3 ms·
Additionally, it seems to be a stark contrast to Twitter, which seemed to favor pitting people of opposing ideas against each other to increase engagement. It f
by kiawe_fire 4y ago
Additionally, it seems to be a stark contrast to Twitter, which seemed to favor pitting people of opposing ideas against each other to increase engagement. It felt designed to create a powder keg.
This seems to solve two problems -- #1, the problem of "how can I not be bothered by Nazis and violent extremists", and #2, the problem of "where do the people who are being repressed from sharing information that an authoritarian doesn't want shared go".
But I don't think it will solve problem #3 of non-extremist people of different viewpoints and diverse backgrounds being able to civilly discuss ideas or share perspectives and news stories. This seems like it will just create larger, more impenetrable silos breeding more contempt for "those other people" who we will no longer have any need or reason to even speak to.
Is it even possible to solve for problems #2 and #3 at the same time?
- dm319 4y agoA reduction in 'pitting people against each other', could paradoxically allow for civil disagreement because of decreased polarisation. I.e. if I go on a platform and I expect strong/aggressive disagreement as my engagement, I am more likely to counter argue. If I'm on a platform where views are more moderate, I am more likely to carefully consider a different viewpoint. I agree there are risks of bubbles though.