On an individual level, there's always going to be people whose experiences don't match the average, but I really do believe most Internet conversation isn't particularly productive. I'm not saying I don't have productive Internet conversation, though.
Anyway, it seems like we're at an impasse, but I may as well link some references that back up what I'm trying to say.
> On an individual level, there's always going to be people whose experiences don't match the average, but I really do believe most Internet conversation isn't particularly productive. I'm not saying I don't have productive Internet conversation, though.
Just wanted to say, as soon as I saw this I clapped my forehead - I'd provided an anecdote as data :(
Tangential, but any individual only knows their 'anecdotal experience'. It is one's golden source. No one knows 'the average'. One can read a science paper or watch a video that purports to present the average opinion, but even then all one knows it's what the paper or video states, as that is the limit of one's personal experience.
Anyway, it seems like we're at an impasse, but I may as well link some references that back up what I'm trying to say.
There was this fascinating experiment posted recently to HN, "30 minutes with a stranger": https://pudding.cool/2025/06/hello-stranger/ - conversation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45124003
Publications regarding how people are exposed to opposing viewpoints online and how that influences polarization:
"How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting" https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
"How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media?" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019832705
"Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06297-w