
Burst Your News Filter Bubble with Read Across the Aisle - anexprogrammer
http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/
======
AndrewKemendo
I feel like this is the type of thing that people say they want and know they
should do, but won't work at wide scale because it flies in the face of our
biology.

"Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be
cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively
seek out challenging information are outliers.

I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly
change behavior, which I think would be required.

Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of
thing to work.

~~~
gnicholas
People are definitely on a spectrum when it comes to this. I've talked with
people who really want to read news on both sides, and are in fact already
doing so manually. They're looking forward to having something automated to
help them track their progress and remind them.

There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't
something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of
painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel
marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other
side.

This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to
have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak.

We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this
stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting
people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work
in progress!

~~~
AndrewKemendo
I think the gamification or making it something addictive is a good idea. If
the crowd is actually people already doing it, I would be curious to know what
that TAM is and if it's something that is growable.

Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg
etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content.

Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest
camp, with toughest monetization.

~~~
kordless
We'll have to figure out something that combats cognitive dissonance. Ideally,
it would be an AI which double binds them when they say stupid shit.

------
moomin
Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on
Comedy Central.

~~~
beaconstudios
all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism
say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much
less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-
handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or
protecting white privilege.

~~~
knz
There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement...

I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side
values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing
back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in
regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement
(c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for
the position).

If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more
moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump
supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations,
adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional
investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and
conquer agenda.

~~~
beaconstudios
I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have
attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or
exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated
has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you
can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of
Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton
emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media:
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_...](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told
over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and
what he stands for.

Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't
know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise
or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and
Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption
and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's
election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government
expansionism by the working and middle classes.

~~~
knz
Respectfully....

> While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has
> also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical

I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still
blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government.

> Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't
> know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a
> surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters.

And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but
not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they
dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of
government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives.

> The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice
> between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild
> it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on
> bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle
> classes

Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt,
doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for
special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax
returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about
corruption etc?

(Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)

~~~
beaconstudios
> I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and
> still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government.

Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an
instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That
might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic
levels in the past few years.

> And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed
> but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as
> they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the
> institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's
> lives.

You realise it's largely the poor that voted him in? Poor white communities
use the most welfare and they voted for Trump en masse. Perhaps it's because
dignified people don't want to live on welfare, but want to have a job and
contribute to society?

> Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt,
> doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual"
> for special interests?

That's a burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on you to show that the
administration is corrupt, has massive conflicts of interest and is business
as usual for special interests. Simply going against your own political
beliefs is not evidence of this either - for example, Trump wanting to improve
relations with Russia is not evidence that Putin put him in the White House.

> I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal
> to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc?

Management of Trump's brand umbrella has been handed off to Ivanka for his
time in the White House. You could argue that anyone who owns any company at
all is potentially making corrupt dealings if they land in the White House -
that doesn't justify making them detach permanently from their life's work.
I'm not aware of any calls from his supporters to divest - only the
opposition, who have been throwing so many accusations at him as to render
their voice moot. Throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks does not lend
itself towards being considered reasonably.

~~~
knz
> Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an
> instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That
> might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic
> levels in the past few years.

[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-
overst...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overstates-
crowd-size-at-inaugural.html) [http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-
inauguration-c...](http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-
crowd-estimates/766DA5D7-6DB1-4928-BE97-25BC3FC9A313.html)
[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-38707722](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722)
[http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-
administration...](http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-
administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size)

The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the
administration and it's ability to tell the truth.

We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.

~~~
beaconstudios
the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump
is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big
as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we
live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from
earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other
photos that show a bigger crowd, for example:
[https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-
content/u...](https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Real-Inauguration-Crowd-Size-vs-FAKE-NEWS.jpg)

The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated
and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun
it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas
that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth.

Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me
as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example,
established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to
engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to
counter your critique.

~~~
knz
It is ridiculous. But like I said, it's a litmus test for whether the Trump
administration can look at fact and tell the truth.

I struggle to understand how anyone can look at photos/video taken from the
same perspective and claim it was bigger than Obama
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg)
\- the gaps at the back are clear). No one doubts it was a large crowd - as
your photo shows, there were clearly hundreds of thousands of people there -
and both sides definitely put a spin on everything, but the Trump
administration clearly tried to play 2+2=5 on this issue, either for his ego
or for more serious reasons. Either way, it's not part of a healthy society.

~~~
beaconstudios
For context, I'm not trying to claim it was bigger. I don't think you were
trying to say that, but just so there's no misunderstandings.

Trump has been elected precisely because he's not a focus-group-groomed super-
careful politician who never says anything concrete. He was elected as a "real
person" who, as a business magnate, should be able to apply his knowledge of
negotiation and wealth accumulation to the nation at large.

As such, there are going to be jarring incidents like this for those of us who
are used to groomed politicians, where Trump says something off-hand and it
turns out to be inaccurate. I think that's fine, as a non-politician he's
going to make mistakes, but it's also an asset (IMO) to be able to signal
intent with concrete statements, or to be able to make initial statements and
then revise them when more facts come to light. The characteristic that made
him slip up on the inaug. crowd size is the same characteristic that has led
to him fulfilling campaign promises at record speed. I think it's a good
trade-off.

------
jbmorgado
Sincerely, I don't think the answer to the problem is to read stuff that's
clearly biased from the other side as well, but to rethink journalism in the
modern age so that it can go back to actually be more moderate, factual and
professional as it was 2 decades ago when reputable journals wouldn't go for
the clickbait.

I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of
professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that
now is difficult to find even in major journals.

~~~
gnicholas
You identify one of the important structural problems — that media outlets
have partisan audiences, which for business reasons they need to keep happy.
This means that an outlet like Vox will continue writing from a liberal
perspective, and using headlines that get traction on platforms like Facebook.
If they stray too far from their current strategy, their existing audience
will disappear. And they have nothing to gain by becoming more moderate, since
they have very few readers who are not liberal (who would read more from them
if their coverage was more moderate)

We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both
sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they
will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.

------
haversine02
There should definitely be an additional axis for alternative, non-mainstream
sources. It doesn't really work if you're just lumping everything together as
either Democrat or Republican.

~~~
gnicholas
You're absolutely right that this is a multi-dimensional issue. We're starting
out with just one dimension but want to add more in the future. What are the
alternative sources you're thinking of? We're considering how to add
libertarian to the mix, but there are other alternatives, of course.

------
stevefeinstein
This project seems flawed before it starts. It just continues the bad
tradition of giving the loudest voice to the ones with the most money. That's
not how to get all sides of an issue.

~~~
gnicholas
Creator here. How is it giving louder voices to people with more money? We
definitely don't want to do that (and I'm pretty sure we're not).

News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included
news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does
that address your concern, or am I not understanding?

------
gnicholas
founder here — I'll be checking in on the thread in case folks have questions!

~~~
tropo
The example puts Fox at one extreme. Uh, might this be your own filter bubble?
Not too long ago, there was a study posted here with statistics-derived
positioning that showed Fox being barely right of center. (BTW, can anybody
dig that study up?)

FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer,
The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald

You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.

~~~
__derek__
> FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer,
> The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald

News?

~~~
beaconstudios
Breitbart and The Daily Caller are definitely news sources. The_Donald and
Drudge Report are news aggregators, and Stormfront and the Daily Stormer are
"third position" i.e. fascist/nazi sites that reject both liberalism and
conservatism.

FWIW the list misses a large number of right-wing outlets, but that's likely
to do with the author's lack of familiarity.

