I happen to agree with your conclusion, but I don’t think you’re addressing what EY said. He tweeted the following:
What America needs now, to heal, is for the left and the right to be on entirely different social networks. Still with the ability to subtweet alleged screencaps from the Other network of Others being outrageous, of course! But with no ability for Others to clarify or respond.
My Translation: I’m worried that banning Trump from twitter will increase polarization because it will make the two tribes more segregated than they were before. This is not that similar to your #7, and otherwise missing from the list entirely.
I also think #8 is unlikely. It doesn’t strike me as plausible that the Capitol incident provided any rational person with significant evidence on which to update their view of Trump. On the other hand, public opinion appears to have shifted significantly. A financial motive seems likely here, especially for Zukerberg.
My Translation: I’m worried that banning Trump from twitter will increase polarization because it will make the two tribes more segregated than they were before. This is not that similar to your #7, and otherwise missing from the list entirely.
I can’t prove this isn’t true, but I believe it’s unlikely given what we know about how the algorithms currently work. To generate outrage engagement you want to identify ideas that are being shared on social media in various forms and then find out what groups of people are most enraged by have increased engagement with the platform when viewing them and find ways to show that content to those people more often.
Segregating platforms wouldn’t fundamentally change this. I’d say it’s a wash either way.
Point 7 is a response to Yudkowsky retweeting on Jan 8 Ryan Lackey’s post that said:
”If you wanted to increase the odds of an actual civil war in the next decade, pushing 10-50 mm people into a somewhat segregated communications system actively forced to evolve to resist aggressive censorship is an important first step.”
I happen to agree with your conclusion, but I don’t think you’re addressing what EY said. He tweeted the following:
My Translation: I’m worried that banning Trump from twitter will increase polarization because it will make the two tribes more segregated than they were before. This is not that similar to your #7, and otherwise missing from the list entirely.
I also think #8 is unlikely. It doesn’t strike me as plausible that the Capitol incident provided any rational person with significant evidence on which to update their view of Trump. On the other hand, public opinion appears to have shifted significantly. A financial motive seems likely here, especially for Zukerberg.
I can’t prove this isn’t true, but I believe it’s unlikely given what we know about how the algorithms currently work. To generate
outrageengagement you want to identify ideas that are being shared on social media in various forms and then find out what groups of people are mostenraged byhave increased engagement with the platform when viewing them and find ways to show that content to those people more often.Segregating platforms wouldn’t fundamentally change this. I’d say it’s a wash either way.
Point 7 is a response to Yudkowsky retweeting on Jan 8 Ryan Lackey’s post that said:
”If you wanted to increase the odds of an actual civil war in the next decade, pushing 10-50 mm people into a somewhat segregated communications system actively forced to evolve to resist aggressive censorship is an important first step.”