mcBesse

Hahaha IKR I keep hearing that advice and like has it EVER worked for ANYONE? If someone doesn't believe things can get better, then you can't make a depressed horse drink or however it goes. The thing that needs to be learned CANNOT be communicated.

I discovered it for myself after like 6 months of therapy. Give it a shot if you can. Trust me, being smug about it to people online is so worth it.

Is the tradeoff with the potential positive influence worth it? Are there ways to mitigate the potential negatives?

Shonen Knife's Capybara is the human version, in case anyone needs more capy in their life.

Doesn't Ctrl+Shift+v already paste without formatting?

Articles of Interest podcast did an episode on Paisley if anyone wants to know more

> In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row

This piques my curiosity as it's definitely not the case where I live. Can I ask what sorts of places?

I doubt psychology will ever change like alchemy into chemistry, but perhaps advancements in our understanding of the mind will take a different form?

The article doesn't suggest that at all, as far as I can tell. None of what you quoted indicates that is.

Wow, what a beautiful video. I really enjoyed trying to figure out what events and phenomena the different shapes/patterns in the diagram represent.

> your own music taste determines what you think constitutes good music taste

No, your own music taste determines what you think is good music. Taste is not about holding your own opinion higher than others', it's just about what you like or not.

I still find it weird that it's a 50/50 split though. Maybe a lot of people aren't thinking so much about whose taste is better, but whose is more refined? Like how people who aren't into wine might not take their own lived experience as seriously as the words of an experienced sommelier?

Seems to me that the results of the article suggest that such a slider would help. But I wonder if it wouldn't lose its effect after a while as people get exposed to it and begin filtering it out, a la cigarette warning labels and cookie consent banners? Regardless, it seems like there's a lot of potential here for social media sites to make a significant and positive change without turning to stricter moderation which can in itself be problematic.

: Does anyone know if that's actually the case?

Most people aren't careful about what information is collected on them in the first place. Are people going to stop sharing things on Twitter because they're afraid of giving up one more tidbit of information to big data? I don't think so.

It's besides the point anyway. Any mechanism that primes or prompts the sharer to be mindful of accuracy before sharing could help reduce sharing of misinformation, according to the results from the article.

Seems to me that the mere existence of the slider would force people to share less misinformation, regardless of whether they seriously consider the rating they give or just ignore the slider altogether the second time they see it. In the language of the article, it would work by priming people to be more aware of accuracy.

What qualities do you think that would incentivize in a moderation system? I'm not feeling that tendency to share less misinformation is one of them, and I'd fear that richer people would have more power to control the narrative in such a system by effectively bribing moderators.

Apologies if there is something about "nano-payment-funded distributed and syndicated moderation" that I'm not getting.

> Has that ever worked?

From section "Priming accuracy improves sharing":

"[...] sharing discernment (the difference in sharing intentions for true versus false headlines) was 2.0 times larger in the treatment relative to the control group in study 3, and 2.4 times larger in study 4. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a backfire effect, as the treatment effect was actually significantly larger for politically concordant headlines than for politically discordant headlines"

In other words, people who were primed to pay attention to accuracy were significantly less likely to share misinformation. Seems to me like an example of it working quite well.