What good discussion looks like, and where to find it.
October 1, 2019 2:26 AM   Subscribe

What makes internet discussion good? And where do you go to get it? (MeFi included, natch.)

This question comes out of a long exploration of internet-based discussion sites - ranging from bulletin boards to Twitter, and across the decades - so it's been some while in the brewing.

It's actually a three part question cleverly disguised as a two part question, because the first bit can be split in two: people's definitions and priorities at this point in time, and over a longer time. The remaining part is for current examples.

It's the sort of question that I'd like to see as an ongoing dialogue: what makes internet discussion good? What kind of good is it? Short form essays w comment sections? Text only? Microblogging? Do answers change over time, based on what's offered?

What works for you? Is there general agreement that thoughtful and meaningful conversation happens best in a given format?

For all I know, this question will just disappear down the stack, and I'll continue the search elsewhere. Or maybe it's already being discussed in a place I am about to discover.

NB: I'm putting this in the philosophy section because it's about the intent rather than the technology. It's a sociological question about the use of technology, and whether social aims are being met by the latest formats.
posted by rustipi to Religion & Philosophy (4 answers total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
I don't think the format matters. I've seen and had good discussions in all those formats and more - email lists, bulletin boards, facebook, livejournal. What matters is that the participants take part in good faith and with good intent, and as such, the good discussion these days tends to be in places that are not open to the general internet public. All my current examples are closed/private facebook groups.
posted by corvine at 5:37 AM on October 1, 2019 [1 favorite]


When diverse perspectives are present and listened to.
posted by k8t at 7:21 AM on October 1, 2019


Tools for moderation, having someone in authority to do the moderation, and accepted social standards for the discussion. Often that means a closed environment, but not necessarily.
posted by suelac at 9:09 AM on October 1, 2019


Response by poster: Thanks for the two responses referring to closed groups. Does that then mean the range of topics under discussion is relatively narrow? It's easy to see people getting on and making good discussion when there's a common focus, as with any number of specialist groups.

But there's another point to be taken here, which is that attitude matters more than format. I'll go along with that for the sake of discussion, at least. There are good questions to come from it - like how to establish a good shared attitude in a more public setting. Having active moderators is one way. But is there more to it than just weeding out the short-tempered?

I'm still hoping to hear some answers to do with format. For example, I can't fathom Twitter as a place of considered discussion. Facebook is also an unlikely place, despite the existence of closed groups that do get on. I don't get the same level of reflection or detail that comes along with longer story/article pieces, in say, Medium, or The Atlantic, Wired, the NYT and so on.
posted by rustipi at 11:18 AM on October 1, 2019


« Older What does a stroke feel like?   |   Help me plan a vacation scavenger hunt in Japan! Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.