I write this as someone who spent years engaging in online debates.

I have the screenshots of "victories" to prove it. I can craft the perfect quote tweet, deploy the devastating counterexample, and unleash the clever analogy that leaves opponents speechless.

And I'm dumber for all of it.
https://www.joanwestenberg.com/you-will-never-win-an-argument-on-the-internet-heres-why/

You Will Never Win an Argument On the Internet—Here's Why

The Internet promised us a renaissance of discourse. Armed with instant access to all human knowledge and the ability to connect with brilliant minds worldwide, we imagined our online debates would elevate human understanding to unprecedented heights.  But two decades later, we scroll through our choice of social poison, watching

westenberg.

@Daojoan Yes! I wrote a similar post recently: https://www.terracrypt.net/posts/meditating-medium-message.html

I realize it's a bit funny to say this on a microblogging platform, but I do think short-form media are often pretty bad at being spaces for teaching and learning, even noncommercial ones like this. They can provide pointers to longer articles to read, but the short form messages themselves just aren't very conducive to it I think

Meditating on the medium and the message — Terracrypt

@jfred @Daojoan
The sunk-cost idea-factory 🏭

If I got off social media I might have written another book

But if I’m supposed to use social media to sell books

@Daojoan

"Never Argue with idiots,
They drag you down to their level,
And beat you with experience!"

George Carlin ,and a few others

@Daojoan it might be the equivalent of that thing about moneys flinging crap: they just end up stinking of poo

You Will Never Win an Argument On the Internet — Here’s Why

@Daojoan fantastic article!

I do learn a lot from the Internet and social media, but only when I shut up and read people’s opinions rather than debate with them. If it seems to me that a person might be receptive to feedback, I might occasionally ask for clarification of facts or assertions, but I won’t debate them.

But watching the daily devolution of online debates tells me a darker truth: the very act of arguing on the Internet is making us collectively dumber. This sounds counterintuitive. Debate sharpens the mind, right? Exposure to different viewpoints broadens our perspective. That’s what Socrates taught us, what our schools drill into us, what every “how to think better” course preaches. But something fundamental has been broken in discourse, and we need to understand why before it breaks us too.

Yes, I learned that in school too. Looking back on it, it seems like yet another piece of bologna based on the philosophy of “competition makes everything better,” and “free market of ideas,” fed to us by the authors of our school history books who were very deliberately trying to indoctrinate us into the death cult of capitalism.

@Daojoan

Picture perfectly describes the post!
I 100% agree with everything said as well.

I think we should use this picture every time we see someone arguing, and say "this is how you both look" 😄

@Daojoan

All roads eventually led to mastodon for me. Now armed with so much wisdom. Having learnt so many endearing comebacks. Such as, "All my trolls are morons". 🤣 As invariably right by their very nature.

@Daojoan

It's much easier it is to spread misinformation than it is to debunk it. Someone can just write a catchy 'Coffee causes cancer' article and people start sharing it left and right. But for trying to correct it or prove it's false, one has to dig up scientific studies, cite experts, and explain the actual research... and even then, some people still won't believe you.

@Daojoan @cascheranno

My favorite argument was when I simply quoted the dictionary. Each reply was angrier than the last, and I simply quoted the definition of one of the words they used.

Drove them up a tree. They lost their mind.

Most fun I've had with my clothes on.

@Daojoan Great article. Most people in any argument are simply committed to not understanding you.
@Daojoan I learned this lesson the time I failed to convince somebody that the Earth is round. That was mostly the end of me arguing with people on the internet.
@patioboater @Daojoan That's because everybody knows it is a tetrahedron.

@Daojoan
Great article.

Do have any sympathy for the idea that we're not trying to change the other persons mind so much as we're doing it for the benefit of someone else who's going to read the thread?

Edit: realised I wasn't clear. I mean, so that when some one says "Climate change is a hoax" there's a reply underneath explaining that it isn't, so a passerby brought there by the algorithm sees the lies debunked.

@Daojoan https://mastodon.social/@saliaku/113992401701713812

It's nice to see that arguments don't blow up and become trending in the fediverse

@Daojoan I was reflecting on my interactions on Reddit during the past year and reached the same conclusions, even though I never elaborated them as well as you do.

For one thing. I was thinking that platforms should give more weight to discussions that extend over several exchanges/comments and longer spans of time, rather than rewarding only up-/downvotes.

@gharbeia @Daojoan

I have been pondering the "And the house always fucking wins" part of the post. I wonder if we could encode a set of heuristics onto a bsky feed.

Thread length might be a good start. What else might we put in there to help us reward consensus building and punish outrage farming?

@alsuren @Daojoan Span of time over which a conversation extends, between the original parties or those engaging soon after its beginning, with a cut-off-limit.
Rationale: If you keep getting back to a conversation, it means you've been thinking, rather than deterrence by "easy dunks".

@gharbeia @Daojoan My fear with these metrics is that if you make a feed of long and thoughtful conversation threads from across the network, the consumers of this feed will have to remain voyeurs, or risk derailing the good conversation.

If we limit ourselves to only surfacing easy-to-engage-with top level posts and boosts and first/second level replies, how could we reward consensus farming and punish outrage farming? How do we reward people who build consensus outside their filter bubbles?

@gharbeia @Daojoan I think that one piece of the puzzle is being able to detect dunks. Probably using sentiment analysis?

I really like the idea from pol.is of finding voting cliques and then identifying posts that gain positive consensus from multiple cliques. I don't know how well that would translate to bsky though, because you need to decide what a "vote" looks like.

@alsuren @Daojoan
Speaking of discussions on the web, do you know Kialo.com?
@gharbeia I had not heard of kialo.com. Looking at the featured topics on the homepage, it feels like people are being incentivised to rage-bait. From a cursory glance, there doesn't seem to be any effort to reward people for boosting claims on both sides of the argument, or surfacing claims that are favoured by people who are mostly boosting the opposing position. They probably have enough data to build this though, if you know where one might suggest this kind of thing.
@alsuren there are no regwards of any form. No karma is handed out. It assumes that people are willing to engage in conversation. It's a fairly complicated tool to use, which drives away basic trolls.
@Daojoan "... we built a gladiatorial arena where ideas go to die." Right on.
@Daojoan Nice - thanks for the share (will pass on to students in a science communication class). ps: I saw Husker Dü live several times.
@Daojoan I've spent a decade saying that the argument you advance in detail in your piece is the second-order-effect reason why Quote-Tweets are bad (because they increase the value of the contrarian "dunk" in the information ecosystem).