Humans are emotional beings and often make decisions based on emotions rather than logic. Expecting users to migrate to a platform that doesn’t manipulate their emotions just because it’s open source is delusional. Therefore, I believe we should prioritize adding better features that have proven to be effective on other platforms rather than trying to emulate Reddit, Twitter, etc., to make the platforms as pleasant to use as we can, even if it’s only for a fraction of the users.
Here is a video that I like on this topic.
Context of what gave me the idea for this post.
deleted by creator
I’m a bit torn about this. On one hand I fully agree with you, let them stew in their filth. But on the other hand: I still have to live in a society where people who have been indoctrinated by their filter bubble get to vote.
Then on the first hand again: messing with their freedom of speech because I disagree with it is fucked up. It’s complicated.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom for massive corporations to push enormous misinformation campaigns, full of lies, to promote their environment and society destroying agenda, all under the guise of news.
deleted by creator
According to which definition?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it either. But the only difference between someone knowingly propagating misinformation, and someone doing it because they honestly believe it to be true… is in their head. You can’t control for that (not should you want to, imho).
For that matter, repeat the misinformation enough, and the former group disappears until only the second group is left.
I think the problem in this case isn’t freedom of speech, but the ability to scream so loud that other voices can’t reach the audience. Corpos and governments use their already established influence to control narrative.
Could you elaborate on that? It’s hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)
I personally think it’s more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).
If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.
Well for one, I don’t think corporations are people, and therefore they don’t have freedom of speech to begin with, so the argument is moot. I understand that legally they do, but I think that law is bullshit and has resulted in great amounts of suffering.
So you’re not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?
But what’s the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they’re part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by… What, exactly?
News agencies are supposed to report things as they happen, not spin things to fit the agendas of the wealthy. Yes, news used to be, and should again be unbiased. This used to be a law in the United States, that if the news reported a bias in a story, they had to report the other side as well. Regan eliminated that (The Fairness Act) in the 80s and we’ve been getting more divided ever since.