Debubble
debubble.me
debubble.me
Interesting claim but you don't explain your case for why this is so - I doubt Aristotle would say much about twitter either.
I think there could be an interest market-gap for an experimental social network that does encourage active dialogue. I think the key part to reform would be the feed. Maybe instead of seeing the top level post as you scroll, you scroll past a tag cloud? Or an AI generate summary of the thread so far. Or the 3 latest comments are shown rather than the first one (so it would be more like walking past a group conversation and deciding if at that moment it was worth joining). That last idea could be interesting to explore.
This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs -- one-on-one conversations produce much higher signal-to-noise because the performative aspect of a tweetstorm is removed and there's more of a desire to slow down and really address each other rather than the mob. (DMs aren't perfect -- trolls will DM too -- but OTOH you can get DMs that are in good faith).
I think it is possible to "design" a good conversation. To some extent many of the rules are self-evident and intuitive to most adults. The problem is that in the heat of debate, we forget them and need third party moderation as a form of accountability.
One of the main ways to improve adversarial conversations is to apply techniques to move conversations from the lower brain (which governs fight/flight responses) to the upper brain (executive functioning, neocortex). Books like Difficult Conversations, Nonviolent Communication, Imago technique, etc. all start from different priors but mostly converge to this prescription due to the commonality of human psychology. Most people just want to be heard and to be validated (as smart, socially "woke", etc.) -- some will resort to manipulation to get there, but if these things can be achieved without manipulation, then the desire for deploying rhetoric is reduced.
Having a system helps create a platform for civil discourse by allowing oneself to guided by a system, which frees one up from decisions and nudges one toward higher-order executive functioning.
Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? Would it be a function of your popularity and the kind of of people who would DM? Might there be a different psychology at work for DMs than public tweets?
I’m not being snarky or presupposing answers, but just wanted to advance the conversation.
Recent lowlights of this I've seen were "eating an icecream in a park while female" and "being the voice actor for The Last Of Us 2".
That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is denying that there are people with DMs open that do not get abused. I am one such person, for example.
The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false.
I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the first clause.
I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback, especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements.
It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar.
That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel they're ready.
At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.
Snark and irony are both discouraged here, which I appreciate all the more given my unfortunate inclination towards both. It's evident though that conversation is far more intellectually nourishing when they are held to a minimum.
Much more interesting would be a debate format in two phases:
Phase 1: just identify what we agree and disagree about. Are there things we actually agree about but are using different words for? Are we using the same words to mean different things? Are there two competing concerns we accuse each other of denying, when we actually both agree on them and are just valuing them differently?
The goal would be to create a document that outlines things we agree on and disagree on, and identifies whether the disagreement is factual/empirical, values, or logic (hopefully there will be zero of these, but it might be possible). We should be able to fully agree on the contents of this document. If there's ever anything you simply can't believe the other side disagrees with you about, try to clarify what the deeper disagreement is.
Important rule during Phase 1: no persuading. We're not allowed say anything to try to persuade the other side, we're only allowed to ask clarifying questions about the other side's position, and clarify our own positions, because the goal is not to change anyone's mind, only to understand, identify, and document what we agree and disagree about.
Phase 2: persuade away. It should be much easier to have a civil and respectful discussion if we each understand the other's side, their values, and what empirical facts they disagree with the evidence on.
(I do really like that Debubble doesn't allow bystanders to "cheer for their side", they can only star the whole debate—I'm stealing that.)
If someone specifically desires to shout into the void, I don't have any ideas on how to convince them otherwise. However, if they claim they want to actually convince other people to change their mind, maybe they'll both agree that this system will help frame the discussion.
After all, people already voluntarily put a lot of effort into heated Internet arguments already, I'm just hoping to nudge that energy in a productive direction.
If you have better ideas on how to motivate them, I'm all ears!
For some, learning why world works a certain way is an interesting, even captivating activity. For some others it's an unpleasant work.
It may be true that there are always two/both sides, but it’s definitely not true that both sides are equal, or both sides are worthwhile.
And for me, this is the core problem here with “breaking out of your bubble.” I DONT want to see outside my bubble because it’s just not worth the time. Now, I know this makes me sound like a closed minded bigot. I’d agree that was the case if the people outside of my “bubble” are arguing about sound things and not conspiracy bullshit, but they aren’t.
It’s a fact that 5G isn’t causing coronavirus, and I’m not going to leave my bubble to put up with your bullshit. It might as well be a fact that HRC did not run a pedophile pizza ring, and there is no point in me listening to that side because it’s completely nonsense.
Both sides are not equal. Both sides are not worth listening to.
One more edit: this website looks like a combination of r/changemyview and r/unpopularopinion. The former is full of trolls who have no intention of listening, and the latter which are people posting about positions they don’t agree with in a way to make themselves feel like a victim, all for internet karma.
I learnt a lot talking to devote muslims, young earth creationists and race realists.
But people who believe in flat earth theory, a 6000 year old planet, that one skin color is better than the others… I have much better things to do with my life than to even try to understand this level of crazy.
Edit: I fully see/understand the irony here, that I’m saying similar things as what people in those groups are saying about my beliefs. Maybe deep down, they really do believe that Obama and Clinton ran a pedophile pizza ring or that Biden flew to China to import SARS-CoV-2. And that’s the problem. They BELIEVE. There is no factual basis. It’s just what they believe because it reinforces their worldview. I don’t want to associate or interact with those types of people because nothing is based in reality.
For instance the young earth creations could go into a great deal of depth about various topics in archaelogy, geology and ancient texts. It wasn't a blind belief, they had been exposed to arguments/evidence that had reinforced their pre-existing beliefs.
The people believing in pizzagate and deliberate SARS importing are a tiny minority of the american right-wing voting population. Try talking to a more random sampling of them (a gaming Discord for instance), you'll be pleasantly surprised!
When you say "they are wasting your time", it's that you just don't enjoy debating. You want everyone to tell you quickly you're right and move on to whatever you're actually interested in, like art appreciation or shopping for home decor at antique stores.
Debating with someone who actually wants to get to the truth of a matter is a real pleasure for me. It's also occasionally fun to deal with fallacious arguers by using their own fallacy against them. There are debates I don't have time for, but I don't get angry at people who even propose a debate. What can be annoying is when the mainstream has weighed in on something and they're wrong and armies of people come in to a debate half-way through and completely ignore all the argument so far and just try and push through with their version of the truth through a denial of service attack on the debate by them all repeating the same thing they heard on mass media.
Surely there is at least someone in the world who, unlike your 3 examples of conspiracy theorists, you would consider a reasonable person, but who also disagrees with you about something important?
r/changemyview has the same problem I criticized Debubble for, which is not addressing the deeper problems that cause debates to be toxic. r/changemyview's only rules are basic no-trolling civility rules, whereas my proposed rules are MUCH stricter: during phase 1, you're literally not allowed to argue. Making arguments is banned, you're only allowed to ask and answer clarifying questions during phase 1.
In a discussion with someone who is reasonable but disagrees with you about something important, can you imagine a framework like that being helpful? How would you improve them?
(I also believe that, even if you couldn't possibly learn anything about 5G or coronavirus from someone who believes 5G causes coronavirus, you may be able to learn what causes someone to start believing such nonsense, and how we as a society can mitigate this kind of misinformation.)
Coronavirus in particular has brought out a lot of the usual arguments about the value of human life versus economic value. But an even bigger problem is "if we do X, then Y" where the causality is anything less than perfectly individual and clear. Hence a lot of the global warming dispute.
A surprising amount of the most vicious arguments are power-relations driven and collapse to "my convenience or freedom is more important than your or someone else's life". You can't rationalise your way out of that one.
I don't believe for a second anyone would actually admit to believing that "my convenience is more important than the certain loss of your life". There are situations where I would agree my freedom is more important than your life, self-defense being the obvious example. Even if that's logically what they're saying and don't realize it, I believe that for the overwhelming majority of people, if delivered in the right context, in the right tone, by the right person, they could be lead to empathize and see why that's not right.
This is a big one when it comes to talking about "socialism".
Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism does not match the textbook definition of socialism. It's still capitalist, but with wealth distribution through government assistance programs and services. Yet when people on the right are criticizing socialism, they're usually criticizing the textbook definition.
It's basically summed up with this meme: https://i.imgur.com/tVB77jV.jpg
We can't debate socialism until we agree on what we mean by "socialism".
I like the idea of how civil courts work with evidence. Each party has weeks to prepare refutal to the other, and no one can communicate with the judge without the other party present.
Taaalk (https://taaalk.co/) is less focused around debate, and more around exploring topics:
E.g. OCD: https://taaalk.co/t/exploring-obsessive-compulsive-disorder Eating disorders: https://taaalk.co/t/discussing-eating-disorders Bitcoin: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things Flag design: https://taaalk.co/t/the-power-and-significance-of-flags Chess: https://taaalk.co/t/how-to-think-about-chess Psychedelics & Mental Health: https://taaalk.co/t/falling-inward-discussing-the-role-of-ps...
Online it should be possible to link a third party article that explains a misconception in detail. Or to request an independent fact check.
It probably won't make Gish gallop completely harmless, but hopefully it would reduce its effectiveness.
I see how this could be a time waster, but I see the benefits too and I'd say that more often than not we forget about checking sources.
Also, in a debate (which is usually longer and more focused than discussions elsewhere online), both sides can use this tactic. In this case the person with better sources seems more likely to win. Again, this looks OK-ish to me.
A gish gallop is when you make claims (often citing pseudoscience sources) faster than someone arguing in good faith can address them, and instead of enganging with refutations you just deflect superficially and switch to other claims.
If you allow hyperlinks, any Gish galloper could also use that to link to enormous texts of gallops with even more misinformation and half-truths.
Why debubble won't work: https://debubble.me/opi6znpcml
Social media is a net positive: https://debubble.me/axyrntvh4e
Let's debate or debubble?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...
It's super important to be specific about what 'civil' means, who gets to define it, and who gets to decide when their opponent is being 'uncivilized'.
Emotionally charged arguments also seem to always involve rhetoric rather than logic.
We're social creatures built to respond to joy, anger, pain, grief, etc. Trying to cut them out of a discussion means that emotional people aren't allowed to participate when they, in fact, may have the most important voice to listen to.
I can’t seem to find it now. It seemed like a good idea.
Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21687403. (The video probably explains it best https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PXvU1h44jVw)
I was thinking about a CMV sort of site where you can tweet a reply to a view in support or in disapproval, sorting automatically in two halves of the page, and people can like those tweets. It would allow the strongest pro/con arguments from either side to bubble to the top, and the short length of a tweet and inability to chain multiple together would require succinct and single arguments. The site would rank views by recent replies, which would reward controversy with attention and draw out more responses.
How will you stop it from becoming 4chan in a different layout?
"Debate" is entirely the wrong model. It's about winners and losers. How about a tool for dialogue?
> Through the practice of NVC, we can learn to clarify what we are observing, what emotions we are feeling, what values we want to live by, and what we want to ask of ourselves and others. We will no longer need to use the language of blame, judgment or domination. We can experience the deep pleasure of contributing to each others' well being.
I’m most definitely not a self-help book person. A colleague and friend at work introduced me to the book. I found it very convincing for a way to approach communication in a way that tries to make all parties better.
There's lots of potential for someone smarter than me to build more useful communication tools.
This seems like a misunderstanding of the effect of Twitter. If you click on any individual tweet during a /x thread or debate, you'll see detestable and repugnant replies. People do not want to participate, they just want to criticize
Are there any examples of this being used by actual users?
I would love to see some formalization of attacking an axiom vs attack what follows from that axiom. If you formalize arguments, users could pick if they disagree with the conjecture or what follows from it.
And in the end you could nicely display the entire argument as a graph showing who doesn't agree with what, what gets canceled out by what etc.
We're trying to talk about reality in a way where we can make decisions about it. If only 63% of people can agree that "true != false" then it will be impossible to build any arguments on top of priors.
People politicize everything right now. I have no idea how wearing a mask to avoid spreading a pandemic somehow became political, but here are.
Um.
That is not a testable phrasing, so I would be immensely surprised if "science" actually said that.
Pretty much all LGBTQ stuff is a question of ethics/morals not facts, so science has nothing to say om the matter. It could turn out that being gay is triggered by a pathogen that would still have no bearing on whether gay marriage should be allowed.
That said, the political interpretation of the science depends a lot on what questions you ask and what facts you pick. It would be pretty east to portray science as being anti-gay or anti-trans just by asking different questions. E.g. you could ask about the proportion of exclusively homosexual animals or looks at homosexuality incidence rates in different environments. For trans you could do comparisons of prevalence of various personality traits that have differing frequencies by gender.
Reality doesn't normally wholely favour a particular political party, there's normally some facts you can spin in for a particular party.
Since RSS is pretty much dead, it was hard to find the right feeds for US politics from each source. So you may see some non-political stories there from time to time.
(National Review, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, Politico, RealClearPolitics, NewsMax, ThinkProgress, Hot Air, Talking Points Memo, Quillette, The Atlantic)
I am on the left end of the American political spectrum. I’d Vote Blue no matter what because the other side is too far gone, to the point where it’s not even worth my time or energy to even begin to understand that side. For me, it’s just objectively wrong.
“My” team believes in science. The other team believes that there are shadow forces in the government who control everything and that people on “my” side are devil worshiping pedophiles who believe that my skin color makes me a lesser person or that my Jewish friends are trying to “replace” them.
What’s the point in leaving my bubble?
I think you are getting an _extremely_ distorted view of what the other side actually believes, only being exposed to the most zany extremes.
I also very much doubt "your" side believes in science as much as you think. Politically inconvenient facts are ignored by all politically motivated groups and attempting to do studies that could contradict bedrock dogma is a good way to be out a career (as Stephen Hsu just found out after he got fired recently for funding a study investigating race and police brutality several years ago that ended up returning the "wrong" answer).
Not for many years because - to paraphrase the comedian Norm Macdonald - social media posts are the equivalent of bathroom graffiti.
imo the medium itself is the problem, and no amount of external tooling will fix that.
I know Kialo https://www.kialo.com And https://argdown.org
I would love to know more!
EDIT: Disregard this. Not sure why I thought they were using Twitter for the back and forth.
It also says people will cheer for the entire conversation rather than a single participant. That also doesn't sound like it would be on Twitter.
Somewhat offtopic but I’d like to see videos of average or below educated, hyper partisan people debating. I feel like it would be enlightening for people with strong opinions.
As the operator and lead moderator of a large community it's been my observation that there are three things which most reliably derail challenging conversations:
1. The assumption that words are reliable. It's almost impossible to converse on contentious topics without using words and idioms that become corrupted in transmission because Avery speaks "Avery's English" and Quinn speaks "Quinn's English"—two languages which appear identical on the surface, and seem identical when interrogated but are actually slightly different in the most perniciously subtle of ways. This makes it impossible for Avery to know how to craft sentences which are received as intended. Or even to recognise that corruption occurred; we tend to interpret these corruptions as part of the disagreement, not part of a language barrier.
2. The tendency of people to so identify with their ideas, that criticisms of ideas automatically translate into criticisms of them as a person. This can be mitigated in part with the use of careful, defensive qualifiers, but ultimately this requires acts of consciousness-raising and a deep well of good faith by all parties. I'm not optimistic that deep wells of good faith can be constructed for impersonal, online debates with your ideological opposites.
3. The unwillingness of people to accept retractions of prior statements. All too often I see debate fall apart because Quinn says something inartful and Avery jumps on a misunderstanding of it. This almost always ends one of two ways: either (a) Quinn doubles down out of a tendency to never admit fault, or (b) Quinn attempts to clarify or retract the original statement, but Avery dismisses the clarification/retraction and pursue the original phrasing as "revealing what Quinn really thinks."
If I were forced to invent a debate platform, my first experiment would be to require all formal responses be preceded by an interposed round of validation: a mandatory restating of the argument you're about to respond to using different words. Not until your interlocutor is satisfied with your restatement would you be able to post an actual response with counter-arguments. And rather than having spectators vote on arguments, they would vote/comment exclusively on the quality of (and goodwill shown in) the restatements—with bonus points for a successful steelmanning. There would certainly be no attempt to infer a "winner" of any debate by any statistical means.
This almost certainly fail as being too infuriating for anyone used to the "submit" button having immediate results.
Framing every argument as a debate is disingenuous. A debate implies that both sides are of equal merit, debating only works between two people of similar values. I.E. if I'm debating a Nazi, it's hard to "debate" nearly anything in the sphere of politics because they do not believe all people are equal.
Third, what of debates that have largely been settled by consensus? Would a flat earther be able to enter into debates with me whenever I retweet a photo from NASA? Debating assumes that either side is going to play by a certain set of rules. How does this prevent a DDOS via Ad Hominem?
Put a way that you find easier to read: You're halfway between 'oh shit I'm like that' and 'yes I appreciate the needs but we couldn't possibly XYZ' and you, like everyone else, is having to pick a side. That's not 'toxicity', that's just the ongoing war. And for those of us whose survival depends on the outcome, the war is not figurative; it is quite literal.
Beware, your bias is manifesting.
Marginalized people are not interested in having to debate their existence to every person who feels entitled to challenge them.
Put simply, the internet cannot be expected to cure the human condition. We're not well suited to living in a world where community means millions of people. Aggregate human behaviour becomes too predictable at scale, and in turn more easily hackable.
And this ends up making people post intentionally inflammatory comments, such as an inference that privilege or resources reliably insulate people from loss or marginalisation. Individual humans from all strata are complex and deserve more respect than a game of intersectional olympics. My advice is to try to treat all people as individuals, no matter how satisfying it might be to marginalise groups as privileged, toxic or biased.