4 ms·

You are describing a structured echo chamber. Or worse an internet of endless safe spaces to get just the view of the world that pleases you. I mean facebook i

You are describing a structured echo chamber. Or worse an internet of endless safe spaces to get just the view of the world that pleases you. I mean facebook is already doing this, on purpose or not (right now the blame is on the algorithms). Either way this is not the right way forward.

lkrubner 6y ago
In what sense is this not the right way forward? This seems to be the trend that’s been with us for at least 20 years. People increasingly pick the news they want to hear.
- hamilyon2 6y ago
  Three out of three best ideas that improved me as a human being were very offensive to me when I first encountered them. I mean, so offensive that I closed book and put it away. Stopped thinking, stopped listening, stopped learning. Hurt me a lot. And yet, I am so happy they entered my mind and I returned to them when I got older.
- dijit 6y ago
  People might pick the news they want to hear; but thinking this is "fine" is an appeal to ignorance. Ignorance is not strength. For whatever it's worth I was raised dirt poor, central Britain in a city that had been in rapid decline for many decades- Yet I believed, fiercely that Europe was less than Britain, that Muslims were coming for our benefits and our women and that Britains colonial past was something to be admired, we had brought civilisation to the world. I believed that I was born "rich" compared to the rest of the world and I had a birthright to be taken care of. I don't have to tell you how much it hurt me to learn how ignorant, bigoted and wrong I was. How much taking in things that were true conflicted so concretely with what I believed that I rejected it outright. Obviously my opinions have changed, but allowing me to hide from the world would not have done that. Only stepping forward and being exposed to that which causes discomfort allows for it.
  - lkrubner 6y ago
    Right, but did you believe these things because an algorithm on social media was giving you a limited view of the world? My own view is that I could limit my intake of knowledge to just a handful of people, but if they were the right people, I’d end up with a more original worldview than if I tried to read “both sides” since “both-sides-ism” tends to reactively assume the people shouting old views loudly represent an entire debate.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      Not because of social media or a formal algorithim but a less formalized one referred to as "socialization" and decided by prior actions of those who came before, some long dead and some still alive today. It was madd up in part of thoughts of thinking people in different contexts and in part unthinking set in stone doctrines. Just like an algorithim essentially with the tweaks by programmers ans input sources providing the "thinking" and the content and program providing the "unthinking".
    - dijit 6y ago
      I did not believe those things due to an algorithm, I believed those things because I was never exposed to anything outside of my "bubble". People in my City tend not to leave especially if they are poor. Exposure to the real world had a painful destructive effect, and if I had clung back into my safe little cubby hole I would have done so swiftly. -- I believe "both sides" is important; but you're right that people scream and drown out any modicum of moderation; but it noble to attempt to at least understand the spirit of the arguments on every side of a debate. Make your own reasoning about the facts based on the perspectives that are given, but other than that don't allow yourself to be emotive. Really, this is what journalism is supposed to be, but that kind of journalism dies out because humans love to _feel_ so selling feelings about things is quite easy; this fuels divides. Since news is no longer fact it's merely "view" of the facts, and often not all of them.
      - r3ll 6y ago
        While I agree that at first all sides should be considered, often I find people view both sides with equal merit when it is easily worked out that one side holds more merit than the other. (Some examples of arguments holding less merit being ones that go against scientific evidence without evidence to back them up, arguments made in bad faith, arguments made with wilful ignorance of evidence) I feel you on the growing up in a dogma infused environment, in my case rural England rife with homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and all that sort of general ignorance-based hatred and revulsion. Luckily I also had an internet connection from a relatively early age so I had exposure to outside perspectives or I would've likely had more years of repression and self loathing than I had and wouldn't have had anywhere near the opportunities I've had. In my mind, journalism should focus less on giving all sides equal weight and staying neutral but more on finding all the evidence, giving you said evidence, and then discounting lies and manipulation of evidence. Or at least on giving you all the evidence for you to digest and come to your own conclusions rather than just a match of he-said, she-said type reporting. I find the issue I've described especially prevalent in some BBC news stories.. Edit: I forgot to add that I also strongly agree with you in the many news organisations and journalists overly sensationalizing and giving opinion as "news" and/or trying to incite emotions rather than broadened perspectives/informed opinions.
TuringTest 6y ago
> You are describing a structured echo chamber. Or worse an internet of endless safe spaces to get just the view of the world that pleases you. I'd ask you to think how this is any different from anything we had before the internet. I actually think there is a difference in current communication patterns, but it's not being a structured echo chamber (we already had plenty of those before), and it's not something to be proud of. The novel effect of social networks is amplifying and concentrating in a single point the worst instances of biased and unsubtle discussion, causing the recipient to burn up from the concentrated heat. It's a process that replicates the dynamics of lynch mob; at least those were local effects, while now we get to have world-reaching lynch mobs. We need to put up firewalls so that inflammatory speech won't set everything on fire; and structured small communities is as good a solution as any.

lkrubner 6y ago

In what sense is this not the right way forward? This seems to be the trend that’s been with us for at least 20 years. People increasingly pick the news they want to hear.

hamilyon2 6y ago
Three out of three best ideas that improved me as a human being were very offensive to me when I first encountered them. I mean, so offensive that I closed book and put it away. Stopped thinking, stopped listening, stopped learning. Hurt me a lot. And yet, I am so happy they entered my mind and I returned to them when I got older.
dijit 6y ago
People might pick the news they want to hear; but thinking this is "fine" is an appeal to ignorance. Ignorance is not strength. For whatever it's worth I was raised dirt poor, central Britain in a city that had been in rapid decline for many decades- Yet I believed, fiercely that Europe was less than Britain, that Muslims were coming for our benefits and our women and that Britains colonial past was something to be admired, we had brought civilisation to the world. I believed that I was born "rich" compared to the rest of the world and I had a birthright to be taken care of. I don't have to tell you how much it hurt me to learn how ignorant, bigoted and wrong I was. How much taking in things that were true conflicted so concretely with what I believed that I rejected it outright. Obviously my opinions have changed, but allowing me to hide from the world would not have done that. Only stepping forward and being exposed to that which causes discomfort allows for it.
- lkrubner 6y ago
  Right, but did you believe these things because an algorithm on social media was giving you a limited view of the world? My own view is that I could limit my intake of knowledge to just a handful of people, but if they were the right people, I’d end up with a more original worldview than if I tried to read “both sides” since “both-sides-ism” tends to reactively assume the people shouting old views loudly represent an entire debate.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Not because of social media or a formal algorithim but a less formalized one referred to as "socialization" and decided by prior actions of those who came before, some long dead and some still alive today. It was madd up in part of thoughts of thinking people in different contexts and in part unthinking set in stone doctrines. Just like an algorithim essentially with the tweaks by programmers ans input sources providing the "thinking" and the content and program providing the "unthinking".
  - dijit 6y ago
    I did not believe those things due to an algorithm, I believed those things because I was never exposed to anything outside of my "bubble". People in my City tend not to leave especially if they are poor. Exposure to the real world had a painful destructive effect, and if I had clung back into my safe little cubby hole I would have done so swiftly. -- I believe "both sides" is important; but you're right that people scream and drown out any modicum of moderation; but it noble to attempt to at least understand the spirit of the arguments on every side of a debate. Make your own reasoning about the facts based on the perspectives that are given, but other than that don't allow yourself to be emotive. Really, this is what journalism is supposed to be, but that kind of journalism dies out because humans love to _feel_ so selling feelings about things is quite easy; this fuels divides. Since news is no longer fact it's merely "view" of the facts, and often not all of them.
    - r3ll 6y ago
      While I agree that at first all sides should be considered, often I find people view both sides with equal merit when it is easily worked out that one side holds more merit than the other. (Some examples of arguments holding less merit being ones that go against scientific evidence without evidence to back them up, arguments made in bad faith, arguments made with wilful ignorance of evidence) I feel you on the growing up in a dogma infused environment, in my case rural England rife with homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and all that sort of general ignorance-based hatred and revulsion. Luckily I also had an internet connection from a relatively early age so I had exposure to outside perspectives or I would've likely had more years of repression and self loathing than I had and wouldn't have had anywhere near the opportunities I've had. In my mind, journalism should focus less on giving all sides equal weight and staying neutral but more on finding all the evidence, giving you said evidence, and then discounting lies and manipulation of evidence. Or at least on giving you all the evidence for you to digest and come to your own conclusions rather than just a match of he-said, she-said type reporting. I find the issue I've described especially prevalent in some BBC news stories.. Edit: I forgot to add that I also strongly agree with you in the many news organisations and journalists overly sensationalizing and giving opinion as "news" and/or trying to incite emotions rather than broadened perspectives/informed opinions.

TuringTest 6y ago

> You are describing a structured echo chamber. Or worse an internet of endless safe spaces to get just the view of the world that pleases you. I'd ask you to think how this is any different from anything we had before the internet. I actually think there is a difference in current communication patterns, but it's not being a structured echo chamber (we already had plenty of those before), and it's not something to be proud of. The novel effect of social networks is amplifying and concentrating in a single point the worst instances of biased and unsubtle discussion, causing the recipient to burn up from the concentrated heat. It's a process that replicates the dynamics of lynch mob; at least those were local effects, while now we get to have world-reaching lynch mobs. We need to put up firewalls so that inflammatory speech won't set everything on fire; and structured small communities is as good a solution as any.