3 ms·

I wish social media platforms would be agnostic to political events and focus on facilitating conversations.

laurent92 6y ago
Let’s require at least 100 different words per comment in political threads, for example. There are ways the UX entices opposition and ways it can entice debate.
- wussboy 6y ago
  I get so frustrated when people offer solutions that encourage debate. Antagonized opponents do not need debate. They are not listening to arguments. They are arguing to show their loyalty to their own side and the science shows this. They are not trying to find a new position or willing to change their mind and the science shows this as well. This naive belief that "we should have more debate!!" will solve our problem must be put to rest. Instead, make the two sides go bowling together, or to a picnic. Then we'll see real change.
  - chillacy 6y ago
    Psychology research would say that building a shed together or surviving a bear attack together would lead to people getting along even better afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
    - wussboy 6y ago
      Well sure. But I expect we’ll have problems getting anyone to turn up to our “get attacked by a bear” meetings... :)
  - laurent92 6y ago
    You have a point, but... ...but the structure of modern society, and the ideology since 1945 of having the UN around, is to lower the nationalistic propensity everywhere. And there was a good reason for that. But it has produced side-effects. Nationalism is a big no-no today. So people don’t feel like they belong to a group. There are just, many groups living next to each other, London is a symbol of that but Paris is well in line, and all of France is made of groups who live next to each other, and don’t like each other. Military service was praised by the elderly as instigating a sense of belonging and cohesion (among all the evil it also did on the weaker half of the population, I’m not having rosy glasses here). So, basically, it has been more than 70 years that your idea of a nation going bowling together is a big no-no, and we work hard on mixing people, which... let’s say it doesn’t work yet, to be nice... I mean we all have a daughter who’s been raped by the « other » group so I don’t personally think it will work, but if it will, you’ll have to invent something that solders our co-country with us. Of course bowling together is a good idea, but it works with small groups, and we’ve killed the glue that holds larger societies together (for good reasons at the base). Also, my best friend and I cut ties after we’ve seen each other’s life choices is about exploiting the other, so I have at least one counter-example that going bowling together doesn’t tie people closer, when one is causing harm to the other with his life choices. My opinions is, we do need less ideology, because we’ve reached peak brainwashing in 2020, and social networks need to accompany research and science and discovery of stats formulated in an digestible manner, instead of hammering onto people that one’s opinion is right and the others are evil.
laumars 6y ago
They had. The problem is taking an agnostic approach to someone stirring up violent hatred means violence still happens.

Let’s require at least 100 different words per comment in political threads, for example. There are ways the UX entices opposition and ways it can entice debate.

wussboy 6y ago
I get so frustrated when people offer solutions that encourage debate. Antagonized opponents do not need debate. They are not listening to arguments. They are arguing to show their loyalty to their own side and the science shows this. They are not trying to find a new position or willing to change their mind and the science shows this as well. This naive belief that "we should have more debate!!" will solve our problem must be put to rest. Instead, make the two sides go bowling together, or to a picnic. Then we'll see real change.
- chillacy 6y ago
  Psychology research would say that building a shed together or surviving a bear attack together would lead to people getting along even better afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
  - wussboy 6y ago
    Well sure. But I expect we’ll have problems getting anyone to turn up to our “get attacked by a bear” meetings... :)
- laurent92 6y ago
  You have a point, but... ...but the structure of modern society, and the ideology since 1945 of having the UN around, is to lower the nationalistic propensity everywhere. And there was a good reason for that. But it has produced side-effects. Nationalism is a big no-no today. So people don’t feel like they belong to a group. There are just, many groups living next to each other, London is a symbol of that but Paris is well in line, and all of France is made of groups who live next to each other, and don’t like each other. Military service was praised by the elderly as instigating a sense of belonging and cohesion (among all the evil it also did on the weaker half of the population, I’m not having rosy glasses here). So, basically, it has been more than 70 years that your idea of a nation going bowling together is a big no-no, and we work hard on mixing people, which... let’s say it doesn’t work yet, to be nice... I mean we all have a daughter who’s been raped by the « other » group so I don’t personally think it will work, but if it will, you’ll have to invent something that solders our co-country with us. Of course bowling together is a good idea, but it works with small groups, and we’ve killed the glue that holds larger societies together (for good reasons at the base). Also, my best friend and I cut ties after we’ve seen each other’s life choices is about exploiting the other, so I have at least one counter-example that going bowling together doesn’t tie people closer, when one is causing harm to the other with his life choices. My opinions is, we do need less ideology, because we’ve reached peak brainwashing in 2020, and social networks need to accompany research and science and discovery of stats formulated in an digestible manner, instead of hammering onto people that one’s opinion is right and the others are evil.

laumars 6y ago

They had. The problem is taking an agnostic approach to someone stirring up violent hatred means violence still happens.