Really enjoyed your thoughtful series. Social media may not be the cause of our current political tribalism, but it clearly exacerbates it, and that which gets rewarded is repeated.
"If people had to place their name and likeness beside everything they say, dialogue would improve."
Looking back at this piece from four years ago, would you still stand by this? This was one of the most controversial measures (at the time) about Facebook, which pushed hard so that people would use their real name to post there. This policy was as opposed to the previous internet norm of pseudonymity, where you'd choose a pseudonym to post under (for most purposes), and it was an oft-repeated point that forcing people to use their real name would improve posting quality and etiquette. After all, there would be more accountability this way, so people would be more careful about what they post, it was said.
Several years into this experiment, looking at the quality of discourse on Facebook, I think we can conclusively say that this has not happened. If anything, Facebook today is an example of what *not* to do for a healthy discussion. I'm honestly pretty surprised by this, but here we are.
I suspect that a lot of why Facebook discussions are so often hostile, despite having real names attached to them, is because on there, you fundamentally don't know the people you're talking at. Because of how the Facebook algorithm works, you're not hanging out with a regular group of people there, whose approval or reputation you'd care about. Instead, every new "viral" post or every celebrity post you're commenting on just has a vast sea of complete strangers for you to rant at. So even if the names are real, in the commenter's mind, the people behind them aren't really.
(I broadly agree with the other points in your article. It's surprisingly hard work to truly break out of one's own social bubble, even when we're actively trying to, but the rewards are worth it.)
Really enjoyed your thoughtful series. Social media may not be the cause of our current political tribalism, but it clearly exacerbates it, and that which gets rewarded is repeated.
"If people had to place their name and likeness beside everything they say, dialogue would improve."
Looking back at this piece from four years ago, would you still stand by this? This was one of the most controversial measures (at the time) about Facebook, which pushed hard so that people would use their real name to post there. This policy was as opposed to the previous internet norm of pseudonymity, where you'd choose a pseudonym to post under (for most purposes), and it was an oft-repeated point that forcing people to use their real name would improve posting quality and etiquette. After all, there would be more accountability this way, so people would be more careful about what they post, it was said.
Several years into this experiment, looking at the quality of discourse on Facebook, I think we can conclusively say that this has not happened. If anything, Facebook today is an example of what *not* to do for a healthy discussion. I'm honestly pretty surprised by this, but here we are.
I suspect that a lot of why Facebook discussions are so often hostile, despite having real names attached to them, is because on there, you fundamentally don't know the people you're talking at. Because of how the Facebook algorithm works, you're not hanging out with a regular group of people there, whose approval or reputation you'd care about. Instead, every new "viral" post or every celebrity post you're commenting on just has a vast sea of complete strangers for you to rant at. So even if the names are real, in the commenter's mind, the people behind them aren't really.
(I broadly agree with the other points in your article. It's surprisingly hard work to truly break out of one's own social bubble, even when we're actively trying to, but the rewards are worth it.)