This article is awesome but it doesn't acknowledge that the problem has been maliciously manufactured by social media companies. they do not have incentive to curb the distortion of extremism and therefore any attempt to do so in a grassroots way will likely not be effective. then there's the bot problem but that is probably easier to address if we actually committed to doing so.

This is amazing analysis, presentation, and has a call to action at the end. Some of this guys other stuff: https://tobias.cc/reading

The only point I'd add is that it's not handling time evolution in wicked problems quite right. Agree that the noisy room is distorting the world in exactly the ways described. But what if we've been in there so long, and the world has become so distorted.. that reality itself slides towards the once-extreme positions? Easiest to see this with climate-change controversy since that is the way that sort of thing happens, regardless of whether you think it's happened yet. Cascade, phase change, and collapse don't just call a truce.

So you have to anticipate that, acknowledging the pessimist is actually right, and that systems are a real bitch. Then you point out that if we're already doomed, we have nothing to lose nothing by trying. Systems are complex after all, that's the whole problem.. so if we miscalculated on the doom, then bothering to try actually saves us. Checkmate pessimists.

This seems like a great idea. Even without the linked surveys. Two questions I have:

- how you does this handle the fact that a lot of accounts on social media platforms are bots that maybe controlled by a small number of people.

- how do we actually get this implemented?

Regulating the algorithm is my favorite answer. Ban the recommendation engine on social media sites with > X people. Make it a chronological feed of who you follow. Make it boring. I don't know all the details, but something like this.

This is my question as well, especially about the "community check". How will it be ensured that the "community check" is not going to be dominated by bots pushing an agenda? How is that different from "just another comment section hidden behind a green button"?

There's money in politics and money in social media.

And the money decides how to run the circus. Not for the benefit of all.

So it is a really hard problem.

I was on social media since sharing Zynga game invites was majority of the posts. I've seen countless of magic bullets attempting to fix the polarization issues. Algorithm adjustments, fact checkers, community notes.

I feel like the real problem is the people. Many of us just want to be told what to think to blend in with society, some of us demonstrate Dunning-Kruger publicly and a few of us really want to drive the polarization for clout and attention.

Everyday I see people promote increasingly stupid ideas on both sides, further pushing my believe that the only solution is to severely limit what government can do, therefore making all this discussion pointless.

New social trends and technologies frequently cause some level of moral panic. Moral panics of the past have been caused by all sorts of things, that now seem rather quaint: novels, bicycles, comics, television, videos, heavy metal, dungeons and dragons etc. But social media feels very different. It really does seem to be causing major societal disruption.

You: Other people are unhinged hyperbolists. Here, let me characterize them hyperbolically to prove it, therefore I am the calm rational one and by the way, civilization may collapse and the CIA might be behind this.

I mean wtf. Is this your parody account?

The claim that this isn't a hard problem to solve seems very optimistic to me.

The tiny minority dominates the feeds because that's how the incentives for algorithmic driven social media are structured. Do we really expect Meta, X, TikTok to anything that could reduce engagement?

Good luck having any of the mainstream social media apps add the banner they propose.

“The nuts are always the loudest” has been an observation forever.

This is showing how in the social media system the dynamics play out.

"What percentage of the other side supports political violence"

Both Democrats and Republicans estimated 30% but actually.. only 10% of both sides supported political violence

That number is crazy in so many ways and the post is overly nonchalant about it. The "distortion" isn't what's worrying here

The magnitude of that number is a consequence of the effects being discussed in the post. And unless you find a way to solve the tyranny of the loudest, it's only going to continue to increase.

I agree with the notion in the post, though I do not agree that users will feel the format is not being pushed top-down by the man

I just had an issue with the way that number was completely overlooked