Off-topic: I've always wondered if you could make some sort of website with an anti-bubble. Probably in the style of Twitter, since you'd want to minimize reli

Off-topic: I've always wondered if you could make some sort of website with an anti-bubble. Probably in the style of Twitter, since you'd want to minimize reliance on outside content of dubious provenance, but possibly in the style of reddit with a system that instead of just linking, there'd be some kind of automatic reputation system for the websites linked to. (For the reddit example, think hybrid link and self-post, where you link to a item and then write an opinion about it.) Rather than try to show you things that it thinks you'd find agreeable, it shows you opinions that meet your epistemological and deductive methods, but have different conclusions. Detecting reasoning method would likely be difficult, but it might be possible to analyze your argument for similarities to another one, and then show you how people responded to that post. Of course people would still think that there are logical faults in the other person's argument and dispute their facts, but the goal is to match you with people you'd like to argue with rather than with views you'd get a warm fuzzy by agreeing with. Likely, you'd want to put in a mix of the opinions that's roughly reflective of the user base (eg, X% of users support abortion, so about X% of the posts you see on the topic will concur with that view). An interesting extension would be to see how far you can go down the formalism path without encumbering the process beyond what people are willing to put up with. (Perhaps require more formalism when introducing external sources, eg websites, and less when just talking about a free standing opinion.) Regardless, I think we're going to see the rise of communities meant to mix and compete opinions, instead of making echo chambers of them.