4 ms·

I really, really wish there were spaces that required some sort of proof of critical thinking to enter. The harder the test to get in, the better. Maybe even

• tbrownaw 5y ago
  Unfortunately, universities aren't looking so hot in this regard at the moment. Maybe the rationalist community?
• admonii 5y ago
  The fundamental problem of online "discourse" is that critical thinking is applied selectively according to emotional biases, not that participants are intellectually incapable of it. Malicious actors, doubly so. An attempt to control that can only devolve into testing for the "correct bias", and communities with sufficient moderator:post ratio or upvote/downvote type community moderation already perform that sort of self-selection. As for monetary fees - demographic skew aside, that would significantly reduce the overall user population the more you charge, so a malicious actor would need correspondingly fewer sock-puppets to create the appearance of X% of the population saying Y, limiting its effectiveness as a deterrent. Amplifying minority views by a large factor or seeding new claims/statements doesn't require that many unique accounts in the first place.
  • seph-reed 5y ago
    > The fundamental problem. You lost me. If some context was in there (as in "the current fundamental problem on my known platforms"), then everything else you said would follow. But there must be a way to do better. I can personally think of many tactics currently unused by any social platform -- all of which would need testing to verify their efficacy -- but they leave the question open none-the-less.