Bye. Just leave it to the bots. The way forward is decentralised systems run by people who care about civilised discourse. Like Lemmy and Mastodon. Fuck the toxic dinosaur social media empires.
To be honest, I was hoping for a little more engagement with the fact that the polarization (or, dare I say, radicalization) under discussion seems inherent to online spaces of any sort, and decentralized spaces aren’t immune to it.
I agree that “run by people who care” is important, but I’m not sure it’s the answer in and of itself.
I’m also don’t think that a certain degree of polarization is inherently a bad thing. But I think it deserves more examination that a simple dismissal as something other platforms have to reckon with.
There are absolutely echo chambers and polarization on Lemmy. It’s definitely less noticeable than Reddit or Facebook, but its still there. They can definitely be good things too, but when the conversation is driven by one or a few people and everyone else constantly agrees or goes along with the status quo it becomes a problem.
For profit models seem to prioritize engagement over moderation, as long as people are commenting and driving engagement, even if it’s largely negative, toxic, or even completely false, it’s okay.
On Lemmy, at least for the most part, Toxic behaviour isn’t tolerated and most communities are pretty good at discouraging false narratives. I don’t think I’ve ever felt attacked here, or really elsewhere on Lemmy, for providing my views in a comment section like I did on Reddit, even if they were contrary to the prevailing opinions. When attacks and negativity are not tolerated actual discussion is much easier.
Yeah, that’s similar to my own thinking. To take the coffeehouse example from the article, if my local coffeehouse were to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy, I would probably stop going there.
Bye. Just leave it to the bots. The way forward is decentralised systems run by people who care about civilised discourse. Like Lemmy and Mastodon. Fuck the toxic dinosaur social media empires.
To be honest, I was hoping for a little more engagement with the fact that the polarization (or, dare I say, radicalization) under discussion seems inherent to online spaces of any sort, and decentralized spaces aren’t immune to it.
I agree that “run by people who care” is important, but I’m not sure it’s the answer in and of itself.
I’m also don’t think that a certain degree of polarization is inherently a bad thing. But I think it deserves more examination that a simple dismissal as something other platforms have to reckon with.
There are absolutely echo chambers and polarization on Lemmy. It’s definitely less noticeable than Reddit or Facebook, but its still there. They can definitely be good things too, but when the conversation is driven by one or a few people and everyone else constantly agrees or goes along with the status quo it becomes a problem.
For profit models seem to prioritize engagement over moderation, as long as people are commenting and driving engagement, even if it’s largely negative, toxic, or even completely false, it’s okay.
On Lemmy, at least for the most part, Toxic behaviour isn’t tolerated and most communities are pretty good at discouraging false narratives. I don’t think I’ve ever felt attacked here, or really elsewhere on Lemmy, for providing my views in a comment section like I did on Reddit, even if they were contrary to the prevailing opinions. When attacks and negativity are not tolerated actual discussion is much easier.
Yeah, that’s similar to my own thinking. To take the coffeehouse example from the article, if my local coffeehouse were to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy, I would probably stop going there.