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.

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

▲

awesome_dude 4 days ago | parent [-]

> 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 :(

	▲	verisimi 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.