4 ms·

> does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? Your mistake is thinking the problem is in the communities, as opposed to th

> does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? Your mistake is thinking the problem is in the communities, as opposed to the technology platforms themselves. Personally, as a starting point I'd want them to: 1. Kill algorithmic curation that is based on "engagement". These digital skinner boxes are a cancer on society. 2. Introduce much stronger privacy laws that discourage or prevent data collection used to drive targeted advertising. Reduce or eliminate the financial incentives driving #1. 3. Provide complete and open transparency around how these platforms engage in their moderation decisions. Reporting leads one to suspect Zuck stepped into to help out right-wing agitators. Twitter is making their own arbitrary decisions. We all need to know if these decisions are happening and how they're being made.

reubenswartz 6y ago
1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate. 2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation. 3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  1. That's one of the reasons we have governments: to regulate industry so capitalism doesn't run amok. 2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution". 3. We already have laws to deal with harassment. Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
  - reubenswartz 6y ago
    I don't think I'm falling for the Nirvana fallacy, or mistaking the platform and the communities. Yes, FB has been pretty egregious in certain areas, but the question of how to prevent misinformation in online communities is a tricky one, that goes beyond the details of a particular platform and into human nature. Government can (should?) help in certain ways, but even in the best scenarios, that will have limitations, as well. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.

reubenswartz 6y ago

1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate. 2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation. 3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?

CarelessExpert 6y ago
1. That's one of the reasons we have governments: to regulate industry so capitalism doesn't run amok. 2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution". 3. We already have laws to deal with harassment. Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- reubenswartz 6y ago
  I don't think I'm falling for the Nirvana fallacy, or mistaking the platform and the communities. Yes, FB has been pretty egregious in certain areas, but the question of how to prevent misinformation in online communities is a tricky one, that goes beyond the details of a particular platform and into human nature. Government can (should?) help in certain ways, but even in the best scenarios, that will have limitations, as well. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.