Conversation

Replying to
(assuming red and blue pop as rough components) But some algorithmic cut or partition that minimizes social disruption. It’s all a multiverse of filter bubbles anyway. Why not let every group run its own alt-truth zone? Employees can pick a shard to work for.
3
12
The stick splits suitably. Eg each twitter share splits into red and blue shares. Let the market decide which is most valuable. For eg I’d sell my red shares and buy more blue shares. If a graph shard ends up with too few employees to run itself it can sell stock to hire more.
1
4
This is mostly a rhetorical proposal but it does highlight that the fight is over network capital. An algorithmic captive audience. Similar to pre-cable TV. If cable hadn’t happened there would have been “free speech” battles over free to air channels
3
5
Where capacity exists, pluralist divergence is actually feasible. The only people who dislike it are ones who want artificially captive large audiences. Big crowds who can’t leave easily.
1
6
Fox and CNN aren’t even on the same technology (one is privileged free to air, the other is cable), let alone the same platform. Add enough capacity, Schelling sorting will do the rest. Only dictators want single-channel media.
2
4
Disingenuous how “public square” is always used in the singular. If there’s only one in a society, it always belongs to some guy like Kim Jong Un. Squares. Plural.
2
21
Replying to
I suspect that the fixes for Twitter are fairly simple. Twitter already groups users for marketing. Just let people use a subset of that for filtering their feed It’s a near-zero effort improvement. A cut off of financial exchanges, some banking, and voilà!
Replying to
I did.
Quote Tweet
I think any social media platform should be broken up into its platform and publisher functions. The platform should be a common network. The publishers should be an ecosystem of *competing* apps with their own policies and processes, with regulation and redressal mechanisms…..
Show this thread
3