Item — HN Reader

Here's my theory on why we see internet toxicity --

A lot of people think they are offering "free information" on the internet, but what they are really doing is offering a transaction: "I'll tell you what I think but in a manner where I present myself as higher status than you." [There are the exceptions, particularly here on HN, where somebody is infinitely humble and patient of course, especially on certain topics]

You'll meet a lot of people outside the internet who are interested in doing this too "Let me overexplain X to you" (e.g. Mansplaining). Which conveys again two things -- "free" information, but actually on the condition of presenting oneself as "the teacher."

I think on the internet, where there are 0 barriers to entry, ANYBODY can post an offer, no matter who bad it is (let me peddle a stereotype as brilliance and see who bites).

Someday soon, if we want, we can have a version of HN where every single comment is rewritten by GPT4 to be friendly/positive/deferential but equally informative.

4 comments

Overexplaining can also be the result of anxiously trying to get the explanation perfect.

EDIT: I agree with your overall post, though.

Related/similar: This post by Alice Maz https://www.alicemaz.com/writing/splain.html describes two models of communication: emphasizing information sharing and harmonious emotional experience respectively. There are two perspectives, of "offering information" as a gift, and of status games / social signaling, with greater prevalence among certain people/subcultures, though as you say the two are probably mixed in practice.

> Even many replies I'd pegged as obvious, blatant misogyny turned out to have been people eagerly offering me gifts of information bewildered that I rudely rejected them.

(It's interesting to consider the other way too.)

My theory is people just disagree on the definitions of subjective terminology.

This is a big part. You end up with lots of arguments about what is “better” when the definition involves a lot of personal preferences and different weighing of value.

I like to call those color arguments because it’s no different than arguing over which color is best.

There's a corner of the internet where regulars on a topic endlessly argue trying to nail down an objective definition of subjective terms. Literally every day they will resume their sisyphean task of arguing the definition (and level of importance of) "fun", and slandering those who disagree.

Thanks for getting into the subjective roles / class differences inherent in conversation. I go crazy trying to explain it, nobody ever wants to understand.