4 ms·

I've never seen a community that was completely open to discussion and where bad ideas disappeared because they were effectively challenged. On the other hand,

I've never seen a community that was completely open to discussion and where bad ideas disappeared because they were effectively challenged. On the other hand, I've been in several communities where the mods had a clear agenda and the participants were helpless to change it. I'd personally rather the people who are hostile to new ideas or critical thinking have their own communities and that their ability to harm other communities can be mitigated by a moderation system accountable to the users. I do think there needs to be serious discussion about how to make communities that are good for people. The echo chamber and polarization effects tend to contract people into a smaller worldview. How to have a cohesive community that doesn't do that is essentially an unsolved problem in the social sciences.

natch 8y ago
I agree with most of what you said, but we might be looking at it from different angles. Especially want to zero in on this: >I'd personally rather the people who are hostile to new ideas or critical thinking have their own communities A fact that you don't seem to have in your mind here is that often those people are the majority. So you'll have majorities voting in mods who are hostile to new ideas and critical thinking. With this platform we still get lock-in of polarized thinking and echo chambers.
- SquishyPanda23 8y ago
  I think your view here may be a little more pessimistic than mine. I don't think the majority is opposed to critical thinking, although I think most people are bad at it. I also think most people are bad at civil and effective communication, so you may get toxic communities even from well-meaning people. I'll be interested to see what happens. You may be right that communities will select mods that create echo chambers. I'm a little more optimistic. Whichever way it goes, I think the ability to experiment (e.g. with weighted or modified voting schemes) with this sort of mechanic is definitely worth pursuing.
  - natch 8y ago
    Yes you are optimistic.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  > So you'll have majorities voting in mods who are hostile to new ideas and critical thinking. >With this platform we still get lock-in of polarized thinking and echo chambers. But there's nothing stopping you from creating your own sub that is more open...
  - natch 8y ago
    That's kind of a snide answer though, right? We need forums where close-minded people with calcified ideas can be challenged. When there are new thinkers with challenging ideas, you are saying they can just go off in a separate space and talk only to other open minded people. That's fine for them to do, but it's not enough in the sense that it doesn't reach the people it should. Closed minds can change, if challenged. If. Your suggestion doesn't achieve that.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      Not snide, just realistic. The scenario you're suggesting is one where most of the people in that sub have chosen to only see the "calcified" ideas. If I was a person who doesn't agree with those ideas, I wouldn't want to stay. A sub with elective moderation is not the forum to challenge people's ideas. If it's a cat sub, then I wouldn't be surprised if I get moderated out if I'm going there and telling everyone how much better dogs are, even if it's true! Say it's a sub for politics, if you want real open communication, then you could think about starting a different forum, eg "openminded_politics", and presumably most people who want to use that sub would be open to hearing different ideas. I'm not sure how else you think it could operate. People who strongly dislike reading differing opinions are not going to read a sub with ideas they are opposed to. You think it's somehow possible to force them to read those ideas?

natch 8y ago

I agree with most of what you said, but we might be looking at it from different angles. Especially want to zero in on this: >I'd personally rather the people who are hostile to new ideas or critical thinking have their own communities A fact that you don't seem to have in your mind here is that often those people are the majority. So you'll have majorities voting in mods who are hostile to new ideas and critical thinking. With this platform we still get lock-in of polarized thinking and echo chambers.

SquishyPanda23 8y ago
I think your view here may be a little more pessimistic than mine. I don't think the majority is opposed to critical thinking, although I think most people are bad at it. I also think most people are bad at civil and effective communication, so you may get toxic communities even from well-meaning people. I'll be interested to see what happens. You may be right that communities will select mods that create echo chambers. I'm a little more optimistic. Whichever way it goes, I think the ability to experiment (e.g. with weighted or modified voting schemes) with this sort of mechanic is definitely worth pursuing.
- natch 8y ago
  Yes you are optimistic.
brokenmachine 8y ago
> So you'll have majorities voting in mods who are hostile to new ideas and critical thinking. >With this platform we still get lock-in of polarized thinking and echo chambers. But there's nothing stopping you from creating your own sub that is more open...
- natch 8y ago
  That's kind of a snide answer though, right? We need forums where close-minded people with calcified ideas can be challenged. When there are new thinkers with challenging ideas, you are saying they can just go off in a separate space and talk only to other open minded people. That's fine for them to do, but it's not enough in the sense that it doesn't reach the people it should. Closed minds can change, if challenged. If. Your suggestion doesn't achieve that.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    Not snide, just realistic. The scenario you're suggesting is one where most of the people in that sub have chosen to only see the "calcified" ideas. If I was a person who doesn't agree with those ideas, I wouldn't want to stay. A sub with elective moderation is not the forum to challenge people's ideas. If it's a cat sub, then I wouldn't be surprised if I get moderated out if I'm going there and telling everyone how much better dogs are, even if it's true! Say it's a sub for politics, if you want real open communication, then you could think about starting a different forum, eg "openminded_politics", and presumably most people who want to use that sub would be open to hearing different ideas. I'm not sure how else you think it could operate. People who strongly dislike reading differing opinions are not going to read a sub with ideas they are opposed to. You think it's somehow possible to force them to read those ideas?