Unclear how groups will solve any problems here, other than actually preventing individual freedom of speech, so arguably even more draconian that the authoritarian examples cited in the article. At least it is making the attempt to square the circle of free speech vs social cohesion, though I suspect in the end, one of the two is going to have give
Agreed. It is oddly convoluted, does not change the privacy equation, does not really change freedom of speech equation.. I am genuinely not sure who would benefit from this particular setup.
When I first read it, my instinct was that somehow it will be fixed with a 3rd party data broker and I pre-emptively groaned.
My theory on why social media has a net bad effect on society is that it devolves into an internet mob generation machine. Mob's are almost guaranteed to be unintelligent. They destroy individual discourse and they quell independent thought. There is a lot of truth to the quote that "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..." -- Ed Solomon, Men in Black. Social media flips us from "a person" to "people"
Social Media makes us dumber because it tries to force us into mobs. The problem I think is caused by engagement metrics. They optimize for mobs because mobs are the easiest form of engagement to measure. I'm not even sure you can measure the better forms of engagement to be honest. Which perhaps means that this isn't fixable without destroying Social Networks as a business.
While I like Jared and the ideas that he puts forward, I can’t help but feel that in reality they would fail abysmally.
Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns. Why would these people want to join a social group and only post through that group? Also, why would it limit misinformation? Aren’t there already communities of these like minded people who are even more extreme?
Agreed. Also, even if we assume that the groups idea (which I don't think is very well defined) would solve everything, how would you get all social media platforms to follow that template? I can't see any legislation requiring such an approach surviving legal challenges, or being implemented globally.
> Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns.
Half? This is such a gross overestimation. The people that hold those views are a tiny fringe minority. It's rhetoric like this, where you accuse the half of the country that didn't vote for your team of holding extreme views, that drives division in the United States.
Have you tuned into a congressional hearing on a divisive issue recently? Like the one that happened yesterday. OP is basically right. Right wing radio in the 90s was a parallel universe, and congress was somewhat civil, now half of congress lives in that parallel universe, and right wing radio/social media basically advocates for fascism in the open.
Until the electoral college is fixed or more people vote, it might as well be half the country. It makes little difference that it's at least 50% in the red states.
As you can tell, words like this only anger those still under the spell. Im gonna sprinkle a little grisgris on the keyboard in hopes that it helps you out, but no promises.
> words like this only anger those still under the spell.
And those that are under said spell are certain that the other side has a strangle hold over social media and everyone else (obviously not them) is under a spell that keeps them hooked.
