5 ms·
>Hearing only the things that you agree with might be easy and comfortable. But the idea of a community where everyone only agrees with one another, and dissent
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
>Hearing only the things that you agree with might be easy and comfortable. But the idea of a community where everyone only agrees with one another, and dissenting voices are promptly silenced, sounds more like dystopia to us.
I'm genuinely interested to see if this works out. Not kidding. However, with a straight face, I can also say I'm not optimistic, because 'echo chamber' tendencies are kind of why those "communities" tend to flourish, at least in my perspective.
- jonlucc 11y agoI actually think the problem is sort of the opposite. People who agree are (usually) civil to each other. Online, where privacy or pseudonymity is the norm, people who disagree with each other tend to do so in ways they wouldn't imagine doing in person. Environments of disagreement seem to often devolve into aggression and rude personal attacks.
- flashman 11y agoThey're proposing to fix circlejerks by showing controversial content among popular content. But I think they're directly supporting circlejerks in another way: "By prioritizing the content and votes cast by highly reputed users, as opposed to anonymous new arrivals whom no one knows or trusts, Caucus is better able to figure out which content is most trustworthy." This seems to literally mean circlejerking users will be rewarded with algorithmic trust.