3 ms·

> What's the solution? The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright tha

> What's the solution? The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be monopolized by one group or another, but they should also not be in the hands of untrained first graders on playgrounds. A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. Bring back classic web forums for communities, and push people who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal websites.

hammock 5y ago
>The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be monopolized by one group or another, but they should also not be in the hands of untrained first graders on playgrounds. Friction, or training? In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media? >A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do. >Bring back classic web forums for communities, and push people who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal websites. Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Friction, or training? Friction. > In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media? Not really. The analogy between guns and social media is not perfect. Training as a solution has special problems with applied to media access that it doesn't have with guns. Specifically, it would probably amount to some kind of indoctrination program. Gun training is a technical topic, like how to drive a car safely. >> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. > This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do. Actually, that was me dictating a solution to Facebook that stopped short of shutting them down. I'm pretty sure they'd hate to follow it. And the important difference is that everything I suggested is content neutral, so it can't accurately be called "censorship." > Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach. Yes, but if it's happening today, I'd bet money it's mostly people who can handle social media relatively well. The problematic people who probably shouldn't have access to a broadcast megaphone are likely still on Facebook and Twitter and are unlikely to leave.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Adding friction helps slow down the honest but gullible. But if you have an organized, professional disinformation campaign, they're willing to do the work to push against the friction. I suppose they count on their gullible followers to multiply their efforts, and hindering that will have an effect, even against organized campaigns, and that's good. But I wonder whether it will make organized campaigns relatively more powerful. If so, that might not be a net win.

hammock 5y ago

>The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be monopolized by one group or another, but they should also not be in the hands of untrained first graders on playgrounds. Friction, or training? In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media? >A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do. >Bring back classic web forums for communities, and push people who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal websites. Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Friction, or training? Friction. > In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media? Not really. The analogy between guns and social media is not perfect. Training as a solution has special problems with applied to media access that it doesn't have with guns. Specifically, it would probably amount to some kind of indoctrination program. Gun training is a technical topic, like how to drive a car safely. >> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. > This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do. Actually, that was me dictating a solution to Facebook that stopped short of shutting them down. I'm pretty sure they'd hate to follow it. And the important difference is that everything I suggested is content neutral, so it can't accurately be called "censorship." > Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach. Yes, but if it's happening today, I'd bet money it's mostly people who can handle social media relatively well. The problematic people who probably shouldn't have access to a broadcast megaphone are likely still on Facebook and Twitter and are unlikely to leave.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Adding friction helps slow down the honest but gullible. But if you have an organized, professional disinformation campaign, they're willing to do the work to push against the friction. I suppose they count on their gullible followers to multiply their efforts, and hindering that will have an effect, even against organized campaigns, and that's good. But I wonder whether it will make organized campaigns relatively more powerful. If so, that might not be a net win.