Negativity in the tech space

[smcoakley]

I listened to parts of WAN show last night and this morning. I think it was good to talk through some of the difficulties LMG has had the past year. I feel like Linus' thoughts on overall negativity in the tech space were pretty understandable; I've noticed this general kind negativity in other spaces this past year or two as well. I think it is a combination of factors:

 

1. Some percentage of people's awareness and sentiment on sponsorships has changed. I think in a good direction, but over-corrected. Previously it was a mystery to a lot of people how corporate sponsorships work, or maybe a lack of understanding how a partnership or sponsorship could affect someone's review on products from that company. I think its good for people to be aware of what relationships a reviewer has with other companies in the space or whether a product was obtained at discount for review purposes.

 

However, I feel like many people over-corrected on this, lacking nuance. Suddenly now there's an attitude of thinking out there that I think is spreading, which believes that if you accept any sponsorship, or have any relationship at all with companies in a space which you review, you are immediately "tainted" and somehow all your arguments you make or anything you say is invalid. Of course, the classic descriptor for this that gets rolled out is "bias", which is a dirtier word now than it ever has been.

 

I believe this line of thinking is unfair and unreasonable, because it lacks an actual nuanced understanding of bias. Firstly, nearly everyone is biased in some way on any topic that they have any experience and interest in. You can't get away from that. So if we were to truly eliminate all channels with bias, then we'd be eliminating all channels. Sorry; no product reviews for you of any kind. And that would be a darn shame, because I think independent review is an incredibly valuable thing to have despite bias, because it provides varied perspectives that can help you become informed and make smarter choices about what things you maybe should and shouldn't buy, without each individual needing to buy it blind and effectively "reviewing it yourself".

 

Bias being omnipresent is not as catastrophic as it first sounds, because bias isn't some kind of deterministic virus that compels you to have a specific opinion. Rather, it is a tendency, preference, or inclination to lean toward a specific viewpoint in favor of something or someone. It does mean that you must be actively aware of your bias in order to think clearly and carefully to come to a conclusion objectively and logically. It does not mean that it is impossible to be logical or objective.

 

The point of being aware of a reviewer's bias is not to cancel them, the point is to help inform you of how their review might be unfairly affected by that bias, maybe in a big way, or maybe in a very small way. It's to aid in our own discernment. That's exactly why its important to sample opinions from many diverse sources, and then discern for yourself based on that information, and not get all your information from a single source and just automatically adopt whatever that source's opinion is as your own. For the same reason, a conclusion carefully arrived at by a group with each individual having different biases is less likely to be biased than one from an isolated individual.

 

2. I do think there's a lot of "shooting the messenger" happening. People are angry about inflation, about their buying power declining, and about the shameful behavior of megacorporations. So they don't want to accept that something related to this might be reasonable or explainable; they just want to tear down literally anything these corporations do, and are happy to tear down anyone who doesn't also participate. This is just another incident of bias, in this case against these companies. While very understandable, and in many cases the negative backlash is deserved, switching off your logical thinking and embracing your bias to the max is never the right answer. I think these same people are hungry to find any company that shows some kind of vulnerability that they can latch on to in order to tear them down, and I think some of the community backlash against LMG came from this.

 

3. People just don't seem to know how to disagree well any more. I see a lot of people equating disagreement with being angry or frustrated, or even as some kind of flaw that must be fixed. It does depend on the topic, but oftentimes, disagreement is perfectly fine and normal. You don't have to agree with each other on everything to work together, or to do a collaboration. Yet, the tribalism on YouTube seems to be higher than ever, and wanting to force everyone into a small group of camps, or into their own camp. I think that's just a shame, because there's a lot more diverse opinions out there than you can make camps for. Nuance, people! Try it sometime!

 

4. The tech industry is changing, and I don't think people are adapting to it well. Gone are the days of big launches and risk-taking innovation in most places. It has instead been replaced with more predictable, incremental improvements. This is easier to predict financially, and with decelerating advancements-per-cost, it is somewhat an understandable move. But for decades, the public was trained to expect big risks and dramatic product launches year over year. I think that's probably a contributing factor for a lot of tech enthusiasts why they got into tech in the first place -- the excitement of using bleeding edge technology.

 

But now that this shift is taking place, people are feeling dried out and bored; there's nothing innovative to be excited about any more. So instead they become sad and angry because they miss the old way. Which again, is understandable, I just don't think people are responding to this in a healthy way. They lash out instead of managing their expectations.

 

 

 

Anyway, enjoyed WAN show this week, those are my thoughts. If I had more time I would have written a shorter post.

[Im_a_Rhinoceros]

It's really simple. You will never have both civility and anonymity on the internet. You want people to act at least halfway decent? You have to pair their online identity to their real one. There is no impetus for people to not be total savages unless their real identity is attached.

 

I'm not advocating for this, mind you. The anonymity on the internet (IMO) is still a net positive. But public discourse online has gotten so far out of hand I'm not sure there's another long term solution. 

 

There's also definitely an element of disruption being fed into the system by at least several governments intent on seeing the free West fall. But sadly, people are too stupid to see it.

[BethQuentin]

7 hours ago, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

It's really simple. You will never have both civility and anonymity on the internet. You want people to act at least halfway decent? You have to pair their online identity to their real one. There is no impetus for people to not be total savages unless their real identity is attached.

Well this is not exactly correct. It is demonstrably false that people will behave decently online when their real identity is attached. As evidence I cite Facebook...

[Im_a_Rhinoceros]

3 hours ago, BethQuentin said:

Well this is not exactly correct. It is demonstrably false that people will behave decently online when their real identity is attached. As evidence I cite Facebook...

a) half of Facebook “users” are bots

b) the other half are a self-selecting group of a-holes

c) Facebook is famously hands off in dealing with its user’s actions compared to other platforms

d) even given all this you are waaay less likely to see a death threat or other threat of physical harm on Facebook than say X or Reddit. You will see TONS of misinformation, but not violence or calls to violence at anywhere the same scale

D) there’s also a metric shitload of scholarly data to back up my assertion

[GarlicDeliverySystem]

4 hours ago, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

a) half of Facebook “users” are bots

b) the other half are a self-selecting group of a-holes

c) Facebook is famously hands off in dealing with its user’s actions compared to other platforms

d) even given all this you are waaay less likely to see a death threat or other threat of physical harm on Facebook than say X or Reddit. You will see TONS of misinformation, but not violence or calls to violence at anywhere the same scale

D) there’s also a metric shitload of scholarly data to back up my assertion

So what is missing is basically consequences for people in the form of moderation, right?

 

Even in anonymous circles you can have more civility if other people would just not accept your presence otherwise, or mods could delete/shadowban accounts.

I think there was a case where Blizzard (?) tried to attach real names to people on the forum, iirc? Didn't last a day or so before people showed why that is a really bad idea.

[BethQuentin]

18 hours ago, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

You will never have both civility

18 hours ago, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

You have to pair their online identity to their real one [to have civility]

9 hours ago, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

a) half of Facebook “users” are bots

b) the other half are a self-selecting group of a-holes

So Facebook users are either fake, or real but not civil?

Therefore:

12 hours ago, BethQuentin said:

It is demonstrably false that people will behave decently online when their real identity is attached

 

There are many places, even in well developed countries, where people don't even act decent and civil in person.
I'm not sure that having ones real life identity tied to their reputation really factors into many peoples thought processes. You'd think it would, but there are so many examples to the contrary that it becomes tough to believe that many people are thinking deeply enough for these things to even matter to them.

[smcoakley]

Agreed, there's plenty of people who can't have a civil discussion even without anonymity.

[sounds]

Hot take.

 

Personally I like that LMG has starting wielding bans for commenters.

[Stahlmann]

On 9/15/2024 at 6:40 PM, BethQuentin said:

There are many places, even in well developed countries, where people don't even act decent and civil in person.
I'm not sure that having ones real life identity tied to their reputation really factors into many peoples thought processes. You'd think it would, but there are so many examples to the contrary that it becomes tough to believe that many people are thinking deeply enough for these things to even matter to them.

There will always be people who behave like assholes even without anonymity. I know plenty of those people in real life. But anonymity certainly helps other people cross the line and say things they wouldn't say to someone's face. Anonymity isn't the only factor, but it's a huge factor in why people are generally a lot more toxic on the Internet.

 

And for anyone who spends a lot of time on Reddit and Twitter, I recommend that you stop using those sites for a week or two. You'll quickly find that you're a lot happier without them. I know I am.

[Sauron]

On 9/14/2024 at 11:39 PM, Im_a_Rhinoceros said:

It's really simple. You will never have both civility and anonymity on the internet. You want people to act at least halfway decent? You have to pair their online identity to their real one. There is no impetus for people to not be total savages unless their real identity is attached.

This comment reads as something straight out of like 2005, before social media proved that people are going to make complete asses of themselves in public even and sometimes especially when their real name is attached to their posts... meanwhile anonymous forums like this one are generally quite civil, mostly due to proper moderation rather than anything else.

[Kisai]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:33 AM, smcoakley said:

 

However, I feel like many people over-corrected on this, lacking nuance. Suddenly now there's an attitude of thinking out there that I think is spreading, which believes that if you accept any sponsorship, or have any relationship at all with companies in a space which you review, you are immediately "tainted" and somehow all your arguments you make or anything you say is invalid. Of course, the classic descriptor for this that gets rolled out is "bias", which is a dirtier word now than it ever has been.

 

"Bias" comes from being too close to the sponsor. Like if Dbrand wants to advertise on LMG unconditionally, that's fine, but LMG still needs to say it's a sponsor.

 

Other brands might not be so cordial about LMG talking about hacking products or misusing their devices in "cool project bro" stuff. Like it's actually better to take GN's approach where they buy the products they review (without revealing it's them,) regardless if the vendor wants them to. That's how Consumer Reports has always operated historically and that's how they got to be trusted more than the BBB. 

 

Buy you have to also realize the position LMG is in with Youtube (and also Twitch) where some content is off limits. Like you will never see LMG review any gun tech because guns are overall illegal in Canada, and acquiring anything that might be cool (Eg "could I 3D print a working gun?") in that vein of ideas would be just impossible to do, impossible to get sponsorships for, and would probably taint the LMG brand.

 

If youtube impoded overnight, where would LMG get it's revenue from? LMG needs to have a diverse revenue source in case something like that happens that is beyond their control, I doubt LMG could keep the lights on and pay it's staff if they had to forgo two months of revenue from Youtube due to getting the channel deleted or something.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

That's how Consumer Reports has always operated historically and that's how they got to be trusted more than the BBB. 

Consumer Reports is greatly flawed, not sure when but they are greatly flawed and shouldn't necessarily be trusted.

 

A prime example of this is how they test "automated driving" amoungst consumer vehicles...you'd be surprised that actual capability of driving is classified as one of the least influential score. [and they weren't too transparent about it originally].  As an example, if you had vehicle A which could drive you from home to work 99% of the time without any issues but lets you let your hands off the wheel [when you aren't supposed to, because you trick it] and lets you activate it in areas that technically it doesn't support [even if it drives perfectly fine and safely].  That vehicle A will lose to vehicle B which is geofenced to only drive highways and only drive during a flat straight section, if vehicle B had things to monitor the driver themselves.

 

I think this speaks to the larger part of this topic as well in regards to where some of the "negativity" comes from.  In the above example vehicle B is rated better than vehicle A despite vehicle A being the clear winner in regards to consumer choice.

 

Overall there's a major issue with Consumer Reports as well, that to an extent also creeps into what I find about LMG.  They don't always disclose things like they should.  For example, yes Consumer Reports purchase a lot of their own products...but did you also know that Ford is a major contributor towards Consumer Reports and the current President/CEO of Consumer reports came from the Ford Foundation [which is funded by Ford].

 

 

On 9/14/2024 at 8:33 AM, smcoakley said:

I believe this line of thinking is unfair and unreasonable, because it lacks an actual nuanced understanding of bias. Firstly, nearly everyone is biased in some way on any topic that they have any experience and interest in. You can't get away from that. So if we were to truly eliminate all channels with bias, then we'd be eliminating all channels. Sorry; no product reviews for you of any kind. And that would be a darn shame, because I think independent review is an incredibly valuable thing to have despite bias, because it provides varied perspectives that can help you become informed and make smarter choices about what things you maybe should and shouldn't buy, without each individual needing to buy it blind and effectively "reviewing it yourself".

I agree that everyone has biases, but generally I think you missed the mark on what makes people feel the bias though.

 

There are plenty of people who people will let get away with many different sponsors and not really care about it [those channels being ones that the community knows it's just an ad read and are open to the fact they are paid to state things]...and as long as it's not taken too far I feel that many won't really care too much.

 

Then there are the channels where if they take a sponsor, because of things they have stated in the past or the stance they have taken you expect them to be better; so taking a sponsorship sullies it or shows that they clearly don't care.

 

Examples of this are VPN sponsorships really:

Tom Scott - Chose the VPN sponsor very carefully, stuck to his version of the script without all the marketing fluff.  If he had done anything else [or if he picked a scummy one] then instantly a lot of his audience would have lost respect for him [which I think is the general negativity]

 

Many Twitch Streamers - Just took one that offered them money.  I don't think people hold them as accountable, as we all know.  There are exceptions but overall I don't think too much negativity arises from this

 

Tech YouTubers - Where they are generally honest about what they are saying, and they have vetted what the VPN is.

 

Tech YouTubers - This is where I think negativity comes from a whole lot.  Taking VPN and spouting half-truths product reads about it.

 

LMG - Chose PIA where I'm fairly certain their landing page is still breaking actual laws. [And prior to that on a WAN show claimed they were doing what Tom Scott did but only they got negativity from the community].

 

I think the above sort of shows why there is such an issue.  It's not that people aren't willing to accept sponsors, but it's all about how things are framed.  Tom Scott was allowed to do what he did because when he talked about it you could tell he genuinely looked at it and would cut off the sponsor messed up...vs LMG who claimed to be doing the same thing chose to back a sponsor who literally has an issue in regards to proper pricing disclosure.

[smcoakley]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

"Bias" comes from being too close to the sponsor. Like if Dbrand wants to advertise on LMG unconditionally, that's fine, but LMG still needs to say it's a sponsor.

Agreed, media should disclose sponsors. My point was that having sponsors does not mean that everything you say (maybe even about said sponsors' product) is automatically invalid or incorrect.