MadBird's Morning Redbirdfan Rant - Gresham's Law

[MadBird]

I'll put this here, since the snark level seems higher in the basketball forum, altho still there in others. And I come to Redbirdfan.net every day, appreciate very much what Quinn and his able assistants do here and have no complaints, and I've never blocked anyone since I like to see what all people are saying. And I've tried to lay back many many times from engaging with some of the geniuses, following the "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" rule. It's been hard at times. Anyway . . . . .

I was reading this column today about politics, and how a political party and a cable "network" have been, let's call it hijacked, and I thought a few lines kind of capture what goes on here at Redbirdfan.net at times. I'll try to bleep out the political parts. The article is referring to "comment sections" on online sites and "chatrooms", which I'm equating with our dear forum. Thanks for listening.

Is the "party" becoming a dysfunctional chatroom?

In economics, Gresham’s law on currency markets holds that “bad money drives out good.” That same principle also applies to the comment sections on online sites.
In comments sections — including such mega-versions like Twitter — the nastiest commenters post more, and more obnoxiously, than the decent ones until, eventually, the decent folk just decide not to hang out anymore. The only remedy for this is comment moderation, where grownups in charge try to thwart the trolls lest they lose their more valuable customers.

In "Mr. Smith's" book is a chapter titled, “Centering the Comments Section.” In it, he explains how, as the communications director of a "presidential campaign", he courted "a news site", then run by self-described “Leninist”. The courtship didn’t work out. But "Mr. Smith" describes how "the Leninist" and other "people" embraced the strategy of pandering to the comment section warriors to boost traffic and “engagement.”

“It was the commenters,” "Mr. Smith" writes, “the hobbits who had taken charge. And they were the ones dragging us along, no matter how we assured ourselves that we were in control.”

Fast forward to today, and you can see how that process never stopped. "The network's decision to “respect the audience” - the loudest, most hardcore viewers, before and after the election — led to huge public relations, legal and financial disasters.

According to texts revealed by a lawsuit against the "network", "Mr. Jones" warned that this was folly: “What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff.”

 

[isuquinndog]

The billion dollar question that no one has solved......how do you moderate "bad ideas"? What is a "bad idea"? What is bad to you may not be to someone else. So how do you moderate that? How do you censor that? Where's that line?

I know people have left or post less because of "bad posters" or trolls. We've always had them. I mean I could have been considered a troll in the beginning of my RBF career as a student. I try and allow as much as I can and rely on some self policing by the community. Usually we can drown out most trolls and they go away, at least the really obnoxious ones that tire quickly.

The issue is when there is just disagreement. When someone thinks someone is being a troll or is plain wrong but the other poster doesn't think they are, like legit believes what they are saying is true and they are in no way trying to be a troll or jerk. Then what? I feel as though that's where we are a lot.

Even crazzzy who some people think I should kick off this site isn't a troll. He's an actual ISU fan who just isn't good with communicating online. He isn't here trying to rile every one up and isn't an ISU fan and just thinks it's funny to set the site on fire. How do you censor or moderate that? Because then I get called names and people think I'm being over controlling or trying to cover for someone or ISU.

Which goes back to the block feature. Again, I paid money for this software almost exclusively for that reason. To get that feature, that people could block someone (including when they are quoted by someone else) and then you can browse the site and yet ignore the person you just can't stand.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Hamdonger]

Even crazzzy who some people think I should kick off this site isn't a troll. He's an actual ISU fan who just isn't good with communicating online.

Exactly.

And...THANK YOU Quinn for providing a site to the fanaticals (that's what a fan is, right?). I personally wouldn't want the hassle but I'm sure glad you do. I absolutely LOVED my time at Illinois State and this site keeps the nostalgia growing.

 

[dpdoughbird06]

Exactly.

And...THANK YOU Quinn for providing a site to the fanaticals (that's what a fan is, right?). I personally wouldn't want the hassle but I'm sure glad you do. I absolutely LOVED my time at Illinois State and this site keeps the nostalgia growing.

Let’s test Quinn’s moderation policy:

CONVERT PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE INTO A MBB DORM! RIVIAN PAYS $300+K NIL AND WE DON’T LOSE NEXT ANTONIO REEVES!

ANYBODY WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH ME BREATHES THROUGH THEIR MOUTH!

 

[DBird]

If people would just not respond to "them" they would go away. They love it when you get pissed!!
IGNORE THEM!!!

 

[Birgs]

Quinn, after my morning prayers, this is my first stop every day.

I appreciate all the BS you put up with, yet have demonstrated extreme tact in allowing/promoting/umpiring (without censoring) appropriate discussion over lo, these many years. From one 'Bird to another, I am extremely grateful, even when things go sideways by some that demonstrate diarrhea of the mouth rather than pause and breath.

Our passions as alumni and fans obviously run deep and it is refreshing as frustrating at times to have a forum such as the one you so generously provide.

Regardless, this outlet for me, selfishly as is wonderful. I have cut down on my posts over the years, attempting to take my own advice for students to remember we have two ears and one mouth.

You give all of us goofs such a welcome chat/dry erase board to express.

Thank you.

 

[Aggie]

Things could be worse you could be moderating a Cardinals fan board.

 

[MadBird]

And just to be sure, to repeat, to emphasize, I didn't post this to complain in any way about how this forum is moderated, just to share what I thought was a viewpoint that could apply to Redbirdfan.net and how some of these posts get "nasty". It is a dilemma, and as others have mentioned above, the best approach if you're bugged - as I am from time to time - is to just let it roll off. Since most of us want to stay here and enjoy the "good" exchanges.

Crazy is the least of the problems in my view, by the way. I agree with that point. Well, not even a problem, really.

 

[isuquinndog]

And just to be sure, to repeat, to emphasize, I didn't post this to complain in any way about how this forum is moderated, just to share what I thought was a viewpoint that could apply to Redbirdfan.net and how some of these posts get "nasty". It is a dilemma, and as others have mentioned above, the best approach if you're bugged - as I am from time to time - is to just let it roll off. Since most of us want to stay here and enjoy the "good" exchanges.

Crazy is the least of the problems in my view, by the way. I agree with that point. Well, not even a problem, really.

I agree he isn't a problem. But I get comments and PMs asking why I allow him to post.

 

[Bdub777]

I agree he isn't a problem. But I get comments and PMs asking why I allow him to post.

What?! That’s CRAZY!

 

[SgtHulka]

And just to be sure, to repeat, to emphasize, I didn't post this to complain in any way about how this forum is moderated, just to share what I thought was a viewpoint that could apply to Redbirdfan.net and how some of these posts get "nasty". It is a dilemma, and as others have mentioned above, the best approach if you're bugged - as I am from time to time - is to just let it roll off. Since most of us want to stay here and enjoy the "good" exchanges.

Crazy is the least of the problems in my view, by the way. I agree with that point. Well, not even a problem, really.

Gabby Redbird sometimes needs a translator plug in. Get on that Q

 

[DougSutton]

Great post and I appreciate you sharing this on here. This overall topic/viewpoint you shared is something I'm very passionate about and close to. I have a few friends that are thought leaders in this space and have been on the frontlines discussing what they refer to as the meta crisis that we are facing. If you haven't already seen The Social Dilemma, it's a good entry point into the challenges with social media platforms.

My friends Daniel Schmachtenberger and Tristan Harris (Founder of the Center For Humane Technology) have given many talks on this.

Here is Tristan on 60 Minutes discussing Social Media and Political Polarization in America

Tristan has also recently testified to congress discussing part of the problem.

Here is Daniel and Tristan on Joe Rogan (this is a long podcast interview and they go into many of the challenges we're facing including global threats from AI)

The type of challenges we see on a platform like this are fueled by challenges created by media platforms we are exposed to.

Here's an overview of a few of the challenges caused by these types of media companies and platforms:

1. Free social media platforms that rely on ad revenue so their incentive is to maximize the amount of time people spend on site. (TV "News" networks on all ends of the political spectrum rely on ratings in a similar way and have followed suit to some of these exact challenges)

2. Advanced AI and Machine Learning algorithms have identified a weakness in human psyche to maximize time on site. Sadly, one of the most effective ways is to "hijack your limbic system". This part of your brain has the "fight or flight", primitive level of thinking. When a person's limbic system takes over, the prefrontal cortex (the part of your brain that thinks with logic and reason) is no longer in the driver seat. When this happens, a person loses their ability to think rationally and resorts to primitive thinking and behavior.

3. The best way to hijack the limbic system is to cause people to be upset and angry. A way to effectively do this is to use short, polarizing content and headlines that lack nuance, substance and intellectual dialogue. This is often referred to as using "straw man" arguments instead of "steel man" which basically means attacking an opposing viewpoint with the weakest argument possible to minimize them.

4. Social media platforms use AI to feed each person a completely customized feed of information. This causes people to only receive viewpoints that double down on their pre-existing bias in an information silo. So we now have multiple factions of people in our society that are consuming information that is not only polarizing but causes them to think that people with differing views are their enemy.

5. These platforms especially (including message forums) are prone to more divisive rhetoric because people remain in their silos and often post from anonymous accounts. Even if they are using their real identify, there is still a disconnect from the type of human interaction we have had since the beginning of time. Only in the last 20 years or so has our species engaged in this type of communication.

6. Because of this virtual disconnect, people are more likely to communicate in a more aggressive, divisive "keyboard warrior" way that they would never communicate in an in person or live video conference, face to face interaction.

7. Shorter, briefer things are more engaging than long, complex, nuanced ideas and platforms like Twitter with 140 characters do not allow for cultivation of curiosity or critical thinking.

8. Because of this, it has been proven that people now have much less attention spans. This shows up as people constantly checking their phone, even during important meetings or time with family and a loss of ability to display emotional intelligence.

9. All of this directly influences big media and political parties to follow suit because they see first hand how engaging and addictive these approaches are. The most polarizing figures (political and otherwise) are the ones that get the most attention, re-tweets, etc.

10. Because of all of this, people are also becoming much more susceptible to conspiracy theories and/or just believing and repeating whatever information they consume without applying critical thinking, fact checking or diving into a topic to fully understand all viewpoints.

The byproduct of all of this is an increasingly polarized society, lack of empathy, shorter attention spans, less substance and less collaboration.

Relevant to this topic, Chinese owned TicTok is just one major example of this and if you look at the differences between U.S. TicTok and the Chinese version Douyin, they are completely different in how they engage their users. Tristan's interview on 60 Minutes discusses this.