3 ms·

> Being able to detect the tribal flavor of information so that you can filter it out is what got us into this mess in the first place because it indexed on cre

> Being able to detect the tribal flavor of information so that you can filter it out is what got us into this mess in the first place because it indexed on creating outrage bubbles for clicks. What you're referring to as outrage bubbles has come about due to a lack of contextualization. One topic this is commonly seen is discussion on GMOs, where both pro-GMO and anti-GMO activists provide misleading facts as supporting evidence in their discussion. In this example and also when it comes to politics, a contextualization engine would be very effective in spurring dialogue and getting people to see multiple sides of an issue. > When you ask the question, "whose contextualization engine?" and the whole premise falls apart, it becomes clear they have earned any mockery these engines are designed to sheild them from. Where I personally differ from some of the social networks on this, is I think these should be default on but also come with an off switch. Meaning the user always has the ability to turn them off, but they need to take an active step in order to do so. IMO it's a good compromise.

groby_b 5y ago
Can we stop saying it's due to "lack of contextualization" as if it's something that just oddly happened? The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Anything that could have served as context gets optimized out, because more clicks. We're not naturally polarized - we have created an environment that favored the more outrageous claims, slowly removing the middle ground as if it didn't exist. What we need isn't a "contextualizion engine", it's getting rid of active efforts to decontextualize.
- andrewjl 5y ago
  > The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Engagement based feeds are more profitable due to ads and also the rich profiles that can be built from aggregated engagement metrics. Unless business models drastically change, no major for-profit entity will make their feeds less engaging. The contextualization engine sounds like the neutrality doctrine that was used in the US during the mid-20th century to maintain media neutrality. Clearly, at least back then, it passed legal muster. It's worth seeing if it makes sense in a different medium. Are there better alternatives?
  - groby_b 5y ago
    Selling cocaine is also quite profitable, and yet we opted to not allow that. That's not to say that I think legal restrictions are necessarily the right answer, but neither is "well, it's more profitable" a reason to not explore that space.
gweinberg 5y ago
There are pro-GMO activists?
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  The scientists mainly. Anti GMO misinformation always comes from activists and weird NGOs.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Probably like the golden rice people.
- epgui 5y ago
  Well, yes, pretty much everyone who is an actual expert in biochemistry. I count myself in that group. However, probably none of us consider ourselves "activists". We just shake our head and do our job.
  - epgui 5y ago
    For more high-level context, I highly recommend this review: "Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies" (17 June 2020) - https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0094-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0094-x

groby_b 5y ago

Can we stop saying it's due to "lack of contextualization" as if it's something that just oddly happened? The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Anything that could have served as context gets optimized out, because more clicks. We're not naturally polarized - we have created an environment that favored the more outrageous claims, slowly removing the middle ground as if it didn't exist. What we need isn't a "contextualizion engine", it's getting rid of active efforts to decontextualize.

andrewjl 5y ago
> The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Engagement based feeds are more profitable due to ads and also the rich profiles that can be built from aggregated engagement metrics. Unless business models drastically change, no major for-profit entity will make their feeds less engaging. The contextualization engine sounds like the neutrality doctrine that was used in the US during the mid-20th century to maintain media neutrality. Clearly, at least back then, it passed legal muster. It's worth seeing if it makes sense in a different medium. Are there better alternatives?
- groby_b 5y ago
  Selling cocaine is also quite profitable, and yet we opted to not allow that. That's not to say that I think legal restrictions are necessarily the right answer, but neither is "well, it's more profitable" a reason to not explore that space.

gweinberg 5y ago

There are pro-GMO activists?

Dma54rhs 5y ago
The scientists mainly. Anti GMO misinformation always comes from activists and weird NGOs.
jandrese 5y ago
Probably like the golden rice people.
epgui 5y ago
Well, yes, pretty much everyone who is an actual expert in biochemistry. I count myself in that group. However, probably none of us consider ourselves "activists". We just shake our head and do our job.
- epgui 5y ago
  For more high-level context, I highly recommend this review: "Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies" (17 June 2020) - https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0094-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0094-x