That's a good point. Assigning a claim to either the pro or con camp does not reflect reality at all. It's more like political talking points. There is something also off about structuring the argument as a tree. We would expect distinct claims to share supporting evidence.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I bet you could build a semantic web ontology for internet arguments. That would possibly be the nerdiest thing of all time but it might clarify your thinking.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There are a couple of technical challenges to be learned from the experience of Wikipedia. (1) content might end up being driven by people who have lots of free time and love arguing online. (2) the size of the database might grow to be very large and it is unclear how to prune.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Christopher Reighley Retweeted Christopher Reighley
I am going to think about this.https://twitter.com/reighleyc/status/1190309053387272192?s=09 …
Christopher Reighley added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
aw you're so thoughtful no sweat I mute threads when they get unmanageable :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.