5 ms·

So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? The medicine sounds worse than the disease to me. Thing is, there are bad ideas spreading out there, and you

So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? The medicine sounds worse than the disease to me. Thing is, there are bad ideas spreading out there, and you should learn of their existence less they grow out of control with nobody knowing/caring. Conflict is a regulating tool in human species (and not only for our species). Wishing it away is an utopia that like all others will end up dystopian if put into practice.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
I think the compromise for me is "uninvested bridge people." I want to learn about bad ideas, but I want to learn about them from people who don't themselves care overmuch about outcomes one way or the other. That way I'm at a lesser risk of being radicalized and can choose whether to care and to what degree.
- DenisM 6y ago
  I think you’re looking for old-school journalism? You might be interested in the list of people who signed “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”, some notable journalists among them: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
sdrinf 6y ago
Your attention is a scarce resource. A basic point here, is that rage eats your attention for breakfast, and by cost of opportunity, bubbles you into your tribe. By cutting out rage & related weeds, you can actually expose yourself to a significantly larger, and more diverse set of viewpoints. Conflict as a regulation tool might have worked for our evolutionary ancestors, where resolution can be swiftly found and incentives re-aligned; however, if you reward conflict, the modern machine can generate an endless supply of it, on the tap. The correct solution is to shift the incentives, and reward with your attention the kind of stuff you want to see growing.
- trabant00 6y ago
  I think first of all, conflict rewards itself, no? The conflict has a winner. What you are talking about (and the original article) is about fabricated fake conflicts. Well these ones have winners as well - the ones who fabricate them at least. And if you are on the receiving end of these outrages you are kind of forced to win it. And in doing so you might crush those who overextended their rage doing society a service. Lots more could be said, but to keep it short I believe we can't simply ignore it.
- EGreg 6y ago
  OR you could have communities policing the tone and approach for disagreements, and then you can have a wide variety of viewpoints represented like in HN
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
>So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? I'd say just the opposite. We think of the filter bubble as being only shown ideas we agree with. But an important part of the filter bubble phenomenon is only showing us the worst examples of ideas we disagree with. It's this second part GP is suggesting we can most easily stop tolerating on a personal level. The former is a bias of the algorithms and would take some kind of collective reform, unfollowing contacts who highlight the worst of your shared ideological opponents rather than the best is an action anyone can take.
msla 6y ago
> So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? Turn the bubble from Jerry Springer into NPR. What kinds of people does Jerry select for? "GAY KLANSMEN WHO LOVE THEIR HOMOPHOBIC BOYFRIENDS TOO MUCH! IOWAN ZOUAVES FOR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND THE MANCUNIANS WHO ENABLE THEM!" The worst of the worst. The circus freaks of the Other Side. The ones voted most likely to throw a chair at someone, even though that was a different daytime TV host. What kinds of people does NPR select for? The more reasonable ones. The ones who can talk and express ideas without flying into a frothy rage at the very notion of someone disagreeing with them or not agreeing with them quickly enough or not having been in agreement with them a month before they started talking. The ones who can debate. Everyone has filters. Use yours to filter out the angry idiots who add nothing.
- trabant00 6y ago
  In my country we have a saying that roughly translates to: "stupid, yes, but many!" Jerry Springer watchers vote and not only that.
zentiggr 6y ago
There should be a distinction here between awareness of bad ideas, and engagement with those who just spew whatever indignant crap they get. Blacklisting the slime spewers frees up that time/attention for more useful information and engagement.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

I think the compromise for me is "uninvested bridge people." I want to learn about bad ideas, but I want to learn about them from people who don't themselves care overmuch about outcomes one way or the other. That way I'm at a lesser risk of being radicalized and can choose whether to care and to what degree.

DenisM 6y ago
I think you’re looking for old-school journalism? You might be interested in the list of people who signed “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”, some notable journalists among them: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

sdrinf 6y ago

Your attention is a scarce resource. A basic point here, is that rage eats your attention for breakfast, and by cost of opportunity, bubbles you into your tribe. By cutting out rage & related weeds, you can actually expose yourself to a significantly larger, and more diverse set of viewpoints. Conflict as a regulation tool might have worked for our evolutionary ancestors, where resolution can be swiftly found and incentives re-aligned; however, if you reward conflict, the modern machine can generate an endless supply of it, on the tap. The correct solution is to shift the incentives, and reward with your attention the kind of stuff you want to see growing.

trabant00 6y ago
I think first of all, conflict rewards itself, no? The conflict has a winner. What you are talking about (and the original article) is about fabricated fake conflicts. Well these ones have winners as well - the ones who fabricate them at least. And if you are on the receiving end of these outrages you are kind of forced to win it. And in doing so you might crush those who overextended their rage doing society a service. Lots more could be said, but to keep it short I believe we can't simply ignore it.
EGreg 6y ago
OR you could have communities policing the tone and approach for disagreements, and then you can have a wide variety of viewpoints represented like in HN

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

>So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? I'd say just the opposite. We think of the filter bubble as being only shown ideas we agree with. But an important part of the filter bubble phenomenon is only showing us the worst examples of ideas we disagree with. It's this second part GP is suggesting we can most easily stop tolerating on a personal level. The former is a bias of the algorithms and would take some kind of collective reform, unfollowing contacts who highlight the worst of your shared ideological opponents rather than the best is an action anyone can take.

msla 6y ago

> So the solution is to make the bubble impregnable? Turn the bubble from Jerry Springer into NPR. What kinds of people does Jerry select for? "GAY KLANSMEN WHO LOVE THEIR HOMOPHOBIC BOYFRIENDS TOO MUCH! IOWAN ZOUAVES FOR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND THE MANCUNIANS WHO ENABLE THEM!" The worst of the worst. The circus freaks of the Other Side. The ones voted most likely to throw a chair at someone, even though that was a different daytime TV host. What kinds of people does NPR select for? The more reasonable ones. The ones who can talk and express ideas without flying into a frothy rage at the very notion of someone disagreeing with them or not agreeing with them quickly enough or not having been in agreement with them a month before they started talking. The ones who can debate. Everyone has filters. Use yours to filter out the angry idiots who add nothing.

trabant00 6y ago
In my country we have a saying that roughly translates to: "stupid, yes, but many!" Jerry Springer watchers vote and not only that.

zentiggr 6y ago

There should be a distinction here between awareness of bad ideas, and engagement with those who just spew whatever indignant crap they get. Blacklisting the slime spewers frees up that time/attention for more useful information and engagement.