My main concern in online discussions is that you're effectively arguing against a hydra. Even if you successfully convince a group of people about the validity of a specific point, there will always be someone else who will show up to continue arguing (often, as you say, with a completely different argument). And if someone successfully convinces me that my argument was wrong, there is no way for me to declare the point settled - someone else will show up and keep the discussion going.

It's turtles all the way down, where each turtle is yelling at the one on top.

It's my personal belief that the endless arguing as you describe is the main point of Twitter for a lot of people; they're not there to settle an argument or to have their mind changed, they're there for the heated discussions.

And I kinda get it, I was there for it as well and to this day will make shitposts on the internet with no intent to actually engage with any replies <_<

There's no function similar to "likes", "upvotes", or "reddit gold" that incentivizes good faith communication either. The features are too ambiguous. One community on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ invented their own "delta" awards, where you submit a stance, people try to convince you otherwise, and if they do, they're awarded a "delta".

It's a small community, but it's an interesting experiment at what online communication could be.

> It's my personal belief that the endless arguing as you describe is the main point of Twitter for a lot of people; they're not there to settle an argument or to have their mind changed, they're there for the heated discussions.

'twas ever thus - some people just like arguing. Give them an amplifier and they'll never stop. Usenet was the same, back in the day, so its nothing new.

I would recognize that as just another form of bad faith communication. If you’re not in a debate to listen, learn and see things from another perspective you are just in it for emotional reasons (“I want to be right”,”Look how cool I am”,”My way or the highway”, etc)

It goes far beyond twitter culture. Even in daily conversation there are people who only open out port and close in port. One signal is that whenever you bring up a perspective (either in support/disagreement) this person gonna continue his speech and make the conversation expereince like attending a lecture.

If your packets keep bouncing, you stop sending 'em. Their packets get ACKed and disregarded.

Tongue in cheek, I'd call that "racist uncle at thanksgiving".

Addressing your opponent position lets them pick what the topic is. They are picking a topic their position is strong at. Therefore addressing your opponent position in limited-attention setting (aka publicly) is simply a losing move.

So the only wining move is not to play?

There seems to be an assumption that the opponent isn't a competent player. They might be.

The winning move is to seem like the winning side of discourse in their space.

The truly winning move is to own a media conglomerate including social psychology people in communications.

For your own sanity, yeah I think so; online 'debates' only drain energy and attention if the other party is not acting in good faith.

That said, if you are playing, the winning move is not to play their games. Don't engage with their attempted straw man arguments, or end up in endless discussions about semantics. Some of the best debates I've seen / read were people not playing games and not reacting to bad faith arguments / tactics, but instead cleverly pointing out something else.

No, if you dont play, then your opponent point of view is the only one out there. People will move their opinions to match your opponents more.

I used to think like that.

My online posting life got a lot less stressful once I realized that the world will be exactly the same if I neglect to rebut some twitter user's bad/uninformed point of view.

Maybe you have a ton more social clout than I do, though :P

I have stopped playing, and it turned out to be the winning move.

I get involved in conversations, but not in heated debates. I don't even dignify bad faith responses with an answer.

Participation is optional. If it's pointless and unpleasant, I don't bother anymore.

I try to do the same, now. From my perspective, a prerequisite is divorcing conversation from the concept of "winning."

Same here, although I just redefine winning to learning something new, seeing a different perspective or refining my own position. It's all about exchanging information.

Addressing opposing arguments directly is not really a feature of arguing. That kind of good faith debate is more of a special case debate.

It's just not what public debate is. You see rookie politicians do it, but it's generally a mistake.

A huge part of what political debate is, is dominating the frame. The frame. The key facts, alternative or otherwise. The key question being debated.

Once those are established, the conclusion tends to be trivial.

I am not familiar with public debate. Before two persons start a public debate, is it a common assumption that you are going to hold your ground till the end, whatever the information provided by the opponent?

There is no flow of information and I could not see this form of acts as "communication" - it seems to be more like a kind of art/show/performance.

The goal of a public debate is to influence the perception of the many passive listeners, not the few other participants of the debate; There is extensive flow of information/communication, but it's simply not aimed towards the other participants of the debate.

So a key part of such debates becomes influencing or provoking others to talk about things that advance your cause and avoiding discussion of things that hurt it. E.g. if someone says "you eat babies" and you respond with extensive evidence that you don't, then that public debate becomes a debate about you being a baby-eater and not whatever you wanted to promote.

Correct, public debate is theater.

Im not sure I was using the term correctly. What I mean is arguing or discussing matters of public discourse... politics and whatnot.

That's just it, neither side goes to Twitter for a good faith argument, they're there to vent and lash out, but they've already dismissed the other party.

I mean not always, but I do wonder if the posts that LOOK like they're in good faith are also misleading as such.

Best thing to do is to not spend the energy. Don't engage with anyone if they don't have an open mind or are acting in bad faith. If it's more neutral, you can always ask "What will it take you to change your mind?"; the answer of that will determine if it's worth spending energy on. And the answer to that could be done in bad faith as well - for example, if the other says "I will change my mind if I see a scientific paper disproving me", but then proceeds to not actually read any scientific paper sent to them, they were acting in bad faith all along.

Another point about social media - it’s structurally easier to say things (done with a single ‘re-tweet’ click to thousands of people) but increasingly difficult to listen (you still have only one thing you can focus), and even harder to carry on a two-way conversation because of this disparity. Even if everyone is well intended, it would be difficult if everyone is talking at the same time now mix in bad-faith actors and the situation becomes dire.

The purpose of such exchanges is not to communicate information to the other participant. It is to signal allegiance to one’s own side. This dynamic tends to drive people who already disagree further apart, and those who already agree, closer.

Hmm. I no longer log into Twitter, but I do browse it without being logged in[0]. At least with regard to Brexit (about which it seems the argument is still raging), pro and anti do seem to engage with each other, the problem is they reject each other’s evidence.

[0] The annoying popups you get when you scroll too far without being logged in, do at least prevent me from doom-scrolling

You can actually close that screen if you click the login button. The next screen will have an x to close the window in the top right.

re: Brexit, the "argument" has been poisoned by high level bad actors who pay money to have people and bots go on Twitter to defend their point, who pay for advertising / propaganda campaigns, etc. That goes far beyond some bad faith actors on twitter.

This extends to a lot of politics these days. There are well-financed parties out there whose goal is to destabilize, mainly targeting the US and Europe but I'm sure it happens everywhere. These are the ones behind Trump getting elected, Brexit proceeding even though only 28% of eligible voters voted in favor of it, the referendum being bad for only having two options, and the referendum only being advisory, and countries like Hungary and Poland shifting hard to authoritarian right, breaking with the separation of state and justice.

These forces have the destabilization of post-ww2 unions in mind on the one hand, and people focusing on each other internally instead of internationally on the other. Think things like JK Rowling's trolling, Trump coming out with something that all of twitter and the media pounce on, Reddit brigades.

>The annoying popups you get when you scroll too far without being logged in, do at least prevent me from doom-scrolling

I feel the same way! When they come up, my reaction is "nice"+cmd-w. Thanks, twitter!

To your response: I mean, there are some curious people on twitter. Curious people don't engage in the problematic dynamics outlied in the article, so some exchange of information happens there. That's clearly not representative of the bigger picture though, simply because the most people can't afford curiosity, courtesy of their cognitive functions (if you subscribe to Jungs model) and/or their position in maslows pyramid.

> people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments

What do you think ‘stay on message’ means? It’s as old as rhetoric itself.

Cathago delenda est!