7 ms·

Burst Your News Filter Bubble with Read Across the Aisle

27 points by anexprogrammer 10y ago

moomin 10y ago
Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or protecting white privilege.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    I fairly often read Breitbart out of (morbid) curiosity to see how they cover stories. 95% of the commenters espouse a viewpoint based on very transparent racism, xenophobia or protecting white privilege. Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      I also regularly read Breitbart and can attest that none of these supposed attitudes are the reason for the comments you're seeing. There are genuine reasons to oppose e.g. BLM or muslim immigration that aren't backed by racism and the automatic attribution that you're displaying is exactly a symptom of people walling themselves off from people of the opposite opinion. Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
      - pavlov 10y ago
        Are we reading the same Breitbart? When there's a mention of Michelle Obama, most comments call her some variation of hideous ape. When there's a mention of muslims, most comments discuss paranoid theories of global invasion. And so on. Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...? I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
        beaconstudios 10y ago
        one thing the left seems to talk about a lot, but not really understand, is personal bias. The left talks about racial bias, sexist bias, and so on, all of which are subconscious, and this is known to be a scientific fact. However, one thing I often see left-leaning individuals fail to recognise is their own bias towards language. The left is very stifled in terms of language, due to concerns about offending people or making social mis-steps around people of specific assigned minority groups. And yet, the left is often willing to direct these deemed-offensive patterns of communication against groups deemed "fair game", such as males or whites. Hence you will often find left-leaning commentary similar to "white people need to X" or "white men are ruining Y". You would never see these phrases directed against black or gay people. My point is that the mainstream left believes in (or at least tolerates) an asymmetric treatment of people based on unchangeable characteristics. The rationale is around how this is "punching up" or that power imbalance between groups makes race-based attacks acceptable or unacceptable in different circumstances, but the key thing you need to understand is that the right is vehemently opposed to this concept and in many ways takes the complete opposite approach. Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews? I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
  - knz 10y ago
    There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position). If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
      - knz 10y ago
        Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
  - DanBC 10y ago
    "When you do it you're an idiot, but when I do it it's because I know what I'm talking about"?
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      you might want to clarify that. I have no idea what you're trying to invoke.
gnicholas 10y ago
founder here — I'll be checking in on the thread in case folks have questions!
- grok2 10y ago
  How do you determine what's across the aisle for any given X?
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    Good question. There are two basic approaches: (1) have a set ranking of sites, and decide what's "center"; or (2) determine the center based on what the person's preference is (either stated, or based on answers to questions). For now, we're starting out with option 1. We would love to build something more complex, like option 2, so that it's personalized for each user. Our rating data comes from various reputable sources, including public polling, and some crowdsourcing (via our kickstarter backers).
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      it'd be interesting to see what ends up being the center based on public opinion. My understanding was always that the "fixed center" (as opposed to the Overton window) of politics was renaissance/classical liberalism, as both the left and the right draw many stances from varying interpretations of it. I'd be open to seeing how my opinion differs from others who have different stances.
- tropo 10y ago
  The example puts Fox at one extreme. Uh, might this be your own filter bubble? Not too long ago, there was a study posted here with statistics-derived positioning that showed Fox being barely right of center. (BTW, can anybody dig that study up?) FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.
  - 10y ago
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
I feel like this is the type of thing that people say they want and know they should do, but won't work at wide scale because it flies in the face of our biology. "Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively seek out challenging information are outliers. I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly change behavior, which I think would be required. Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of thing to work.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  People are definitely on a spectrum when it comes to this. I've talked with people who really want to read news on both sides, and are in fact already doing so manually. They're looking forward to having something automated to help them track their progress and remind them. There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other side. This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak. We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work in progress!
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    I think the gamification or making it something addictive is a good idea. If the crowd is actually people already doing it, I would be curious to know what that TAM is and if it's something that is growable. Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content. Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest camp, with toughest monetization.
    - kordless 10y ago
stevefeinstein 10y ago
This project seems flawed before it starts. It just continues the bad tradition of giving the loudest voice to the ones with the most money. That's not how to get all sides of an issue.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  Creator here. How is it giving louder voices to people with more money? We definitely don't want to do that (and I'm pretty sure we're not). News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does that address your concern, or am I not understanding?
haversine02 10y ago
There should definitely be an additional axis for alternative, non-mainstream sources. It doesn't really work if you're just lumping everything together as either Democrat or Republican.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  You're absolutely right that this is a multi-dimensional issue. We're starting out with just one dimension but want to add more in the future. What are the alternative sources you're thinking of? We're considering how to add libertarian to the mix, but there are other alternatives, of course.
jbmorgado 10y ago
Sincerely, I don't think the answer to the problem is to read stuff that's clearly biased from the other side as well, but to rethink journalism in the modern age so that it can go back to actually be more moderate, factual and professional as it was 2 decades ago when reputable journals wouldn't go for the clickbait. I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that now is difficult to find even in major journals.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  You identify one of the important structural problems — that media outlets have partisan audiences, which for business reasons they need to keep happy. This means that an outlet like Vox will continue writing from a liberal perspective, and using headlines that get traction on platforms like Facebook. If they stray too far from their current strategy, their existing audience will disappear. And they have nothing to gain by becoming more moderate, since they have very few readers who are not liberal (who would read more from them if their coverage was more moderate) We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.

moomin 10y ago

Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.

beaconstudios 10y ago
all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or protecting white privilege.
- pavlov 10y ago
  I fairly often read Breitbart out of (morbid) curiosity to see how they cover stories. 95% of the commenters espouse a viewpoint based on very transparent racism, xenophobia or protecting white privilege. Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I also regularly read Breitbart and can attest that none of these supposed attitudes are the reason for the comments you're seeing. There are genuine reasons to oppose e.g. BLM or muslim immigration that aren't backed by racism and the automatic attribution that you're displaying is exactly a symptom of people walling themselves off from people of the opposite opinion. Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
    - pavlov 10y ago
      Are we reading the same Breitbart? When there's a mention of Michelle Obama, most comments call her some variation of hideous ape. When there's a mention of muslims, most comments discuss paranoid theories of global invasion. And so on. Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...? I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        one thing the left seems to talk about a lot, but not really understand, is personal bias. The left talks about racial bias, sexist bias, and so on, all of which are subconscious, and this is known to be a scientific fact. However, one thing I often see left-leaning individuals fail to recognise is their own bias towards language. The left is very stifled in terms of language, due to concerns about offending people or making social mis-steps around people of specific assigned minority groups. And yet, the left is often willing to direct these deemed-offensive patterns of communication against groups deemed "fair game", such as males or whites. Hence you will often find left-leaning commentary similar to "white people need to X" or "white men are ruining Y". You would never see these phrases directed against black or gay people. My point is that the mainstream left believes in (or at least tolerates) an asymmetric treatment of people based on unchangeable characteristics. The rationale is around how this is "punching up" or that power imbalance between groups makes race-based attacks acceptable or unacceptable in different circumstances, but the key thing you need to understand is that the right is vehemently opposed to this concept and in many ways takes the complete opposite approach. Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews? I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
- knz 10y ago
  There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position). If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
    - knz 10y ago
      Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
- DanBC 10y ago
  "When you do it you're an idiot, but when I do it it's because I know what I'm talking about"?
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    you might want to clarify that. I have no idea what you're trying to invoke.

gnicholas 10y ago

founder here — I'll be checking in on the thread in case folks have questions!

grok2 10y ago
How do you determine what's across the aisle for any given X?
- gnicholas 10y ago
  Good question. There are two basic approaches: (1) have a set ranking of sites, and decide what's "center"; or (2) determine the center based on what the person's preference is (either stated, or based on answers to questions). For now, we're starting out with option 1. We would love to build something more complex, like option 2, so that it's personalized for each user. Our rating data comes from various reputable sources, including public polling, and some crowdsourcing (via our kickstarter backers).
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    it'd be interesting to see what ends up being the center based on public opinion. My understanding was always that the "fixed center" (as opposed to the Overton window) of politics was renaissance/classical liberalism, as both the left and the right draw many stances from varying interpretations of it. I'd be open to seeing how my opinion differs from others who have different stances.
tropo 10y ago
The example puts Fox at one extreme. Uh, might this be your own filter bubble? Not too long ago, there was a study posted here with statistics-derived positioning that showed Fox being barely right of center. (BTW, can anybody dig that study up?) FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.
- 10y ago

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

I feel like this is the type of thing that people say they want and know they should do, but won't work at wide scale because it flies in the face of our biology. "Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively seek out challenging information are outliers. I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly change behavior, which I think would be required. Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of thing to work.

gnicholas 10y ago
People are definitely on a spectrum when it comes to this. I've talked with people who really want to read news on both sides, and are in fact already doing so manually. They're looking forward to having something automated to help them track their progress and remind them. There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other side. This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak. We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work in progress!
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  I think the gamification or making it something addictive is a good idea. If the crowd is actually people already doing it, I would be curious to know what that TAM is and if it's something that is growable. Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content. Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest camp, with toughest monetization.
  - kordless 10y ago

stevefeinstein 10y ago

This project seems flawed before it starts. It just continues the bad tradition of giving the loudest voice to the ones with the most money. That's not how to get all sides of an issue.

gnicholas 10y ago
Creator here. How is it giving louder voices to people with more money? We definitely don't want to do that (and I'm pretty sure we're not). News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does that address your concern, or am I not understanding?

haversine02 10y ago

There should definitely be an additional axis for alternative, non-mainstream sources. It doesn't really work if you're just lumping everything together as either Democrat or Republican.

gnicholas 10y ago
You're absolutely right that this is a multi-dimensional issue. We're starting out with just one dimension but want to add more in the future. What are the alternative sources you're thinking of? We're considering how to add libertarian to the mix, but there are other alternatives, of course.

jbmorgado 10y ago

Sincerely, I don't think the answer to the problem is to read stuff that's clearly biased from the other side as well, but to rethink journalism in the modern age so that it can go back to actually be more moderate, factual and professional as it was 2 decades ago when reputable journals wouldn't go for the clickbait. I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that now is difficult to find even in major journals.

gnicholas 10y ago
You identify one of the important structural problems — that media outlets have partisan audiences, which for business reasons they need to keep happy. This means that an outlet like Vox will continue writing from a liberal perspective, and using headlines that get traction on platforms like Facebook. If they stray too far from their current strategy, their existing audience will disappear. And they have nothing to gain by becoming more moderate, since they have very few readers who are not liberal (who would read more from them if their coverage was more moderate) We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.