3 ms·
This is a very astute observation. It’s also only really possible with centralized social media, not decentralized/federated.
by Robotbeat 4y ago
This is a very astute observation. It’s also only really possible with centralized social media, not decentralized/federated.
- buran77 4y agoDecentralization has some advantages but it also enforces bubbles further. My corner of social media will have no overlap whatsoever with your corner and they drift further and further apart. The only real solution for this is education, teaching people to think, to listen, to evaluate the quality of their sources of information, to draw their own conclusions, and so on. It's not perfect but the alternatives are closer to simple AI trained on a very limited and one sided dataset.
- Robotbeat 4y agoOne idea that has stuck with me: maybe polarization isn’t caused by bubbles but actually due to being exposed to the “other side”?
- tablespoon 4y ago>> In 2020, with social media, the cost of spreading the outrage is nearly zero: a retweet or a repost, maybe with some a few words of an inflammatory comment added on the top. But with social graphs being what they are (highly connected via a number of popular "influencer" accounts), any bit of outrage has a good chance to spread quickly and widely. > This is a very astute observation. It’s also only really possible with centralized social media, not decentralized/federated. I'm not so sure. Can you explain why you think that? The GP describe a social problem, while the difference between "centralized" and "federated" is a technical implementation difference. If you can "retweet" a post from a federated instance, then I don't see any barriers to this kind of emergent social behavior. Federation is a solution to a set of very specific problems, it's not a panacea.