I think it might be good to consider outrage an externality that we should price in somehow.
Not sure how we would do it.
Not sure how we would do it.
Do you think that changing that would be tantamount to having a social credit system?
Or that a social credit system is the only way to price in outrage amplification?
I tend to agree, but I suspect that is the last thing the networks would be willing to change, as that is what keeps people there and gets advertising clicks.
If it were to reach the point of attracting regulation, what could be regulated? Maximum engagement by the networks, impose some sort of ration, or regulate the users and their twitterings?
So I could see it all too easily ending up solving the wrong problem in the wrong way.
Honestly off the top of my head, I don't know how I would approach this. Especially when some of the possible approaches would be a conflict of interest for the networks.
Of course, nobody's going to agree which words have what rating on the scale...
You don't say. That's very much a reason and was something Facebook and others were being criticized for profiting from during the last presidential race. Engagement means you spend more time on Facebook, which means spending more time looking at ads and supplying Facebook with user data.
Public outrage even more so.
Rational reasoned handling of a situation is the only treatment that's not worse than the malady.
Note how the final statement is empty virtue signaling: "Guess people have different thresholds for empathy" -- in other words, I'm outraged because I have the appropriate amounts of empathy, unlike those that are not participating in mass outrage, who lack it. The idea that someone can have empathy and not fall into fits of outrage is not entertained.