> I wonder what do people do when they read bullshit that they agree with. They agree with it (maybe while realizing it's bullshit). I think among people call

> I wonder what do people do when they read bullshit that they agree with. They agree with it (maybe while realizing it's bullshit). I think among people calling for content diversity, there's a mostly explicit assumption that encountering more opinions you disagree with will cause you to either treat those opinions with more respect, or else smell bullshit on your own side of the fence more often. IME it doesn't work that way, regardless of what happens in the lab. If anything, reading bullshit you disagree with has the opposite effect -- "wow, that's a really shitty reason to believe X. People who believe X must be stupid to believe that reason." Seeing high quality justifications for opinions you disagree with or meeting people you respect who disagree with you can both lead to attitude changes and even changes of opinion. But reading punditry on the Internet? Nope. > Is Facebook trying to find ways to maximize how much bullshit will you agree with? Well definitely, because most marketing is bullshit. But I don't think that's what this paper is about.