These communities seem natural given the nature of the internet. The barrier to publishing or forming a community is pretty much non-existent, and because the internet transcends most borders the critical mass of people required to form communities with non-mainstream ideals is incredibly low. And so you get groups of holocaust deniers, flat earthers and apparently (+ unfortunately) paranoid schizophrenics.
It seems like the internet might almost reinforce the echo chamber by amplifying the feeling that everyone else is a 'sheep', because you see the big communities of people (news organizations, social media etc) dismissing your communities ideas and so people turn more inward and focus more on others who hold the same views.
Exactly. The "gang-stalking victim" group is just more obviously detached from reality. But all of us, including me, are in one or more of these now. We just don't know which ones.
I think this is built into the relatively libertarian structure of the internet. From the 1990s to mid-2000s, if you cared about information, politics, art or culture at all, the project was to get rid of filters and gatekeepers. To increasing the number of voices that can be heard and attract a large audience.
But when you encounter a group like the "gang-stalking victims" then you realize this has its problems. I first encountered such a group in the late 1990s - people who claimed to be victims of "psychotronic" devices implanted in their heads. I had a moment of "Oh, shit, this is what the future is going to be, isn't it?".
I don't need to show why the pluralistic internet has had good effects. But some problems are starting to overtake the benefits. We're all in one filter bubble or another now. And we're discovering how filterless media is dangerously vulnerable to demagoguery.
I'm not sure disintermediation is important now. Maybe we need re-intermediation. Some mechanism that, without silencing alternative voices, also forces a reasoned consensus on events. Much as Wikipedia does, but without the reliance on dying institutions such as ad-supported newspapers, and faster than waiting for an academic to write a book or scientific paper.
It sounds like the Catharsis Hypothesis, which states that the release of aggression in small ways prevents large expressions of aggression. This has been rather thoroughly discredited. Small displays of aggression (e.g. ranting online) train an individual that aggression is an appropriate response, and leads to larger displays of aggression (e.g. physical attacks).
I provide an alternative hypothesis - most people are basically lazy. I don't mean that in a very negative sense, but that our brains are wired to take the path of lesser resistance whenever possible. I forget where I read this first, but I have seen it corroborated by academia. It is INFINITELY easier to type out a hateful message and be agreed with by your peers, than to do something violent and risk real repercussions.
That has nothing to do with laziness though, and everything with risk perception.
Still, if micro-aggressions aren't checked, it is easy to assume they are accepted. That will lead to an escalation of aggression like the GP described.
These communities seem natural given the nature of the internet. The barrier to publishing or forming a community is pretty much non-existent, and because the internet transcends most borders the critical mass of people required to form communities with non-mainstream ideals is incredibly low. And so you get groups of holocaust deniers, flat earthers and apparently (+ unfortunately) paranoid schizophrenics.
It seems like the internet might almost reinforce the echo chamber by amplifying the feeling that everyone else is a 'sheep', because you see the big communities of people (news organizations, social media etc) dismissing your communities ideas and so people turn more inward and focus more on others who hold the same views.