Threads has become worse over time due to a series of anti-user policy decisions (no news/politics) and a very weird Discover algorithm that strongly incentivizes clickbait (and said feed is the default on the app and cannot be changed)
Once you do the algorithm is TikTok style in its sensitivity i.e. very.
A simple, privacy preserving solution: ask me! When I sign up, offer broad categories like art, tech, sports, celebrities etc. don't put everyone into one "probably likes celebrity gossip" box on signup.
But it's even worse than that. I already have an Instagram account! They know there that I like art, tech, webcomics, music. I know that's all shared with Threads even if I'd rather it wasn't. But my feed is still filled with celeb trash.
I kinda like the IDEA there, but no idea how you separate things like “I’m concerned about my individual rights” from politics?
And usually when people say “no politics” they mean “no politics I don’t like “.
Still in sympathize with the idea, I want to hear from people about what they’re doing and so forth, not a rehash of the news.
It's worse than that. You end up with lesbians posting about their girlfriends or small business owners posting a meme about a regulation they have to comply with and then getting blocked for politics if their tribe is the outgroup.
What you really need is for people to not be so intolerant of the other tribe being the other tribe.
How can you justify accepting and tolerating someone who’s point of view is I think you should have less rights than me.
Essentially you should be tolerant of others, unless they themselves are intolerant.
No, it's called a paradox because there is no "easy" answer to it. Also, who determines the exact line between free speech and intolerance? It is impossible to do. The reason the world is polarised today is because everybody thinks they have the simple answer to a literal ethical paradox that has none. The simple answer being: "those that share my beliefs are OK, those that don't should be canceled/demonised/hidden somewhere I don't see them." Thus creating echo chambers so people get more and more radical.
Free speech is the only half acceptable answer, which means free speech for anyone, whatever their point of view, however offensive you deem them to be. Rowan Atkinson explained it more eloquently that I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc
I agree free speech must be protected, whatever it is, but it doesn’t mean we should accept manipulation and deceit. The goal should be to foster genuine dialogue, not to create echo chambers or allow harmful lies to spread unchecked.
b) You can switch to the chronological feed which is much better. But as you say you can't make it the default.
I manage a number of business X accounts which are publish only and all switched to showing right-wing politicians, pundits and extensive amounts of Elon Musk. I created a new account to check and same thing. Even though when I selected interests I specifically chose non-political topics.
For me it was very clear then that whether it's Musk or Zuckerberg no one should have the ability to push political content.
It is the right call, by frikking far.
There are a 3-4 horsemen of the apocalypse for online communities. The first two are most definitely politics and religion.
If these two topics are allowed on your forum, you are pretty much done. Flame wars, harassment, brigades etc. are going to be the highest you can expect.
This is going to force you into high amounts of comment removals and bans. The velocity of action, and anger of your users will mean that you can no longer communicate the rationale for your bans, or maintain transparency.
On top of this, you will start to attract groups who will want to use your community for astroturfing, or for targeting. So now you have to deal with the worst kind of adversarial behavior.
Getting rid of politics, is just simply better for the product.
I will also argue that there should be such product experiments conducted in the economy. We already have a multitude of platforms where we can discuss politics.
What you need to do is distinguish between politics and partisanship. Political discussion is not only fine but important, as long as it's civil. Partisan signaling, on the other hand, is poison, because it's flamebait and does not lead to reasoned discussion.
The problem is that the right has largely moved politics into a cultural space. When you can't talk about being trans or being gay is that really politics? Self-identity isn't a political position, but it has been forced to be one, as those people are under constant attack.
In addition, they're the "out group", so they will actually be targeted. Certainly, nobody cares if you post your girlfriend, but if you post your boyfriend now it has become political.
Such rules aren't equal.
It's become a meme, but there's some truth to it. There're two genders, man and political. There're two sexual orientations, straight and political. There're two races, white and political.
It is when policy is changed to prioritize self-identity over material reality.
The outcomes of such policy are often harmful, for example: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-...
And, to be clear, the vast majority of rape is performed by heterosexual men who are not trans. Trans people are an incredibly small amount of the population. They're merely a scapegoat, because they're "weird" or "gross" or "perverted". It's nothing new, it's the same things people said about homosexuals.
There's no forcefield around women's restrooms, for instance. One does not need to take 5 years of hormone therapy and surgery to walk into the women's restroom and sexually assault someone. Men already do that, right now, and in MUCH greater numbers.
Also, as a sidenote, these TERFy articles and such should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Typically, when attacking minorities the strategy is to take aim at vulnerable populations, usually women and children. When homosexuality was breaking the mainstream, the main concern was pedophilia, because that's how you harm minorities. Naturally, any aim at transgender people will do it from the lense of "protecting women". Never mind that trans women are already at high-risk of sexual assault.
None of this means I think people AMAB should be allowed in women's prisons. But you have to understand, for people who are transgender women, if they go to men's prisons, they WILL be raped. Without a doubt and with no exceptions.
The problem isn't as simple as conservative pundits would like you to believe. Women don't want burly, masculine trans men in their restrooms either, for example, which would be the end result of a lot of conservative policy.