3 ms·
There are plenty of things that technology can do about this. For the nuclear option, complete anonymity would resolve this problem instantaneously. Comments wo
by rjf72 8y ago
There are plenty of things that technology can do about this. For the nuclear option, complete anonymity would resolve this problem instantaneously. Comments would only be driven by the merit of themselves rather than by the merit of who's saying them. There is an obvious argument against this in that you'd ostensibly much prefer to hear from a nuclear physicist than an english major on topics of nuclear physics, and without the indicator of whose speaking this knowledge of expertise is removed. But on the other hand, I think this argument is very weak since we're already discussing the issue that, in practice, most people don't listen to the nuclear physicist - they listen to the english major.
- bubblewrap 8y agoBut that wouldn't be the Twitter model of people following accounts and having followers. If you are talking social networks in general, OK, then perhaps you'd have some options. You also need people who want to use your network, though.
- rjf72 8y agoCompletely agreed, but that's also the point I was making. The issues with sites such as Twitter are fully self inflicted. The network is simply not designed for the spread or promotion of meaningful information. It's designed to attract followers through the promotion of celebrity/business accounts, and maintain their presence through maximizing "engagement" regardless of the direct consequences of prioritizing "engagement." And the celebrity/business accounts are attracted through the ease of being able to promote their business/persona/agenda, regardless of the value of any of these things. It's like running a casino and then suddenly having a fit conscientiousness about it driving poor economic decisions. It's your entire business model!