4 ms·

I wonder if anyone is banking on a reversal of that perception of "filter bubbles"? It seems to me that creating "filter bubbles" not only should be the goal o

I wonder if anyone is banking on a reversal of that perception of "filter bubbles"? It seems to me that creating "filter bubbles" not only should be the goal of social networks, but that it's a desirable goal. Obviously, someone will have to come up with better branding to wash off the stink from that term, but the underlying concept is what people fundamentally want, and it's here to stay. Facebook recently changed their vision statement to talk about making communities more tightly-knit, and so on. This can only be done by curating content and limiting information to stuff that attracts people together and makes them feel at home. People have limited time and attention. Dunbar's number imposes constraints on how much data/people they can keep up with. And people want that circle to be as pleasant an experience as possible. I'll be the first to make that bet if no one else has: the social network that will displace Facebook will displace it because it will embrace filter bubbles, not "solve" them as if they were a problem.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> It seems to me that creating "filter bubbles" not only should be the goal of social networks, but that it's a desirable goal. The reason people come to that conclusion is this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ If you show people things from other tribes, the reasonable stuff the other tribe has to say gets buried under the epic war both sides are thrust into as soon as anyone says anything recursively controversial. The problem we have now is that existing networks profit from showing you only that portion of what the other tribe has to say, because it's what increases "engagement" (i.e. time spent fighting/arguing on the internet). What would be desirable would be to do the exact opposite -- bury the toxoplasma but still show the material from other tribes that isn't virally outrage-generating. That may not maximize number of hours spent per user, but if people like it more, it could maximize total number of users, which is how you build network effects -- and that's the hardest thing for a new network to do. It would also presumably benefit things like mutual understanding, unity and general happiness.
- davidivadavid 8y ago
  Yeah, I understand the mechanics for the way the bubbles form, and how engagement-driven networks can skew their composition. The more relevant SSC article for me when it comes to that subject is this one: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    The distinction with archipelagos is that you have to be able to choose between them, at which point you're now talking about communities rather than filter bubbles. And communities are good, but in this context they're fractional. A community for talking about software development is useful, but those people are eligible to go to the polls on election day and still need somewhere to learn about immigration and criminal justice reform and taxes. Ideally from more than one side.
    - davidivadavid 8y ago
      I don't really disagree with any of that and I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal. I think they can be complementary. "Filter bubbles" work as the discovery part that guides you toward the best communities (from your POV) and also gives directional information about their boundaries. If people are interested in learning about immigration and criminal justice reform and taxes, those topics will be amply covered in the community formed around their "filter bubble." If your point is that everyone should be interested in those topics, I think you're making a different point that is much harder to argue.
netsharc 8y ago
It will be successful for the network, but really dangerous for society. We already have Conservapedia, where you have "alternative facts"...
- davidivadavid 8y ago
  Sure. And there's a bunch of content that leans in every political direction and that presents reality through a distorting lens. I don't find that particularly scary or dangerous, because it's always been the case.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    I think that a change of degree has turned out to be a change in kind here. Ad supported media on the Internet maximize ad views by maximizing outrage. It has become a vicious cycle driven by money. This was not the case a generation ago. I'm sure this was not a conscious decision by Google, Facebook or Twitter, but that's the way it is.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> It seems to me that creating "filter bubbles" not only should be the goal of social networks, but that it's a desirable goal. The reason people come to that conclusion is this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ If you show people things from other tribes, the reasonable stuff the other tribe has to say gets buried under the epic war both sides are thrust into as soon as anyone says anything recursively controversial. The problem we have now is that existing networks profit from showing you only that portion of what the other tribe has to say, because it's what increases "engagement" (i.e. time spent fighting/arguing on the internet). What would be desirable would be to do the exact opposite -- bury the toxoplasma but still show the material from other tribes that isn't virally outrage-generating. That may not maximize number of hours spent per user, but if people like it more, it could maximize total number of users, which is how you build network effects -- and that's the hardest thing for a new network to do. It would also presumably benefit things like mutual understanding, unity and general happiness.

davidivadavid 8y ago
Yeah, I understand the mechanics for the way the bubbles form, and how engagement-driven networks can skew their composition. The more relevant SSC article for me when it comes to that subject is this one: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The distinction with archipelagos is that you have to be able to choose between them, at which point you're now talking about communities rather than filter bubbles. And communities are good, but in this context they're fractional. A community for talking about software development is useful, but those people are eligible to go to the polls on election day and still need somewhere to learn about immigration and criminal justice reform and taxes. Ideally from more than one side.
  - davidivadavid 8y ago
    I don't really disagree with any of that and I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal. I think they can be complementary. "Filter bubbles" work as the discovery part that guides you toward the best communities (from your POV) and also gives directional information about their boundaries. If people are interested in learning about immigration and criminal justice reform and taxes, those topics will be amply covered in the community formed around their "filter bubble." If your point is that everyone should be interested in those topics, I think you're making a different point that is much harder to argue.

netsharc 8y ago

It will be successful for the network, but really dangerous for society. We already have Conservapedia, where you have "alternative facts"...

davidivadavid 8y ago
Sure. And there's a bunch of content that leans in every political direction and that presents reality through a distorting lens. I don't find that particularly scary or dangerous, because it's always been the case.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I think that a change of degree has turned out to be a change in kind here. Ad supported media on the Internet maximize ad views by maximizing outrage. It has become a vicious cycle driven by money. This was not the case a generation ago. I'm sure this was not a conscious decision by Google, Facebook or Twitter, but that's the way it is.