6 ms·

I'm still hoping that X wins. I'm hoping that we learn how to coexist with a diversity of viewpoints. It seems counterproductive to partition everyone up into

• williamtrask 2y ago
  For a nice book on the tech-philosophy of this question (recently endorsed by the Dalai Lama, you might enjoy: https://www.plurality.net/ https://www.plurality.net/
• krisboyz781 2y ago
  [dead]
• croes 2y ago
  Not everything that is written on Twitter is a viewpoint and those things became mire and more sind Musk bought it.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• tootie 2y ago
  It is functionally impossible to run an unmoderated message board that doesn't devolve. Holding out hope that "we" learn where "we" is everyone in the world is not going to happen in 1000 years. The only way for a forum to remain civil and useful is for careful moderation to remove troublemakers and it is equally impossible to do that without ever making a mistake.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    You're presenting a false dichotomy. Of course, there will be mistakes. And of course there needs to be moderation. But I support the moderation similar to HN, it's about politeness and respect. As long as you're respectful, you can say your piece. Also, X does provide community based fact checking too, which works best when there are representatives from all sides participating.
    • gjsman-1000 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • ta8645 2y ago
        Well, i'm in favor of pursuing the ideal, even though it will never be perfect in practice.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        You are more than free to talk with Dang about any given flag you disagree with. He puts up with it much too kindly. That alone is a grace reddit never gave me. Downvoting is a user action. There's no real gain to blame the entire community for their individual action against a single comment. Feel free to inquire if you really need to, but half the downvotes I see are pretty explicitly breaking the guidelines.
    • verdverm 2y ago
      Having participated in the notes system, it largely became another ideological battleground and was too slow to add the, by and large, accurate notes in the end. The majority of views and reactions had already happened One of the appealing aspects of Bluesky / ATProto is that there can be multiple fact checkers that users can subscribe to, which can have differing governance models, policies, and operations. Within the app, you can decide which ones (more than one even) at an individual level. This means we can have competition, but also echo chambers. It will be interesting to see how it works out
    • tootie 2y ago
      What about disinformation?
  • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
    Might be a job for an LLM personal moderator? Give it a prompt, what kind of content you want to see, and what to filter out?
• kccqzy 2y ago
  I used to think echo chambers are bad. I realized that when algorithms force me to consume content that I don't agree with, my mood becomes terrible. In order to protect myself, I no longer think echo chambers are pure bad. They are a necessary evil to ensure my own sanity. In the real world you congregate with like-minded people. The same applies to my social media timeline. And I use Mastodon by the way, which doesn't have an algorithm driven timeline.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    Yes, I feel the same way. I'm in favor of self-controlled filters that let each of us decide what we want to consume, and when. Don't think that means you need to go into the echo-chamber permanently.
    • verdverm 2y ago
      > I'm in favor of self-controlled filters that let each of us decide what we want to consume This is why Bluesky, with ATProto, appeals to me. They have made the four core components (data hosting, app view, algo feed, moderation) a pluggable system with user level choices, for what they use for each component and which they combine
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > I'm in favor of self-controlled filters that let each of us decide what we want to consume, and when. and you think any current mainstream social media will ever let us get full control of that? And why is it fine for me to leave to another "echo chamber", but it's fine to filter myself with site features in your proposed "commons" to the point where I made an echo chamber?
  • PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    That's true, but arguably x's only draw at this point is the ease of reaching and interacting beyond this bubble. Consider the draw of major public figures being openly mocked in their own comments! It's pretty rare to see any public figure open themselves to criticism.
• taylodl 2y ago
  There's a reason waste management becomes so important when building cities and large communities.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    There's also a reason we don't create zoning laws based on political belief, forcing everyone to agree with us if they want to be our neighbor.
    • taylodl 2y ago
      What nobody has figured out how to do yet is re-create that physical reality in the digital world. Policing is a reality few people want to talk about, and nobody wants to point out that graffiti (trolling in the digital world) is vandalism and not free speech. Nor do they want to face the reality that while graffiti is pretty easy to spot in the real world, it's much more difficult to detect in the digital world. All those problems are in play before we add in the problems brought by advertising and the fact that online communities legally look similar to media. Online communities have existed for over four decades now and we still haven't solved these problems.
      • ta8645 2y ago
        > Online communities have existed for over four decades now and we still haven't solved these problems. The beautiful thing about digital graffiti is that you can remove it instantly, and return to an unmarred environment. As long as such tools are provided to each person, those who enjoy graffiti can leave it in place too. Win-Win. We do need a new vision, with people embracing and promoting digital maturity. Both in a reduction of trolling, and in a stronger resilience against it. Because not everything that is objectionable, is graffiti. You should not hate your neighbor because he has a different political sign on his front yard during election season. We have to stop equating everything that is objectionable, as a catastrophic, intolerable insult.
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >we don't create zoning laws based on political belief, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification I think at this point you may need to review your history. There's sadly only so much I can do as a handle on a social media platform to convince someone this unaware of the powers that be.
• davidczech 2y ago
  I don't think we should, nor do I think it's healthy. Some viewpoints are horrific and should absolutely be suppressed.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    That's a very dangerous idea that has been tried in communistic countries many times. It always leads to horrendous outcomes and the authoritarian control of the public. We should each follow our own moral compass, and oppose viewpoints that we find horrific. But trying to systematically stamp out disagreeable ideas, rather than to influence people with better ideas, is a road to hell.
    • davidczech 2y ago
      This sort of absolutism is the same kind of garbage middle-school level philosophy that Elon Musk peddles, and it doesn't work in practice. For example, holocaust denialism, or in the most recent example, Sandy Hook massacre denialism isn't an opposing viewpoint worth hosting on a private platform. The best course of action is to simply eradicate it. Infowars being shutdown is a great example of a good thing happening.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        How are there people old enough to comment on Sandy Hook, denying Sandy Hook? What do you even say to convince someone that a highly televised event within their own recent history did not happen?
    • majgr 2y ago
      Sure, let nazis march with their torches, they just have different viewpoint.
• pessimizer 2y ago
  I hope we get a nice distributed protocol, and I'm not completely negative on AT (or nostr) yet. Twitter is a critical chokepoint for independent media right now, and the guy who owns it is in the coming administration. Shutting down twitter, rumble, and substack would be a massacre for independent media right now. Elon could make an offer that couldn't be refused on the other two, and turn on the censorship harder than Facebook. The right-wing free speech heel turn is always the same: when you censor, you're trying to prevent the free expression of ideas, when we censor, we're trying to prevent the "support" of terrorism. Lèse-majesté is always around the corner.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    I don't think the answer to the potential right-wing censorship, is left-wing censorship. Right now, X is actually closer to the ideal than any time in its history. But yeah, if there is a truly distributed system, that had facilities and incentives which support and even promote diverse interactions, that'd be even better.
    • pessimizer 2y ago
      X is owned by an opinionated rich guy, completely entangled in government (even before the Trump win.) There's nothing ideal about a situation where he could be flipping the switch right now to turn it back like it once was, or even worse. He doesn't even have to care, all he has to do is lie back and let it happen. It's the path of least resistance. I firmly believe his posture with twitter has been because 1) it's a fun place for him and it was obviously a money losing purchase* so he might as well have that fun, and 2) his level of censorship is something that he can use to negotiate with government over contracts or regulation. He might even really believe in free speech, but a conceptual belief in free speech doesn't mean he'll feel obligated to personally provide it if he can make a dollar denying it. His speech will remain free no matter what happens, he's a rich guy. ----- * (not unlike say the Guardian, the New Republic, Mother Jones, the Intercept, or the Atlantic, or the WaPo, aparently, and probably CNN and MSNBC at this point. They're not for making money.)
      • 2y ago
• redeux 2y ago
  People aren't leaving X because of polite disagreement. They're leaving because ideological extremism and hate not only run wild but are actively promoted by the platform. Here’s how I see it: imagine you like going to a restaurant for dinner fairly often. Recently, a group of rowdy patrons has started coming in, getting drunk, and making all kinds of noise. Strangely, the restaurant seems to encourage their behavior. You don’t love this—you’re just trying to enjoy a nice dinner and some casual conversation. So, you leave and don’t come back. You can’t force the restaurant to calm down or kick out the rowdy patrons. They should be allowed to serve whomever they want. Luckily, you’re also not forced to endure their actions.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    > People aren't leaving X because of polite disagreement. They're leaving because ideological extremism and hate not only run wild but are actively promoted by the platform. I disagree. I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things. And that's part of the problem. The rhetoric has become so hyperbolic that we're having a hard time coexisting. The answer is for us to walk that back, and encourage actual dialogue, not run into our own safe bunkers. You can talk to the people at your table in a restaurant, and it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same.
    • redeux 2y ago
      > I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things. The definitions of hate and extremism are inherently tied to personal values. Many people perceive much of the speech on X as hateful and extremist because it directly contradicts their core values, not because they're arbitrarily expanding those definitions. > You can talk to the people at your table in a restaurant, and it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same. This analogy only works if everyone abides by a social contract. that’s often not the case on X. It’s like if the people at the next table overheard you, didn’t like what you said, and decided to come over and spit in your food. That’s the experience many people have on X.
• threeseed 2y ago
  > coexist with a diversity of viewpoints Create a new account on X and then come back and talk about this. You will notice that it is entirely right-wing political content that is being pushed.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    You might be right, I don't have the data to know. But it might just feel that way, because previously it was entirely left-wing political content that was being pushed.
    • Kudos 2y ago
      You just received basic instructions to get the data. You hold such strong opinions in this thread, I think it's important you inform yourself properly.
      • ta8645 2y ago
        Actually, my opinions are not reliant on the results of such a test. Anything that X does which favors right-wing opinions, and censors or diminishes left-wing opinions, I oppose. I'm for free speech, and all of us being in the same proximity to hash out our differences, and accept that there will be some which always remain.
        • verdverm 2y ago
          I don't think X can recover, and become a polite and respectful place, from the toxicity levels it currently has. Too many trolls and an algorithm and owner that prefers engagement farming
  • Vicinity9635 2y ago
    [dead]
• bagful 2y ago
  Many people hold worldviews which are ontologically incapable of co-existence with other viewpoints. By reducing discourse to intergroup sparring and affinity signaling, the intermingling of various such extremists only solidifies the status quo.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    There is a way to coexist, without it being a constant ideological battle all the time. If we can talk about the things we DO agree about, it makes it easier to talk about the things we don't. That's only possible if we're in proximity to one another. Hiding in our own echo-chambers does not solve any real problems, and it creates new ones.
  • samatman 2y ago
    True, but those people can move to Bluesky, and a lot of them have.
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yes. But The base of this thread is talking about how we can just "talk it out", when the disagreement is of things as base as "are [insert people here] inferior beings?" No, I had centuries of ancestors fight so that question has a nigh-objective answer. I'm not going to entertain the argument to "expand my worldview". Why would I? That kind of talk is basically saying you don't respect me as a human being, so why talk with someone like that?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        If you're going to say something is reductive, maybe they should try not to make outright misogynistic tags trending. This was barely a week ago.
• Devasta 2y ago
  Why should a trans person have to put up with hordes of deranged cretins who believe that all trans people are inherently gross sexual predators? Why should people of color have to put up with all the nazis on that site who are gleefully awaiting when Trump will reopen the concentration camps? Diversity of viewpoints is nonsense.
  • ta8645 2y ago
    Why should Republicans have to put up with hordes of deranged leftists who believe all conservatives are inherently evil Nazi's? Why should white men have to put up with all the racists who believe they're systemically, irrevocably evil by nature, and awaiting the day that all white people can be killed or enslaved? Diversity of viewpoints doesn't mean every viewpoint is equally valid. It means that we endure the crazies on both sides, and don't let their stupid theories prevent rational conversation and good-natured and loving people from coexisting. That is, we become more mature, and find ways to cool down the hyperbolic rhetoric -- not abandon each other.
    • Devasta 2y ago
      You're saying this as if the transphobes and racists are some fringe offshoot and not the mainstream conservative position. We aren't talking about our favorite flavor of Pringles here; coexisting means the right has to abandon their principals wholesale, not just say please and thank you while politely discussing how vaccines cause 5G or whatever.
    • myvoiceismypass 2y ago
      Are you one of those people who shout "ALL lives matter!" when you encounter BLM?
• johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Read up on the paradox of tolerance and you may see why this isn't just some "diversity of viewpoints". - I'd love to hear more points about fiscal and foreign policy. - I want to hear what people see in country music. - I want to know about weird bizarre facts that can only be remembered and regurgitated by an obsessed madman. Likewise, I enjoy the occasional, IMO overanalyzed dives into arts from people who are considered auteurs that goes beyond my eye and ear - I want to attempt to understand the experiences of those in very different socioeconomical environments. immigrants, LGBT, Some dude traveling the country on train cars, - I want to understand more about the people who represent my country. The mundane dry stuff on the day to day, not just once every 4 years in the big showdown - I want to hear people's technical approaches to software, hardware, and anything in between I am open to a lot of viewpoints, I will not agree with all of them. I will find some of them obnoxious and other snooty. Why is it that when I don't want to hear stuff like "My body your choice" I'm suddenly a coddled prude who is seeking an echo chamber? I did my time shitposting on 4chan when maybe half of it was ironic. I don't want nor need to do that anymore. That well has clearly fallen fully to Poe's law and my one and only real hard line is "don't spread hate". This line of thought is very simple: you don't get diverse viewpoints when people are scared of being doxxed, harrased, or even murdered. You're making a place less diverse by literally trying to say they are less of a person than you. Stop it.