Roujin wrote:It sounds like what you really want gurt is a safe space where people can raise their challenging rhetoric without fear of people with furries for avatars dropping sassy gifs in reply and shutting down reasoned debate by showing up the absurdity of the original opinion posted.
GurtTractor wrote:I want a place where people can speak freely about a range of topics and be challenged about them, without fear of a baying mob of dunktwats attacking them personally instead of their ideas.
poprock wrote:Roujin made a fair point there though, Gurt. To me, what you’re complaining about boils down to people’s behaviour, not the platforms they’re displaying it on. Your concerns seem to be about people, not about social media being a space for them to just behave like people do.Thanks for another shining example of the sort of cuntery I'm trying to highlight and dissuade people from, lumping me in as someone reprehensible. Sort yourself out.
Tempy wrote:It sounds like what you really want gurt is a safe space where people can raise their challenging rhetoric without fear of people with furries for avatars dropping sassy gifs in reply and shutting down reasoned debate by showing up the absurdity of the original opinion posted.I want a place where people can speak freely about a range of topics and be challenged about them, without fear of a baying mob of dunktwats attacking them personally instead of their ideas.
GurtTractor wrote:Mine lacks the ad hominem jeering and mockery.
GurtTractor wrote:a baying mob of dunktwats.
Yossarian wrote:Mine lacks the ad hominem jeering and mockery.a baying mob of dunktwats.
b0r1s wrote:People as a whole are cunts. Don’t think that will ever change.
Roujin wrote:Do you have any evidence that honest people, acting in good faith are being routinely shut down unfairly, and not having their right to voice their opinions heard?
It does always come back to this. And in 4 pages (some skim-read, admittedly) I've not seen much mention of how algorithms could be put to good use if they were freed from the demands of profiteering. If they're able to highlight the worst content to rile us up and hold our attention, they're also able to highlight the best to encourage calmer, more thoughtful conversation (learned and reinforced behaviour).Brooks wrote:It's been in the interest of soc meeja platform capital to stoke sensation and drama for yonks, and the algos have been tuned accordingly. Until that gets dealt with...
JonB wrote:I've not seen much mention of how algorithms could be put to good use if they were freed from the demands of profiteering. If they're able to highlight the worst content to rile us up and hold our attention, they're also able to highlight the best to encourage calmer, more thoughtful conversation (learned and reinforced behaviour).
JonB wrote:If you take out the need to maximise engagement, that already opens up a different approach.
JonB wrote:I realise that de-monetisation and democratisation of platforms isn't about to happen.
JonB wrote:If you take out the need to maximise engagement, that already opens up a different approach. Positive change also means discouraging addiction and obsessive behaviour, and stoking engagement is part of the problem that needs addressing.
I realise that de-monetisation and democratisation of platforms isn't about to happen. But that doesn't change that there's no real solution otherwise. Regulation isn't it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!