3 ms·

>specific enough values that its users can debate each other in good faith you agree with me? great. wonderful debate thanks guys

by miemo 8y ago

charlesism 8y ago
Just because two people are, say physicists or atheists or believers in liberal democracy, doesn't mean they agree about everything (or even much at all). The past few years make me think that without sufficient common ground, rational debate is impossible: •Alice: "Rosemary's Baby is the best film ever." •Bob: "Devil woman! Satan is speaking through you. But you can't fool me!" •Alice: "My father just died. Everyone, give your dad a hug. You'll miss him when he's gone." •Bob: "Cry me a river, loser! Cow farts. Cow farts. Hitler was right!" •Alice: "I didn't vote for Trump, but I am glad he's talking to North Korea" •Bob: "Of course you are, Russian bot! I hope your handler is happy" •Alice: "I used to be a cop, and this video is way over the line." •Bob: "Antifa scum! How much does Soros pay you to write this BLM propaganda?" •Alice: "Just a reminder that you can get a free vaccination today, if you live in Charleston." •Bob: "Great, free autism everybody! Bet you'll trot out your MSM 'facts' now. Science is the new religion." The web is so full it's bursting with "debates" like these. They are not worth having. They do not change anyone's mind. They cause people to dig in. They just further divide society.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  In all of those cases, Bob is being a dick. A rule to not be a dick is pretty straightforward and can be enforced by moderators.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Moderators don't scale very well though. Those filter bubbles are really just letting the users do their own moderation. This reduces the scope of the site moderators job down to enforcing the rules. If you try to do everything through the global site moderators you immediately get pulled into arguments like this: User 1: You need to ban User 2 because he is a racist. User 2: I only said that User 1's views are not supported by evidence. User 1: My views are well supported by my life experiences, and there is no good evidence because the government outlawed funding for research into them. It's a no win situation, and neither side is going to change their mind and there's no clear winner. They're going to bicker and raise your noise floor constantly though. It's much better for site health if they can be isolated from one another, and better for your moderator's health if they do it automatically by themselves. This is the messy messy world of real life.
- megamindbrian2 8y ago
  Maybe we could help determine opinion from referencial material so that we can speed up verbal communication rather than trying to evolve it. YouTube and Wikipedia working together are good strides. LinkedIn offers suggestions on how to respond to people, then the new Gmail came out with that same feature, I hope Airbnb does too. Maybe, when using curse words/slang AI could suggest something more intelligible? If we connected our brains to an emotional evaluator, we could include all the necessary emoji automatically, so we don't accidentally forget that winky face when point out an irony or satire (satire; often mistaken for sarcasm due to different emotional attachments).
- pathseeker 8y ago
  We need a way to determine if the debate responses are rational (not currently possible on free text without super non-existent AI or human moderators). Trying to find common ground just eliminates useful debates because your solution ends up being "put the people who agree with each other together". Also, people having common ground doesn't mean they will behave rationally when they run into differences. I would rather debate socialism with someone rational who believes in it rather than a strawman portrayed by someone else in the capitalist bucket I get thrown into.

>specific enough values that its users can debate each other in good faith you agree with me? great. wonderful debate thanks guys

by miemo 8y ago

>specific enough values that its users can debate each other in good faith you agree with me? great. wonderful debate thanks guys

charlesism 8y ago

Just because two people are, say physicists or atheists or believers in liberal democracy, doesn't mean they agree about everything (or even much at all). The past few years make me think that without sufficient common ground, rational debate is impossible: •Alice: "Rosemary's Baby is the best film ever." •Bob: "Devil woman! Satan is speaking through you. But you can't fool me!" •Alice: "My father just died. Everyone, give your dad a hug. You'll miss him when he's gone." •Bob: "Cry me a river, loser! Cow farts. Cow farts. Hitler was right!" •Alice: "I didn't vote for Trump, but I am glad he's talking to North Korea" •Bob: "Of course you are, Russian bot! I hope your handler is happy" •Alice: "I used to be a cop, and this video is way over the line." •Bob: "Antifa scum! How much does Soros pay you to write this BLM propaganda?" •Alice: "Just a reminder that you can get a free vaccination today, if you live in Charleston." •Bob: "Great, free autism everybody! Bet you'll trot out your MSM 'facts' now. Science is the new religion." The web is so full it's bursting with "debates" like these. They are not worth having. They do not change anyone's mind. They cause people to dig in. They just further divide society.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
In all of those cases, Bob is being a dick. A rule to not be a dick is pretty straightforward and can be enforced by moderators.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Moderators don't scale very well though. Those filter bubbles are really just letting the users do their own moderation. This reduces the scope of the site moderators job down to enforcing the rules. If you try to do everything through the global site moderators you immediately get pulled into arguments like this: User 1: You need to ban User 2 because he is a racist. User 2: I only said that User 1's views are not supported by evidence. User 1: My views are well supported by my life experiences, and there is no good evidence because the government outlawed funding for research into them. It's a no win situation, and neither side is going to change their mind and there's no clear winner. They're going to bicker and raise your noise floor constantly though. It's much better for site health if they can be isolated from one another, and better for your moderator's health if they do it automatically by themselves. This is the messy messy world of real life.
megamindbrian2 8y ago
Maybe we could help determine opinion from referencial material so that we can speed up verbal communication rather than trying to evolve it. YouTube and Wikipedia working together are good strides. LinkedIn offers suggestions on how to respond to people, then the new Gmail came out with that same feature, I hope Airbnb does too. Maybe, when using curse words/slang AI could suggest something more intelligible? If we connected our brains to an emotional evaluator, we could include all the necessary emoji automatically, so we don't accidentally forget that winky face when point out an irony or satire (satire; often mistaken for sarcasm due to different emotional attachments).
pathseeker 8y ago
We need a way to determine if the debate responses are rational (not currently possible on free text without super non-existent AI or human moderators). Trying to find common ground just eliminates useful debates because your solution ends up being "put the people who agree with each other together". Also, people having common ground doesn't mean they will behave rationally when they run into differences. I would rather debate socialism with someone rational who believes in it rather than a strawman portrayed by someone else in the capitalist bucket I get thrown into.