4 ms·

This is the thing I keep saying. If we kick them off every other platform around rather than letting the community critique them, they'll move to echo chambers

This is the thing I keep saying. If we kick them off every other platform around rather than letting the community critique them, they'll move to echo chambers and new people won't be able to be introduced to their ideas through criticism, only through those echo chambers. Not only that, but these echo chambers tend to let conspiracy theories and misinformation brew and go wild. I do hope they're successful in getting more users onboard. In many ways I like their libertarian-style free speech loving moderation stance personally, but I read invite only somewhere, which is concerning me even more. If they want to take a free speech stance, they need to respect that free speech needs to be for all, so we can critique and discuss these sorts of ideas. Seems all too ripe to be an echo chamber as is. Guess we'll see how long the invite only thing lasts.

Steltek 10y ago
The free TV time gifted to Trump for saying outrageous things gave him a decided signal boost over his rivals. On the other hand, the media did not give sufficient time to a sane counterargument whereas a well-regulated forum might offer that opportunity. Unfortunately, that's not what we see from the balance of Trump supporters online, who are not at all hesitant to flag or brigade opposing viewpoints regardless of merit.
- problems 10y ago
  I'm not so sure, I think the media gave plenty of time to sane counterargument. Even CNN, which I constantly see blamed as an evil by both the left and right, they'd air his stuff, then go and critique it and debate it for quite a while afterwards. I think ultimately not as many people are interested in the critique and debate portion and perhaps more importantly, and I think many supporters just didn't care about a lot of the outrageous stuff he said because their alternative seemed even worse. They were basically left no choice but to dismiss it. If the options were better, even just one of them I think this whole thing would have worked out a lot nicer. But instead a lot of people were caught in the middle debating the better of two evils. I'm sure many will argue it was clearly one way or the other, but I'm pretty sympathetic to both arguments here. Education, debate and rationality can't solve that in a really significant way, only better options can.
teilo 10y ago
I don't know where this "invite only" stuff is coming from. I was not invited, and had no relationship with anyone on the site, and no public profile of note. I signed up because I was curious what they were doing, and was added in a few weeks. That's not to say they don't have some system of prioritizing sign-ups. Perhaps they do, but regardless there doesn't seem to be any method in place to prevent people joining.

Steltek 10y ago

The free TV time gifted to Trump for saying outrageous things gave him a decided signal boost over his rivals. On the other hand, the media did not give sufficient time to a sane counterargument whereas a well-regulated forum might offer that opportunity. Unfortunately, that's not what we see from the balance of Trump supporters online, who are not at all hesitant to flag or brigade opposing viewpoints regardless of merit.

problems 10y ago
I'm not so sure, I think the media gave plenty of time to sane counterargument. Even CNN, which I constantly see blamed as an evil by both the left and right, they'd air his stuff, then go and critique it and debate it for quite a while afterwards. I think ultimately not as many people are interested in the critique and debate portion and perhaps more importantly, and I think many supporters just didn't care about a lot of the outrageous stuff he said because their alternative seemed even worse. They were basically left no choice but to dismiss it. If the options were better, even just one of them I think this whole thing would have worked out a lot nicer. But instead a lot of people were caught in the middle debating the better of two evils. I'm sure many will argue it was clearly one way or the other, but I'm pretty sympathetic to both arguments here. Education, debate and rationality can't solve that in a really significant way, only better options can.

teilo 10y ago

I don't know where this "invite only" stuff is coming from. I was not invited, and had no relationship with anyone on the site, and no public profile of note. I signed up because I was curious what they were doing, and was added in a few weeks. That's not to say they don't have some system of prioritizing sign-ups. Perhaps they do, but regardless there doesn't seem to be any method in place to prevent people joining.