Your mistake is thinking the problem is in the communities, as opposed to the technology platforms themselves.
Personally, as a starting point I'd want them to:
1. Kill algorithmic curation that is based on "engagement". These digital skinner boxes are a cancer on society.
2. Introduce much stronger privacy laws that discourage or prevent data collection used to drive targeted advertising. Reduce or eliminate the financial incentives driving #1.
3. Provide complete and open transparency around how these platforms engage in their moderation decisions. Reporting leads one to suspect Zuck stepped into to help out right-wing agitators. Twitter is making their own arbitrary decisions. We all need to know if these decisions are happening and how they're being made.
2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation.
3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?
2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution".
3. We already have laws to deal with harassment.
Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here:
Yes, FB has been pretty egregious in certain areas, but the question of how to prevent misinformation in online communities is a tricky one, that goes beyond the details of a particular platform and into human nature. Government can (should?) help in certain ways, but even in the best scenarios, that will have limitations, as well.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.
To cut the long story short, there are many people who believe that we need to have a fundamentally different approach to how we form communities. Decentralization is one of those trends in tech that could help us get there.
There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong.
Decentralization is interesting, but 20 years ago, there were many small "social networks", even if they didn't go by that name. FB and it's portfolio are the first ones to create 1B+ member "communities". There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities (FB illustrates the possibilities and perils of focusing on growth).
This is perhaps too big a topic to discuss on HN comments, but the idea that there are absolute & unchanging truths goes all the way back to Plato. The Western Civilization is founded on top of a very specific worldview that is "centered" on these absolute truths. This is the reason why a lot of traditionalists see postmodernism as the root of all evil.
>There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong.
I don't disagree. What I'd like to focus on is not basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2, but rather the implications of these. That some people are born with XY or XX chromosomes is a fact. What we do with those facts is entirely context dependent.
>Decentralization is interesting... There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities
Recent decentralization trends are designed to combat this exactly at the protocol level.
Ha ha-- so true. But thanks for making a valiant effort. ;-)
> but the idea that there are absolute & unchanging truths goes all the way back to Plato. The Western Civilization is founded on top of a very specific worldview that is "centered" on these absolute truths. This is the reason why a lot of traditionalists see postmodernism as the root of all evil.
You could argue that it predates Plato... But even before postmodernism, people seemed to have trouble agreeing on one truth.
>There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong. >> I don't disagree. What I'd like to focus on is not basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2, but rather the implications of these. That some people are born with XY or XX chromosomes is a fact. What we do with those facts is entirely context dependent.
This is a great example of an issue that I've seen on FB. Most people do have XY or XX, but a small percentage of people have something different. Beyond that, the way those genes get expressed can lead to different phenotype outcomes, which is a scientific "fact", but I've seen a lot of people, including from folks who claim to have MDs, who say that it's just XX or XY. Is this "misinformation"? Probably depends on who you ask...
>Decentralization is interesting... There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities >> Recent decentralization trends are designed to combat this exactly at the protocol level.
Please explain more. I don't dispute that their are notions of smaller communities, I'm just thinking that there are structural reasons why those smaller communities will get eclipsed by communities focused on growth.
It seems next to impossible to both allow individuals to share things and make sure that you only see "true" things in that community. And it seems that given the numbers involved, there will always be some amount of "accidental" misinformation that has a real impact, and deliberate misinformation from bad actors looking to exploit the system...