (or site) is shut down and moves to somewhere else.
because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't really there.
Re: (Score:2)
The Good ol' Tarkin Strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
"The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line."
From mass permanent public shaming for singular statements or 30-year-old acts of indiscretion, people will simply drop out from internet communication if they think earnest honesty, openness, or youthful rebellion will come back to ruin their lives.
Oh yeah? (Score:2)
Fuck you and your study.
Man in the Mirror (Score:3)
Personally, I have become a lot more civil. I'm trying to set an example for the younger Slashdotters out there.
But the haters and losers can't seem to handle my civility. That's OK, because like Ghandi, I can withstand their trollish nonsense and allow them to fuck right off. Plus, I've fucked most of their mothers, so it's all a wash in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
In India, they have a #MooToo movement for calling out guys who sexually assault cows.
OK, not really. I made that up as a joke in an effort be more civil. But seriously, fucking a cow is the worst. Except for that British prime minister who fucked a pig. Now THAT was the worst. I mean, it was only the head of the pig, so you can't even say you put a bag over the pig's head and got some of that sweet, swee
Orwell wins again, sadly. (Score:2)
I used to think 1984 was a crazy exaggeration and that it could never get that bad. Every year I am proved more and more wrong. Here, let's look at his principle of crimestop:
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought whic
Re: (Score:2)
Don't smirk, it's facecrime.
Kill urself (Score:1)
Be responsible about it.
Which one? (Score:2)
Who's civility? (Score:2)
When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.
Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk
There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seem
of course! (Score:2)
"The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft."
We're all finally coming to agreement about certain politicians...
Except here which is civil war (Score:1)
First!
The once free West (Score:2)
Police and gov reporting comments and the use of language.
NGO's, political groups, think tanks and governments working to change the way people are expected to publish in real time.
Telling people what content they can read and can link to.
Users looking to report users for what and the way they publish their comments, links.
People have to risk their profession, their reputation, their friends to comment on history, polit
Re: (Score:2)