3 ms·
It’s my personal opinion as someone who has watched the internet “grow up”, that at some point we are better off to mandate a percentage of “echo chamber bustin
by joshspankit 6y ago
It’s my personal opinion as someone who has watched the internet “grow up”, that at some point we are better off to mandate a percentage of “echo chamber busting” across all platforms.
Even if it’s 3%, the algorithms can promote not just the polar opposite opinion (which is currently done to create “sticky” polarity), but the things that let people say “huh, I never thought of it that way”, or “I never knew that there were people in that situation” because those lead to empathy, understanding, and recognizing the humanity of people in other “groups”.
- wussboy 6y agoI generally agree with you. I think a better solution would be reputation-based. An account created 4 seconds ago that posts dozens of videos that people generally find distasteful should wallow in obscurity. Still there? Yes. Findable? Yes. Promoted? No. I recommend this solution because I think this is generally how human societies have traditionally worked. Humans have always been free to say whatever they want (meaning, it's physically possible to say any words), but there has often been a penalty for promoting ludicrous or hateful ideas: You weren't respected and were often ignored. If you gathered followers around you who threatened to become violent, you were removed. I don't see why the same system couldn't work for content moderation. Of course, the fundamental problem is that controversial things trigger emotional responses which trigger engagement, and that's what social media's business model relies on.