8 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: We're back! And We've Brought Updates
I would disagree.
Anthropology is a field with broad applicability, but because it also encompasses a lot of topics that can be polarizing and sensitive politically and socially, it-- and the subs devoted to it-- tends to be a magnet for attacks from the politically and socially conservative / right-wing, including trolling.
A larger audience is good, but it needs to be balanced with well considered and well written answers that both explain the subject clearly and in an engaging way. Too much focus on a large audience and away from "better answers" and you get an increase in low-effort and low-information answers or responses that not only muddy the water but can be actively harmful.
Not to mention also providing (mostly unintended) cover for trolls, which *are* a real problem on this sub.
the science is getting exponentially complex and misinformation is spreading like wildfire.
This is absolutely true. And that's why quashing the *opportunity* for misinformation is so important. Trolls have perfected the art of what's called, somewhat humorously (and crudely) JAQ-ing off (just asking questions) and the related activity of "sea lioning." These are both *very* apparent on this and other social science subs.
And those kinds of questions are usually headed by the kind of broad thread titles that are mentioned above.
If a few innocent but low-effort questions are trimmed, and in the process a lot of slimy, sneaky attempts to slide troll questions into the discourse are *also* trimmed, then I consider that a net positive. Both for the sub, and for science / social science communication.
Comment by Sulfamide at 28/06/2023 at 20:07 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
That does make sense.
Thank you for your insightful answer, realist but also a little defeatist in my opinion.