The question is how to turn it into a technical implementation.
We assume the situation is at least two people discussing and a moderator stepping in. Now the mod needs a button which makes the two write a shared conclusion. Lemmy could provide the means to write a “joint comment”, where both can edit and both need to sign it off. How to incentivize them though? The button probably needs to block the thread, post, or accounts until the joint comment is published.
The gold standard for me would be “adversarial collaboration” as described by Scott Alexander here and here. The first describes a conflict about psychic psi powers research. The amazing twist is that both sides wrote a paper together. The second article describes a similar collaboration about fact-checking. Essentially, this is “debate until they reach an agreement” with the additional requirement that they publish a joint statement afterwards.
So, if you are in an intense discussion with somebody, the best you can do is to write a blog post together. It requires both of you to present the evidence in a neutral way and derive conclusions such that you both agree with the reasoning. The process will make you work out where exactly you disagree (the quality of the sources? different values? missing knowledge?).
Is that realistic though? Such a collaboration is much more effort than a reply to a comment which triggers me. It is the best way to make progress in the overall debate.
Is that the goal here though? We don’t care so much about the result or progress of a debate but only to keep it civilized so everybody feels welcome to continue. An “unproductive” discussion is ok as long as all participants are nice to each other.
Maybe an Archive Team Warrior? Disk space might be a barrier though.
!agile@lemmy.ml - Nobody but me is posting stuff. Only three subscribers.
“Official sock puppet account of the weirder.earth admin team.” https://weirder.earth/@WeirderAdmin
The classic counter-argument is The ecosystem is moving by Moxie: Standardization slows down innovation.
Maybe it is simply too early to standardize on a messenger protocol. XMPP is a proper standard but Big Tech out-innovates it by providing additional features. For example, WhatsApp rolled out voice calls before an XMPP extension was available, if I remember correctly.
In general, I believe federation to be the ultimate sweet spot. P2P is too hard for most people but currently necessary in some cases like whistleblowing. Centralized services provide the best innovation speed. If run as a non-profit it is also ok (e.g. Signal) but ultimately the weak spot is that they are subject to a single nation and especially the US is not the best here with its shadow courts. Another option is to turn them into a government service. That would kill the innovation but something like Twitter does not need no innovate much anymore in my opinion.
I have Javascript disabled on nytimes.com maybe that is why it works for me.
Using Metadata to find Paul Revere is a nice story what you can do with meta data.
A few subreddits. For some a corresponding community exists but is practically inactive. For example !pkb@lemmy.ml and r/Zettelkasten.
I realized that I mostly subscribe to subreddits which are full of discussions not link sharing. Those are harder to replicate because you cannot just post reddit submissions here. At least, it would be weird to post other peoples questions/opinions. For example, r/bodyweightfitness.
Lemmy just lacks that mass of people to establish the niche communities of reddit here. Especially the OSS and programming related ones.
Another angle is your contacts. Maybe you are clever enough to not be influenced by targeted ads but is everyone in your contact list? Many apps upload that data and obviously Facebook is using it in (arguably) good ways: “Do you know Emma?” (She just uploaded her contact list and you were on there)
My manager, who is American, once made a comparison that completely blew my mind: we laugh at native Americans handing over their land without really understanding that they’re getting screwed in the transaction, and yet we just hand over our personal data to Google and Facebook without a second thought. We barely even have a concept of data ownership. –u/henrebotha
As an educator/writer/publisher, you might be interested in interactive fiction, so maybe take a look at Inform 7.
To learn a general purpose language, Python would be my first suggestion.
I don’t think the media is the issue here. Do we have any evidence that the percentage of lies and fake news is higher with social media than 100 years ago? Media is just faster and available to everybody now.
I see the problem in incentives: Ads are the big source of income for social media. Thus they are incentivized towards controversy.
I have no solution. As long as people believe that ads don’t affect them that muchpersonally, why not tolerate them?
While I like the fediverse, I don’t buy most of these reasons.
“It’s decentralized.” This is no reason in itself. That description rather says “It’s resilient.” Well, the big social websites have a pretty good uptime as well, so not a good reason.
“It can’t be censored.” The description uses a warped definition of censorship. Originally, it is only about censoring by the government. Banning Trump is actually the reverse and no censoring. The argument is correct that in the fediverse you can switch to another equal instance. Switching from Twitter to Instagram is not equal.
“Free as in freedom”. The description is actually more about public auditing than freedom. This is not a good argument because an admin in the fediverse can patch his instance without anybody noticing. The federation still lowers the impact though.
“It respects your privacy”. Same issue. An admin can patch their instance and no public audit defends against that. The federation still lowers the impact."
“It’s all about the community” Maybe. Maybe the crazy people have just not yet discovered the fediverse in significant numbers. An eternal september could occur. Federation might help. It might not.
“There’s an instance for everyone” Well, there is also a subreddit for everyone and a twitter hashtag and …
Conclusion: 1, 2 and 6 are no reason to me. 3 and 4 are reasons but not strong ones. For 5 there is not enough data yet.
https://unsplash.com/ for a great searchable selection of images to use without any hassle.
One argument would be that it isn’t “terrorism” because it is based on overwhelming military force instead of terror. If Iraq yields to the US, it is a rational decision. Those bombers send a message to the government. If the US yields to ISIS, it is an irrational decision. The message is directed to the citizens.
Ward Cunningham the original wiki inventor has also invented a federated wiki. Seems to be quite dead though.
Iterative development is how software development was done initially. Then there was a misunderstanding and Waterfall was invented. The DOD spread the idea that you should be finished with the design before you start implementation. I think in practice barely anybody really did Waterfall because of common sense.
Maybe Agile can be understood as the correction (or over-correction in many cases). What the movement celebrates as huge innovation is mostly a regression toward the mean.