I think the idea is we need diversity in online social media. I'd like to see human editors come back.
Here's how Benjamin Franklin dealt with his social media platform:
"In the conduct of my newspaper, I carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place... "
On the contrary, I regularly read articles and watch videos edited by "their guys". I don't have much interest in listening to people scream on social media, but I'm genuinely happy to learn the perspectives of people who don't think the same way as me.
A consequence of this is that you may find yourself changing your views-- or at least being more open minded about things your friends don't approve of.
If it's just politics with no direct relevance to your life-- are you really better off that way? Is being more right or just more open minded about something that you have no influence do you any good if it alienates you from friends or family at all?
Being more open minded allows me to maintain a friend group who's similarly open minded, and wouldn't ostracize me for holding opinions they don't approve of. From what I've seen this strategy works for most people, and life seems like it'd be really stressful otherwise; if I for example got a stalker and needed to start carrying a gun, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my friends will abandon me if they find out.
I of course don't begrudge anyone who feels they have to keep a closed mind in order to maintain a reputation in their community.
> I think the idea is we need diversity in online social media. I'd like to see human editors come back.
People have tried. Either highly-moderated networks or "middle of the line" media. Other than a few exceptions (Real Clear Politics comes to mind), they've all failed. It's unfortunately clear that people don't want this.
That's the key insight. It's not Facebook's or Twitter's decisions that have lead to a divisive discourse.
It's that given an option to express themselves on social media, people like expressing strong tribalism the most. And then, all you need is to add even a hint of recommendation engine boosting more engaging content to the top (a very reasonable idea, heck, HN does that) and you have a vicious cycle.
Yes, but that is a feature of the human race which is exacerbated, when it should be sublimated, by the way that FB works. Long, thoughtful posts are discouraged through lack of proper editing tools, deep narcissism is nurtured via "likes", algorithms target the lizard brain rather than the neocortex. Agency in controlling your feed is minimized. FB encourages, manipulates and monetizes our worst instincts. I hope that the fine people working there can make some changes when they finally save enough money to buy back their conscience.
While it's not a social media platform of any kind, I know Apple News has some of their main user-facing pages actively curated by humans they've hired directly from editorial positions at various traditional media outlets.
I thought it was an interesting idea when it started. I'm not sure how much of a real impact that's had, though.
I mean, isn't that approximately what's occurring that some people ("writers") are up in arms about, except instead of "libel" and "personal abuse" it's things like "hate speech"?
Here's how Benjamin Franklin dealt with his social media platform:
"In the conduct of my newspaper, I carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place... "