3 ms·

> The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring will allow left and right to meet on a level playing field. This should help de-radicalize the fri

> The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring will allow left and right to meet on a level playing field. This should help de-radicalize the fringe extremes and allow for discourse without discussion or users being banned. I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. I think a more-likely "de-radicalization" path is to hyper-amplify the center while suppressing the extremes. Specifically exposing users to a lot of content one "notch" toward the center and some content two "notches" in that direction (e.g. extreme right user gets a lot of moderate right and some centrist; a moderate left user gets a lot of centrist and some moderate right).

MathCodeLove 5y ago
I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - In a balanced system you can see how far each side stretches. You're better able to understand what truly is the "extreme" and what isn't: LLLLLLLLLL <you> RRRRRRRRRR In a system where one side is censored, what you see doesn't change, but your perception of what you see is warped. The extreme L may not seem so extreme given how much closer you are to it. And even the mild R can begin to look more extreme compared to everything else you see. LLLLLLL <you> LLLRRRR Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. > I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - 1) That's not at all what I was talking about, to the point where your comment is kinda non-responsive. 2) I think you're likely basing your reasoning on false assumptions about the distribution. 3) The ability to more accurately label oneself one some spectrum seems kinda pointless. > Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions. 4) I think the situation you're trying to engineer is likely to be alienating to "normal" people.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. Bubbles pop when reality collides with speculation and we get closer truth. Honest discourse through free speech where the facts are not censored will surely get us closer to the truth. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest
- tablespoon 5y ago
  Those are vague slogans, and I don't think they're true (or more precisely: they rely on conditions that won't exist in the contexts where you're trying to apply them). For instance: put a committed extreme left-liberal in front of Fox News opinion programming for 8 hour a day, and they'll be more likely to die of an aneurysm due to constant rage than to moderate. If the distance is too great, throw-em-together online contact isn't going to do anything to bring people closer together. At large ideological distances, the only kind of contact that can bring people together is a very slow, deliberate, and personal kind (e.g. the opposite of social media). That's why my comment was about engineering smaller-distance contacts.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. But I am glad we have a platform we can freely disagree on! :) [1] https://osf.io/jrw26/ https://osf.io/jrw26/
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. I'm not so sure. That study seems rather limited, and in any case it would be far from definitive.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
usrn 5y ago
I think the online discourse will look ugly but having them butt heads instead of sit in an echo chamber dulls them. I don't think people appreciate the degree to which the Right has radicalized from people joining echo chambers after being banned from places like Twitter.
prawn 5y ago
Haven't studies shown that people aren't interested in perspectives that counter their own? I'm not on Twitter for these beefs anyway. I say demote all of it and promote the things that humans generally have in common - hobbies, sports, food, community, etc. But I can't see it happening because it would reduce engagement for the majority of people and thus Twitter's overall value. So many platforms go to crap chasing money. eBay went from auctioning off your second hand stuff to buy-it-now for small business. Craigslist is full of car dealers listing things for $1 and spamming keywords. Etsy was handmade things but gradually overwhelmed with AliExpress junk.

MathCodeLove 5y ago

I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - In a balanced system you can see how far each side stretches. You're better able to understand what truly is the "extreme" and what isn't: LLLLLLLLLL <you> RRRRRRRRRR In a system where one side is censored, what you see doesn't change, but your perception of what you see is warped. The extreme L may not seem so extreme given how much closer you are to it. And even the mild R can begin to look more extreme compared to everything else you see. LLLLLLL <you> LLLRRRR Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. > I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - 1) That's not at all what I was talking about, to the point where your comment is kinda non-responsive. 2) I think you're likely basing your reasoning on false assumptions about the distribution. 3) The ability to more accurately label oneself one some spectrum seems kinda pointless. > Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions. 4) I think the situation you're trying to engineer is likely to be alienating to "normal" people.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. Bubbles pop when reality collides with speculation and we get closer truth. Honest discourse through free speech where the facts are not censored will surely get us closer to the truth. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest

tablespoon 5y ago
Those are vague slogans, and I don't think they're true (or more precisely: they rely on conditions that won't exist in the contexts where you're trying to apply them). For instance: put a committed extreme left-liberal in front of Fox News opinion programming for 8 hour a day, and they'll be more likely to die of an aneurysm due to constant rage than to moderate. If the distance is too great, throw-em-together online contact isn't going to do anything to bring people closer together. At large ideological distances, the only kind of contact that can bring people together is a very slow, deliberate, and personal kind (e.g. the opposite of social media). That's why my comment was about engineering smaller-distance contacts.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. But I am glad we have a platform we can freely disagree on! :) [1] https://osf.io/jrw26/ https://osf.io/jrw26/
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. I'm not so sure. That study seems rather limited, and in any case it would be far from definitive.
madeofpalk 5y ago

usrn 5y ago

I think the online discourse will look ugly but having them butt heads instead of sit in an echo chamber dulls them. I don't think people appreciate the degree to which the Right has radicalized from people joining echo chambers after being banned from places like Twitter.

prawn 5y ago

Haven't studies shown that people aren't interested in perspectives that counter their own? I'm not on Twitter for these beefs anyway. I say demote all of it and promote the things that humans generally have in common - hobbies, sports, food, community, etc. But I can't see it happening because it would reduce engagement for the majority of people and thus Twitter's overall value. So many platforms go to crap chasing money. eBay went from auctioning off your second hand stuff to buy-it-now for small business. Craigslist is full of car dealers listing things for $1 and spamming keywords. Etsy was handmade things but gradually overwhelmed with AliExpress junk.