8 ms·

RSS allows us to decentralize aggregation of content, but still has some of the same critical pitfalls of social networks. Most notably, the "bubble" effect is

RSS allows us to decentralize aggregation of content, but still has some of the same critical pitfalls of social networks. Most notably, the "bubble" effect is as strong as ever: my feed is entirely unique and non-reproducible. I have complete control over it, but I cannot see a feed as another user without perfectly replicating their setup. I think there is a missing component that would allow us to create a decentralized social network of RSS feeds. If we cannot share our reality with others, we're going to reproduce the same toxic patterns that social networks exhibit today, but it's going to be completely unmanageable.

anthropodie 6y ago
But I think in real life as well people live in their own bubbles. We see the world as we are but not for what it is. It's just that Internet takes it to whole different level. I like to see Internet as catalyst. It accelerated speed of people becoming more conscious or more stupid. The choice is still in the hands of individual like it was before Internet.
- phailhaus 6y ago
  There are definitely bubbles in real life, but they are far less insular and toxic. I can't "unsubscribe" from a person that I work with. Everyone around me shares in a lot of the content that I see. Content streams like TV channels give me the ability to switch channels and see what others are seeing. Like you said, the internet takes this to a whole different level, and then takes control away from me. How do I tell Youtube that I'm just interested in researching Qanon, and not that I want to be recommended it? How do I tell facebook to stop recommending me content related to some topic? I can't change the channel anymore, and I'm at their mercy. That's a huge problem. RSS is fantastic in that it gives you complete control over your content streams, but there's still something missing to let you "change the channel."
pharke 6y ago
What's the difference between a bubble and personal interests? A technology that allows no way of filtering out the things you find uninteresting is about as useless as one that doesn't provide any means of discovering new interests. Regardless, this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, communities turn toxic when they feed into the delusions, bad habits, vices, and narcissism of their members. That's less of a technological problem and more of a moral one. You can't produce moral behaviour by creating a new (or changing an existing one into a) platform that strictly enforces it, people will either subvert your rules by inventing ways to get around them or they will simply not use your platform and go elsewhere. The same problems exist in the offline world, and it's always more effective to address the root causes of the problem than it is to legislate and punish.
- phailhaus 6y ago
  > That's less of a technological problem and more of a moral one. I ascribe to a "medium is the message" type of mentality, where the design of your platform is going to inform the nature of the behavior on it. For example, Facebook's commenting system is, unfortunately, hot garbage. They don't track comment threads, and instead they have this weird "mention" system wherein the best you can do is @ someone and hope they remember the thread. You can't read a conversation in order, it's all jumbled up for some reason. What kind of conversations arise from such a mess? It ends up being a convoluted stew of people just vaguely yelling in each other's directions. You can't maintain a thread of conversation, and neither can anyone else. Furthermore, Facebook views all interacts as equal. However, users will often use "haha" and "angry" reacts in order to mock the more extreme and toxic comments. Facebook doesn't notice this, and goes "aha! This is a Good Comment. I will promote it." So what happens? The top comments on popular posts are often the most toxic, and they get the most visibility. It's design like this that makes the internet a worse place. I think RSS is on the right track, but I think the fact that we can't see each other's feeds is a problem. Many will end up spiraling into a feedback loop of toxic content, with no way to see opposing viewpoints and a "way out". On Reddit, I can actively peek at r/Conservative and see what a completely different group of people are talking about. I can't quite do that with RSS.
  - type0 6y ago
    > On Reddit, I can actively peek at r/Conservative and see what a completely different group of people are talking about. I can't quite do that with RSS. you can, go to old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/.rss
    - phailhaus 6y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean literally RSS with Reddit, I meant it as an analogy. Reddit lets me "peek" at r/Conservative, but I can't "peek" at your set of RSS feeds.
  - pharke 6y ago
    My question would be, why are there toxic posts on any of these platforms in the first place even before they are promoted? I don't see Reddit's model as a viable alternative, any subreddit with a large population seems to have fallen into a pit of lowest common denominator group think from which they'll never return. I don't think it's their architecture that's to blame, it's a disease that arises from a large population of self-interested people who aren't invested in the wellbeing of the community. They're there to see a funny meme, do some shitposting, and try to get some karma rather than meaningfully contribute. I think a good community can still thrive on a platform that has terrible tools, humans are adaptable and will make the best of a bad situation. The only thing that spoils that is a large enough group of people intent on making a bad situation worse for their own benefit.
giantrobot 6y ago
Oh man someone should totally invent OPML [0] or XBEL [1] and then everyone could easily publish their subscribed feeds. Then they could import those and have the same subscriptions! /s [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPML https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPML [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBEL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBEL
- phailhaus 6y ago
  Close; I don't literally want to have the same subscriptions. That would be like saying the only way I can see your Reddit feed is to literally subscribe to all the same subreddits. I just want to see a feed as someone else, without losing my own. It's technically possible today, but nobody has implemented it yet as a first-class feature.
tomjen3 6y ago
But you can see exactly what you want from a blog using RSS. There is no way that I can get the same information you get to show up in my facebook feed. If I subscribe to blogs that you don't I see them in addition too, not instead of the stuff we both have in common.
- phailhaus 6y ago
  > There is no way that I can get the same information you get to show up in my facebook feed. Yeah this is the crux of the problem I'm identifying, it's a blind spot in social networks today. Everyone sees their own unique feed, and there's no way to share them, so everyone is in a bubble of size one. RSS is great because you finally have control over the content being recommended to you, but you still can't share entire feeds, so each person is still in a bubble of size one.

anthropodie 6y ago

But I think in real life as well people live in their own bubbles. We see the world as we are but not for what it is. It's just that Internet takes it to whole different level. I like to see Internet as catalyst. It accelerated speed of people becoming more conscious or more stupid. The choice is still in the hands of individual like it was before Internet.

phailhaus 6y ago
There are definitely bubbles in real life, but they are far less insular and toxic. I can't "unsubscribe" from a person that I work with. Everyone around me shares in a lot of the content that I see. Content streams like TV channels give me the ability to switch channels and see what others are seeing. Like you said, the internet takes this to a whole different level, and then takes control away from me. How do I tell Youtube that I'm just interested in researching Qanon, and not that I want to be recommended it? How do I tell facebook to stop recommending me content related to some topic? I can't change the channel anymore, and I'm at their mercy. That's a huge problem. RSS is fantastic in that it gives you complete control over your content streams, but there's still something missing to let you "change the channel."

pharke 6y ago

What's the difference between a bubble and personal interests? A technology that allows no way of filtering out the things you find uninteresting is about as useless as one that doesn't provide any means of discovering new interests. Regardless, this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, communities turn toxic when they feed into the delusions, bad habits, vices, and narcissism of their members. That's less of a technological problem and more of a moral one. You can't produce moral behaviour by creating a new (or changing an existing one into a) platform that strictly enforces it, people will either subvert your rules by inventing ways to get around them or they will simply not use your platform and go elsewhere. The same problems exist in the offline world, and it's always more effective to address the root causes of the problem than it is to legislate and punish.

phailhaus 6y ago
> That's less of a technological problem and more of a moral one. I ascribe to a "medium is the message" type of mentality, where the design of your platform is going to inform the nature of the behavior on it. For example, Facebook's commenting system is, unfortunately, hot garbage. They don't track comment threads, and instead they have this weird "mention" system wherein the best you can do is @ someone and hope they remember the thread. You can't read a conversation in order, it's all jumbled up for some reason. What kind of conversations arise from such a mess? It ends up being a convoluted stew of people just vaguely yelling in each other's directions. You can't maintain a thread of conversation, and neither can anyone else. Furthermore, Facebook views all interacts as equal. However, users will often use "haha" and "angry" reacts in order to mock the more extreme and toxic comments. Facebook doesn't notice this, and goes "aha! This is a Good Comment. I will promote it." So what happens? The top comments on popular posts are often the most toxic, and they get the most visibility. It's design like this that makes the internet a worse place. I think RSS is on the right track, but I think the fact that we can't see each other's feeds is a problem. Many will end up spiraling into a feedback loop of toxic content, with no way to see opposing viewpoints and a "way out". On Reddit, I can actively peek at r/Conservative and see what a completely different group of people are talking about. I can't quite do that with RSS.
- type0 6y ago
  > On Reddit, I can actively peek at r/Conservative and see what a completely different group of people are talking about. I can't quite do that with RSS. you can, go to old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/.rss
  - phailhaus 6y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean literally RSS with Reddit, I meant it as an analogy. Reddit lets me "peek" at r/Conservative, but I can't "peek" at your set of RSS feeds.
- pharke 6y ago
  My question would be, why are there toxic posts on any of these platforms in the first place even before they are promoted? I don't see Reddit's model as a viable alternative, any subreddit with a large population seems to have fallen into a pit of lowest common denominator group think from which they'll never return. I don't think it's their architecture that's to blame, it's a disease that arises from a large population of self-interested people who aren't invested in the wellbeing of the community. They're there to see a funny meme, do some shitposting, and try to get some karma rather than meaningfully contribute. I think a good community can still thrive on a platform that has terrible tools, humans are adaptable and will make the best of a bad situation. The only thing that spoils that is a large enough group of people intent on making a bad situation worse for their own benefit.

giantrobot 6y ago

Oh man someone should totally invent OPML [0] or XBEL [1] and then everyone could easily publish their subscribed feeds. Then they could import those and have the same subscriptions! /s [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPML https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPML [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBEL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBEL

phailhaus 6y ago
Close; I don't literally want to have the same subscriptions. That would be like saying the only way I can see your Reddit feed is to literally subscribe to all the same subreddits. I just want to see a feed as someone else, without losing my own. It's technically possible today, but nobody has implemented it yet as a first-class feature.

tomjen3 6y ago

But you can see exactly what you want from a blog using RSS. There is no way that I can get the same information you get to show up in my facebook feed. If I subscribe to blogs that you don't I see them in addition too, not instead of the stuff we both have in common.

phailhaus 6y ago
> There is no way that I can get the same information you get to show up in my facebook feed. Yeah this is the crux of the problem I'm identifying, it's a blind spot in social networks today. Everyone sees their own unique feed, and there's no way to share them, so everyone is in a bubble of size one. RSS is great because you finally have control over the content being recommended to you, but you still can't share entire feeds, so each person is still in a bubble of size one.