3 ms·
It will likely be pleasant for the vast majority of people, who have no objectionable views one way or the other. It might even be better, not having to deal wi
by freeone3000 6y ago
It will likely be pleasant for the vast majority of people, who have no objectionable views one way or the other. It might even be better, not having to deal with the constant disruption.
- derptron 6y agoYour backbone is missing
- eternalban 6y agoI don't have specific studies to point to ATM but am certain there have been [a few] that have looked at isolating specific aspects of social networks that seem to engender the imo legitimate "constant disruption" that you mention. Point being that keep in mind that simply changing interaction patterns may affect the desired goal of (say) "a civil virtual society". "Objectionable views" is an objectionable notion for many. And "unified messaging" from monopoly information and communication corporations (owned by an astonishingly small subset of humanity) is not a legitimate source of authority for determining what is or is not "objectionable". This is the entire point of political systems: resolving conflicts of views and providing a mechanism for harmonious, fair, and productive societies. Unless the plan is to medicate people, in which case sure, a perfectly homogenous body politic may be in your future.