Comments on: On the value of dissenting opinions

By: Harriet

Harriet — Mon, 24 May 2010 02:10:53 +0000

You’re right; this is a good post. I tend to stay away from twitter arguments as it is the wrong venue for discussion (just way too short). Blog comments can be great if people are open and not didactic in their approaches. This is what makes social media great. I’ve written posts where the comments added more tot he dicussion that the post itself! Conversely, some commenters can be mean and there’s just no reason to be hurtful. So, while this is not the way the world works, I defend the right of people to leave reasonable comments but not to be nasty

By: Social Media Revolution or end of Objective Reason? | Design is Philosophy - The Pink & Yellow Media Blog

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:59:01 +0000

[...] For further reading on the topic of dissent and social media check out Raul Pacheco’s post on the same topic entitled On the value of dissenting opinions. [...]

By: Morten Rand-Hendriksen

Morten Rand-Hendriksen — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:55:14 +0000

Man, compared to you I just come off as a guy throwing out crazy rants. Well written as always my friend. I’m linking my piece to yours now as further reading.

By: hollywood-acting

hollywood-acting — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:42:45 +0000

as a research scientist, i also value dissenting opinions. i never thought about it, but it does appear that social network sites do not cater to full expression (that, at least, will be read for more than the first few lines)….

By: Todd Sieling

Todd Sieling — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:03:26 +0000

I’m glad you posted this, Raul, as it’s truly one of the most important concerns around the rise of social networking technologies as a forum for public discussion.

There are definitely problems with some design decisions and assumptions in the software that make it harder to work through opinions that question or challenge, but I’m not sure it’s things like the 140-character format that are to blame.

I think a key issue of how social networks are affecting our ability to deal with dissent is that they facilitate opinion deepening instead of diversification. We often strive to make software deliver what we want and tune out what we don’t. That ability can turn social media networks, and other content channels like RSS feeds, into magic mirrors that pronounce each of us the smartest in the land every time we look into them, because we train them to show only what we agree with. It’s not a new phenomenon in mass media cultures, but it is a bad habit that is intensified by the tools when it’s not consciously countered.

We can think about it as the care and feeding of an open mind. If we only involve ourselves in places where we see what we like and hear opinions that reflect back and deepen what we already believe, then the ability to listen and think about what we don’t agree with right off the bat suffers, and I think this is where a lot of online discussion currently falters. If we can’t form those habits on our own, then the best software will need to salt our food for thought with dissent rather than constantly sweetening it.

By: Ben Ziegler

Ben Ziegler — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:55:36 +0000

Hi Raul, good post…
Dissent = diversity; which is good, and the way of all living systems. I think the social media of today is enabling dissent. Both collaboration and collective action are facilitated through today’s web tools. Even on the most divisive of topics (e.g., abortion, evolution…) you will find a Wikipedia entry, lovingly kept alive and evolving, by groups of people with strong opinions, no matter their stripe.

By: GusF

GusF — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:58:38 +0000

As we discussed yesterday, I think that people are now afraid to be sued for any comments they might make, thus we are now careful what we say or state publically in the Social Media space. We might disagree with someone, but we now politely say so, but don’t necessarily offer commentry why we are disagreeing with you.

Social Media has open up the world to many who wish to broadcast, but I think now we reverting back to one on one conversations in the real world to truly state how we feel.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:48:10 +0000

I would add anonymity to the list of reasons. It’s so easy to argue with someone when hiding behind a fake name, and civil disagreements can quickly become heated flame wars when you don’t have to say who you really are.