Beyond the "Like" Button: Fostering Meaningful Online Discussions

I remember a youtube video the other day about some recent news about defunding the federal department of education, a story that has been unfolding over the recent months (now at the time of this publishing has been realized!) The video itself was informative and well-written. But the comments section? It was a battlefield. Name-calling, personal attacks, and barely veiled insults flew across the screen. It struck me how easily the shield of online anonymity transforms polite individuals into digital defilers, ready to unleash their most cutting remarks. This isn't an isolated incident; it's a common phenomenon across the vast landscape of online discourse; on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter (now X), and plenty of news sites. It begs the question: how can we move beyond the simple "like" and cultivate more meaningful, constructive online discussions?

The allure and efficiency of the "like" button is undeniable. It's a quick, effortless way to express agreement or appreciation. But it also fosters a culture of superficial, or desensitized engagement. It prioritizes quantity over quality, encouraging users to scroll through content quickly, pausing only to tap the thumbs-up icon. This doesn't leave much room for nuanced thought or in-depth discussion. It even incites the more dramatic and radical readers to comment/ Moreover in the context of comments, the anonymity afforded by the internet can embolden some individuals to express views they might otherwise keep to themselves. This lack of accountability can lead to a more aggressive and confrontational tone, as seen in the comment section example I mentioned earlier.

Problems with current engagement flows

The main problems we see with current engagement flows and interactions on social media (and some news sites) are:

• There are only superficial ways of engagement (only upvotes)
• We see too many destructive comments and not enough constructive
• Readers and users take information at face-value and do not do their own research to understand deeper meanings

In terms of aggressive accountability, I'm not suggesting we do away with anonymity altogether. It can be a valuable tool for whistleblowers or those who fear reprisal for expressing dissenting opinions. Nor am I advocating for strict censorship or credibility checks, which can be nice but can stifle free speech and open debate. The challenge lies in finding a balance: preserving the benefits of anonymity while simultaneously fostering a more constructive online environment.

How to Support Thoughtful Engagement

One potential approach is to promote platforms and tools that encourage thoughtful engagement. Instead of simply "liking" a comment, users could be prompted to explain why they agree or disagree. Imagine a system that offers a range of response options beyond "like" and "dislike," such as "insightful," "interesting," "needs clarification," or "respectfully disagree." This would encourage users to articulate their views more clearly and thoughtfully.

Another strategy is to design online spaces that prioritize respectful dialogue. Platforms could implement features that highlight well-reasoned arguments and de-emphasize inflammatory rhetoric. For instance, algorithms could be designed to surface comments that contribute meaningfully to the conversation, rather than those that simply generate strong emotional reactions. This could involve analyzing the language used in comments, identifying patterns of respectful disagreement, and even flagging potentially abusive or offensive content (these types of comments always seem to have the highest engagement but the lowest form of content value).

Furthermore, we need to cultivate a culture of digital literacy and critical thinking. Users need to be equipped with the skills to evaluate information critically, recognize bias, and engage in respectful debate. This could involve educational initiatives in schools, workplaces, and community centers, teaching individuals how to navigate the online world responsibly and ethically. Read more in my other blog post about education. 

Consider, for example, the concept of "deliberative polling," where a representative sample of individuals is brought together to discuss a particular issue in depth. Participants are provided with balanced information about the issue, have the opportunity to ask questions of experts, and then engage in facilitated discussions with one another. This approach encourages thoughtful consideration of different perspectives and can lead to more informed and nuanced opinions. While it may not be feasible to implement deliberative polling on a large scale for every online discussion, the underlying principles – balanced information, expert input, and facilitated dialogue – can be adapted and applied to online platforms.

In summary,

• Promote platforms and tools that encourage thoughtful engagement by offering a range of response options beyond "like" and "dislike," such as "insightful," "interesting," "needs clarification," or "respectfully disagree."
• Design online spaces that prioritize respectful dialogue by implementing features that highlight well-reasoned arguments and de-emphasize inflammatory rhetoric.
• Cultivate a culture of digital literacy and critical thinking by equipping users with the skills to evaluate information critically, recognize bias, and engage in respectful debate through educational initiatives.
• Adapt the principles of "deliberative polling" to online platforms by providing balanced information, expert input, and facilitated dialogue to encourage thoughtful consideration of different perspectives.

How do you think we can encourage more meaningful online discussions? What role do platforms, users, and educators play in fostering a more constructive online environment? Share your thoughts and ideas in the comments below!