3 ms·
> It's certainly hard to argue that you should take away any "one" voice as that would be unconstitutional, but maybe there should be better ways of filtering i
by balfirevic 8y ago
> It's certainly hard to argue that you should take away any "one" voice as that would be unconstitutional, but maybe there should be better ways of filtering information for each individual so they don't have to see stuff they don't want to.
Yeah, I think it's hopeless (at best) or totalitarian (at worst) to try to stop people from putting stuff online. You mention that the filter used to exist before (such as working for news organization or being able to run a website), but that's an unstable state of affairs - as soon as someone creates Twitter you have to either accept it's existence or take it down.
So only possible way to improve things is to create tools and know-how on information consumer side - filtering tools, easy way to check references and a habit to actually do it, good discussion platforms, etc. Anything else is a cure far worse than disease.
- AstralStorm 8y agoThe thing is, how do you prevent stagnation? People equate good platforms to ones where they have a degree of control, which results in atomic communities. Self reinforcing if you let them.
- balfirevic 8y agoWhen you say atomic communities, do you mean something like echo chambers? Yeah, it happens. It's OK for it to happen to some degree - there needs to be some amount of shared common understanding between participants to have a useful discussion [0]. But if common ground is only thing that's left, you have an echo chamber. How to dial this in? I have no idea. HN seems to do this better than most, although some topics fare better than others. [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-...