Everything is better than algorithms that favour polarization imo
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
7 points (61.3% liked)
Asklemmy
45983 readers
1354 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I wholeheartedly agree on that, and I am very happy that there are alternatives like this getting more traction.
it is getting traction, but people are coalescing one very few fediverse platforms instead of spreading themselves out evenly and that's effectively re-creating the kind centralization that empowered the enshitification that reddit, twitter, facebook, and (eventually) bluesky experience.
Perhaps this is a little pretentious but i don't consider the cattle type of users, who will go where the most people are, like the most popular content, and generally follow along with the digital mainstream without much thought or personal agenda, valuable additions to online conversations. As far as I'm concerned they can stay wherever they are and if needed be fed some downstream summary of what the actual people talk about elsewhere.
That's good for the conversation. But is it good for the society? The cattle type people have voting rights. It's not unimportant what informations they are fed. As can be seen now more that ever.
Certainly true, but then it is more an issue of what opinions they are fed than them not being a direct part of the conversations, no?
I think it has less to do with the tech itself and more to do with the fact that people are becoming more insolation from non-bias confirmation due to the proliferation of social media in general. It used to be that you had to reconcile you're own beliefs and actions against those you lived and worked with so that you could live productively. Now, you can get validation for anything after a few button presses. This makes people less tolerant overall, as well as giving them echo chambers to reinforce whatever they want.
So you think there wasn't always that gap, right? It was always there, it's just that the right wasn't so vocal and the "left" (center being generous) wasn't so obvious anti low class.
Yes of course I knew there was always a gap, but the last decade or so it feels like its getting bigger and bigger, also because of social media. Same with Truth Social, there probably only "right wingers" there agreeing on each other's opinions without needing a discussion.
Maybe having different platform make it better than unknown algorithms that make it seem like everyone agrees with you. Like now you know there's this whole thing for opposite view and you could check that sometimes. But of course that'll only work for people that like to think, main problem now is they don't.
We were already not always able to communicate and discuss certain topics as normal human beings, but now we probably won't even see each other's posts.
Yeah, I think this is a thing.
Generally, I think most people can come to an understanding through frank conversation (modulo racist whackos, etc). That rarely happens on social media, but each ideology having their own platform pushes the chance to zero.