For easy reference, here is a summary of the claims and concepts included in this post. (But, note that I think reading the full post first makes more sense).
The Problem: discussion is happening in private by default
This requires people to network their way into various social circles to stay up to date
Since you can’t rely on everyone sharing mid-level concepts, it’s harder to build them into higher level concepts.
Private venues like facebook...
Have at least some advantages for developing early stage ideas
Are often more enjoyable (so early-stage-ideas tend to end up staying there much longer)
Chilling Effects are concerning, but:
There’s a chilling effect on criticism if authors get to control their discussions
There’s a chilling effect on authors if they don’t – the costs of requiring authors to have fully public discussions on every post are a lot higher than you think
Healthy disagreement / Avoiding Echo Chambers
Is important to maintain
Does not intrinsically require a given post’s comment section to be fully public – people can write response posts
Since the status quo is many people discussing things privately, it’s not even clear that authorial control over comments is net negative for avoiding filter bubbles
You are responsible for writing arguments that are clear and persuasive enough to get upvoted and visible.
People prefer different sorts of trust
You can trust someone to be capable (and willing to perform) a particular skill
You can trust someone to keep their word or uphold certain principles
Transparent Low Trust environments
Rely on clear standards, transparency and safeguards, instead of on anyone particular person being trustworthy
You are responsible for using the transparency to make sure you are safe
Curated High Trust environments
Rely on an owner, who decides what standards to set.
You are responsible for deciding if you trust the owner and the people involved
The person in charge of a space can experiment with stronger or stranger norms that they wouldn’t be able to get the entire rationalsphere on board with.
If you do trust the owner and members of space and agree with the norms, you have to spend less effort worrying about those norms being violated
A single space can’t satisfy everyone’s preferences for trust, but a site with multiple sub-spaces can provide a wider variety of options
Comments about the overton window, or personal criticism…
Can be intensely prolific, making it hard to talk about anything else
Instead of every controversial topic resulting in a massive demon thread every time, you can have a single thread for that, and meanwhile resolve disputes over the overton window via upvotes/downvotes
Public Archipelago
LW2.0 team has a vision of experimentation, involving:
Flexible Sitewide tools
Individual authors cultivating spaces and reputations
Individual posts having specific conversational goals
For easy reference, here is a summary of the claims and concepts included in this post. (But, note that I think reading the full post first makes more sense).
The Problem: discussion is happening in private by default
This requires people to network their way into various social circles to stay up to date
Since you can’t rely on everyone sharing mid-level concepts, it’s harder to build them into higher level concepts.
Private venues like facebook...
Have at least some advantages for developing early stage ideas
Are often more enjoyable (so early-stage-ideas tend to end up staying there much longer)
Chilling Effects are concerning, but:
There’s a chilling effect on criticism if authors get to control their discussions
There’s a chilling effect on authors if they don’t – the costs of requiring authors to have fully public discussions on every post are a lot higher than you think
Healthy disagreement / Avoiding Echo Chambers
Is important to maintain
Does not intrinsically require a given post’s comment section to be fully public – people can write response posts
Since the status quo is many people discussing things privately, it’s not even clear that authorial control over comments is net negative for avoiding filter bubbles
You are responsible for writing arguments that are clear and persuasive enough to get upvoted and visible.
People prefer different sorts of trust
You can trust someone to be capable (and willing to perform) a particular skill
You can trust someone to keep their word or uphold certain principles
Transparent Low Trust environments
Rely on clear standards, transparency and safeguards, instead of on anyone particular person being trustworthy
You are responsible for using the transparency to make sure you are safe
Curated High Trust environments
Rely on an owner, who decides what standards to set.
You are responsible for deciding if you trust the owner and the people involved
The person in charge of a space can experiment with stronger or stranger norms that they wouldn’t be able to get the entire rationalsphere on board with.
If you do trust the owner and members of space and agree with the norms, you have to spend less effort worrying about those norms being violated
A single space can’t satisfy everyone’s preferences for trust, but a site with multiple sub-spaces can provide a wider variety of options
Comments about the overton window, or personal criticism…
Can be intensely prolific, making it hard to talk about anything else
Instead of every controversial topic resulting in a massive demon thread every time, you can have a single thread for that, and meanwhile resolve disputes over the overton window via upvotes/downvotes
Public Archipelago
LW2.0 team has a vision of experimentation, involving:
Flexible Sitewide tools
Individual authors cultivating spaces and reputations
Individual posts having specific conversational goals