3 ms·

I have an idea for a free speech website, which could be called as TalkingPoints.org Basically today, idea wars are being faught in Tiktok and Instagram and Re

I have an idea for a free speech website, which could be called as TalkingPoints.org Basically today, idea wars are being faught in Tiktok and Instagram and Reddit and each such website has a distinctive flavour and their own hive mind. To allow better outside ideas, opinions and facts to infiltrate such closed walled gardens, this website would collect "talking points" from all around the web which users of such networks could just copy paste and ask influencers peddling a particular narrative to explain their stand on other side's best facts. Consider two opposing sides A and B of a particular issue. There will be two boards : Pro-A and Pro-B. People in favour of Pro-A would collect self-contained talking points of A and there will be rating system and so on. Similarly for Pro-B. I remember there was a nice website (don't remeber the name) which was build with a very complex UI to discuss complex issues. Basically there was a top level statements in blue, and one can expand statments in favour of it (or against it would be in green) and that new statement will be come a blue statement. I liked the motive of that website. Instead of wikipedia's neutral point of view principle[0], this should allow best framing of any side to be represented, sort of like steelmanning. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

JimRyan 3y ago
The website you mention might be kialo.com?
- passion__desire 3y ago
  Yes, thank you.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
The problem is that people writing in support of the positions that they believe often unintentionally elide things that they consider obvious, which, from the perspective of the other group, sounds like nonsensical mumbo-jumbo, resulting in derisive assessments of the first group as “idiots”, “lunatics” and so on. Further, people also like staying in their ingroup, so while a flat-earther can already look up evidence and statements supporting a spherical Earth, they often choose to remain in their ingroup to avoid the cognitive dissonance from contradictory information.
- ronsor 3y ago
  See also: the anti-AI debate, where most discussion has devolved into either how "AI bros" are evil or artists are all "dumb luddites." Both sides believe all their points to be so obvious that the only explanation for why someone could disagree is that they're either stupid or malicious.
- passion__desire 3y ago
  People don't even have the same facts to base distinct opinions from. If one side's collection of facts differ from another, there is no hope to reach any sort of agreement. The whole propaganda thing is orchestrated to convince bystanders, a large silent majority, so having them all the facts is what this process about. The influencers might not change their position but the bystanders will not be enthusiastic to the same degree especially when they have both sides's facts. If this happens consistently, the debate would have advanced to a more nuanced take. It is hard to be violent and morally upright about it when you also know about your own shortcomings.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  You’ve exactly described why internet public forums are dead for at least the next half century.
elicash 3y ago
It's somewhat different, but reminds me of some of the aspirations of Brigade years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Media
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

JimRyan 3y ago

The website you mention might be kialo.com?

passion__desire 3y ago
Yes, thank you.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

The problem is that people writing in support of the positions that they believe often unintentionally elide things that they consider obvious, which, from the perspective of the other group, sounds like nonsensical mumbo-jumbo, resulting in derisive assessments of the first group as “idiots”, “lunatics” and so on. Further, people also like staying in their ingroup, so while a flat-earther can already look up evidence and statements supporting a spherical Earth, they often choose to remain in their ingroup to avoid the cognitive dissonance from contradictory information.

ronsor 3y ago
See also: the anti-AI debate, where most discussion has devolved into either how "AI bros" are evil or artists are all "dumb luddites." Both sides believe all their points to be so obvious that the only explanation for why someone could disagree is that they're either stupid or malicious.
passion__desire 3y ago
People don't even have the same facts to base distinct opinions from. If one side's collection of facts differ from another, there is no hope to reach any sort of agreement. The whole propaganda thing is orchestrated to convince bystanders, a large silent majority, so having them all the facts is what this process about. The influencers might not change their position but the bystanders will not be enthusiastic to the same degree especially when they have both sides's facts. If this happens consistently, the debate would have advanced to a more nuanced take. It is hard to be violent and morally upright about it when you also know about your own shortcomings.
demondemidi 3y ago
You’ve exactly described why internet public forums are dead for at least the next half century.

elicash 3y ago

It's somewhat different, but reminds me of some of the aspirations of Brigade years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Media

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]