13
Posts with heated arguments (detected as having more than a certain number of comments/replies per minute), get shown to fewer people.
Don't you mean those replies under the heated posts should be shown to fewer people? If you mean to hide the post entirely, people could weaponize this mecanism to hide posts they don't agree with from others.
I would try to steer us back to a shared reality, so for instance maybe ranking for suggested posts is calculated by geography. Not religion or politics or financial standing or whatever.
Is it perfect? No. Can it be gamed? Yes. But everybody will see the same thing, and would be an improvement over micro targeting, which by its nature polarizes us N-dimensionally.
No images, text only.
My hot take is that memes made the internet worse. Why make a new joke when you can copy someone else's? Why write thoughtful political commentary when you can slap 100 characters on a picture and call it a day? Don't link the article, screenshot the headline and put a picture of your favorite favorite celebrity under it. That's content, baby!
I mean, copypastas would still exist. So long as people are trying to show off on the internet for likes or points, there will be people trying to steal other people's popular content or say the most outlandish things to get a response. You could tackle this by removing likes/points or you could remove the algorithm that gives preferential visibility towards things with the most likes/points/comments. People just don't want to feel lonely and if that part of their brain lights up when they steal jokes and get a ton of likes, maybe the solution is creating a situation that fosters real connection instead of emulating that feeling with of likes and digital attention?
Copypasta is as easy to copy but memes are wayyy easier to digest so they're way more prevalent. Text uses basically no bandwidth in comparison, too.
It's just filler that keeps people scrolling.
Would you also want to ban URLs even though they are technically just text? I also wonder if a social media site this limited would be able to survive when up against websites that are designed to be as addictive as possible. Actually, how does any non-addictive site compete with that and survive? My only guess is that it'd have to actually make people feel good about themselves and be less lonely. Fight addiction with a better emotion instead.
No, I'm fine with links if the thumbnails aren't big images. It's making a meme the entire post that I think is what makes the internet worst
I'm not proposing a POPULAR social media site, of course.
Ohh gotcha! I do think images would be fine if there was some way to verify original content since there are some truly amazing creators out there. But yeah, that'd likely require constant moderation.
So let me preface this by saying I understand all of the privacy and other reasons why the below would be a very bad idea, but I think it might help:
Make everyone use their real names. I already pretend that everyone knows who I am online and sees all my comments, I strive to treat all of my online interactions as if I was talking to someone in real life. If it’s something rude or something I don’t have the guts to say to a person’s face, or something I don’t want shared to everyone I know, then I don’t post it.
Edit to add after theotherben’s comment below: I definitely understand how this could be dangerous to many people and I don’t think it’s feasible. My main idea is just try to ask yourself whether you would say what you want to post or comment, to someone in person. But you guys are right, too many people ARE jerks in real life so that wouldn’t change. Idk, I mask a ton in real life and don’t use social media outside of Lemmy so I’m probably the wrong person to even think about this.
Make everyone use their real names.
Yeah, because that won't make people overly anxious and some fake a lot of their interactions or be too obsessed, the best part is: the examples of this are the biggest social medias such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn. Also, have you thought of those who are in danger because they have an ex or a random internet user stalking them all over? Congratulations, that'd not help those people.
Anonymity can be good and bad but the good can overweigh the bad if you care that much to at least moderate the bad.
If it’s something rude or something I don’t have the guts to say to a person’s face, or something I don’t want shared to everyone I know, then I don’t post it.
This is a psychology community, talking is healthy, you're thinking everyone must suffer of exposing themselves because the platform can't be properly moderated? Then it shouldn't even be public.
Did you seriously not see that I acknowledged the privacy and safety concerns? I’m just saying, I try to use social media (which is literally just Lemmy and used to be Reddit) as if I was talking to someone face to face.
Did you seriously not see that I acknowledged the privacy and safety concerns?
You didn't before but now you edited 2h after my reply which is public for anyone to check, a bit immature to pretend you just didn't do that now but fine.
lol yes I edited to clarify, but my original comment said:
“So let me preface this by saying I understand all of the privacy and other reasons why the below would be a very bad idea”
Did you see that at the beginning of my original comment? I should have phrased it stronger but I DID acknowledge it before I edited the end to emphasize.
I guess the answer depends on the social media format, right? I think the old school PhpBB forums were peak for interacting with random people online (at least for me). An issue I've always had with things like Reddit and things similar to that is that there's no Avatar and signature to identify people in a conversation. And the forums that I was a part of, a moderator would always pop in to tell people to take it to PMs if there was too much back and forth conversation (or arguments) between 2 people if it got too heated, too personal, and started diverging too much from the main topic.
So, as far as "healthy" goes, I think my opinion is that communities should be more personal and much smaller. Lemmy definitely feels better to reddit and that's likely just due to the size difference and the fact that more of a percentage of us are real people and aren't part of some marketing campaign or karma farming bots. That way, there's more of a sense of community and people can remember your name from past posts/comments. If your "home" on the internet is slow and small, you won't feel the need to scroll endlessly since you can catch up to content.
As far as format goes, I like the idea of a feed (no text limit) where you can see generally what people are up to recently, but there's also topics people can follow that function more like forums. So then the question becomes should communities have artificially limited user counts and see everything (like Path was)? Or should there be a friends list so you only see things your friends are saying and the comments to those posts like facebook? I'm leaning towards artificially limited user counts since it guarantees a small and slow internet "home". And it's gotta be web based, unlike Discord communities.
And it’s gotta be web based, unlike Discord communities.
What do you mean by that?
To be honest, I forgot there is a web version of discord people can use. Also, I guess I didn't go into it because I was being long winded with the rest of my message, but every barrier to entry if you want to sustain a small community has a chance to kill it or limit the addition of great users who would otherwise keep it alive. I'm sure a ton of people would like to join something like lemmy, but don't because the concept of federated servers is a real barrier for those people. Discord feels like a major barrier since you can't really find the kind of community you really want to join since you can't taste test the content of the server before you join. The discord servers I'm in are either based around a community that's already popular and it is an extension of that OR it is a more organized version of a group chat with my friends. I'm sure there are general purpose discord servers that manage to be small and friendly, but they seem really hard to find if you want to find them. It is fine if you want to connect to other people who (for example) all are fans of the same youtube channel, but if there's not that common thread, I'm not seeing how a community like that could start or thrive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just haven't seen it before. I just think my main gripe against discord is being used by companies for troubleshooting so answers to common problems can't be searched on the web, which is an entirely different issue.
I agree that small communities are better, by the way, the way you talked about is mostly how it is in language learning servers, some are really comfy, even more if its of a single language only and one that isn't usually listed as most spoken languages worldwide since people learning those others have very really specific curiosity/need/couldn't find many communities on it. Maybe you'd like it more, I don't know if there are Matrix servers like those yet, maybe I just haven't found too.
When it comes to Discord, I think it's easier to sign up on Matrix than Discord though, Element is pretty straightforward and already pre-selects an instance when signing up for those who isn't familiar with decentralized tech yet. I bet if Lemmy had a landing page for people to share when trying to convince others to join to sign up and pre-select lemmy.ml (since it is maintained by one of the devs, you are already trusting using their software anyway) it could help, or not, just an idea.
Ban all swearing and slurs. Enforce courtesy and make people spell out their position. Ban extremist news posts, including extreme rubbish like the daily mail. Freedom of speech, in the american sense, is the enemy of truth. Minimum character limit instead of maximum character limit. Posts must have meaningful content, not ^this. You must click tbe link to the article before posting. No headline reactions. All the politics goes in one place, noone gets an echo chamber. No labels.
Everypne would hate it but I would go there.
He said healthier not age restricted healthier, swearing can be healthy if not done excessively. Some people can't go a day without swearing once because it is a stress relief, if someone manages to make an argument and still swear, is that bad? We don't live in a perfect society, if you think anyone capable of reflection thoughts don't even think about it, you're probably a minority living in a 1st world country.
You must click tbe link to the article before posting. No headline reactions.
Wishful thought of you to think it's that simple, some would click and read the headline and see pictures in the article and close, or just click and close so they can post. If you are that desperate to control this kind of behavior, it's better to leave those kind of posts with comments disabled to avoid it altogether.
The minimum of words and no slurs is where the line should be drawn, he's not asking for SFW social media. Enforcing politeness is simply just enforcing people to follow the terms of service furthermore needless to mention. You're being a lot more idealist than pragmatist.
I was totally being idealist. The idea of a social media site where people just get along is totally idealist. I believe in politeness btw, i think that it's how we get along without violence in our day to day lives. I think courtesy matters and the internet's repudiation of common courtesy is spilling into real life and the knock out game will just expand.. i believe in good manners. I get that i'm insane, but how else can we live with each other?
What if the pretence of common courtesy is the norm that actually prevents mass violence? I could be wrong, but i genuinely believe it matters.
OP is asking for practical suggestions, what you're saying is all nice except practical.
So you're saying it's nice? I get that it's impractical but that only hinges on popularity.
Of course it's nice, in general, you're picturing a place where everyone gets along and tries to be thoughtful with no exceptions, but that's just wishful thinking and some kind of utopia thinking.
Yep, i thought they were asking for ideas for better social media. The reality is that this will never happen. Humanity is terrible. I'm not joking. I was just trying to think about what might help. Noone would stay though, they'd find their safe space and eat their brand of shit.
I think the most practical way of something like this is the Fediverse, it can be helpful to make this kind of thing you want, because I think one of the worst issues would be moderation. My thoughts: chunk of small social medias defederating from and to anywhere else but federate to each other, maybe like per neighborhood, so they could moderate in small communities better and properly distributed. Although then it'd maybe now a closed platform? Yeah... it's not really practical. To clarify: by small community I mean a community under 100 members so it's easier to be moderated and faster to react throughout
Getting humans to play nice is not practical, that's the bottom line. Getting humans to be logical and compassionate is also not practical. The whole notion of non toxic social media is a fools errand. We're vicious and selfish and you can't nudge that out of existence.
We're product of past generations and acting like we're like 100 generations ahead where people might live closer to an utopia and knows better is just unrealistic. Misanthropy is not the answer nor helps.
You have an answer? Im pretty set on misanthropy. I thimk people do know better but they just don't care. We all know about the holocaust but most people are fine with doing this to non jewish people. People aren't going to change in 100 generations. We need to evolve into non humans and that would take many more than 100 generations.
I don't, maybe it's the question for another that we will get to 42?
I think there probably is no straight solution to this other than heavy funding in academics (including social studies - which is undervalued in most places) so we can have more questions to possible answers that will lead us to more questions.
What if we knew how to solve it? Do you think every country would suddenly pledge peace and chip in to participate in such transition? That's why I think it's far in the future if that ever happens because it certainly sounds insanely crazy to say that would happen in this century.
The top issues right now is misinformation and weaponizing it to make people make terrible political choices for their country (if it's a democracy) and if not, it'll just weaponize the hate against opposition. We are capable of bring rational but we are also capable of being emotional, how do we reconcile the two? One without the other won't be healthy and I doubt most people can think of an answer to that in the tip of their tongue.
I think the demonisation of emption is wrong. We all want emotions: happiness, love, joy, excitement, fullfilment, etc. This is what we live for but emotions are denigrated constantly. There is a huge dissonance here in society where emotions are made illegitimate and worthless whilst being the experience we strive toward.
I wonder if this is part of the anti intellectualism, especially the humanities, if they are viewed as less pragmatic and more about curiosity and emotion. Everything is economic these days.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)
Psychology
2 readers
1 users here now
A place for articles, discussions and questions about psychology – the science of mind and behavior. It is a multidisciplinary field, covering behavioral, cognitive, developmental, educational, neuro-biological, personality, and social studies (and more!).
Rules:
- Do not take or give direct medical advice in your posts or comments.
- Absolutely no bigotry, hate speech or discrimination. That includes (but is not limited to) ableism, antisemitism, islamophobia, queer*- and LGBTQIA*-phobia, racism, and sexism.
- Keep discussions in good faith and be respectful.
- Posts should be related to academic, applied or clinical psychology in some way.
- Titles should be relevant to the content and not misleading.
- Do not post links to your own surveys, spam or self-help tips/videos.
Friends and related communities:
- !artificial_intel
- !biology
- !linguistics
- !medicine
- !mentalhealth
- !neuroscience
- !openscience
- !publichealth@baraza.africa
- !science
- !statistics
Banner: "A cross section of a mouse brain stained with cortical layer specific proteins" by Mamunur Rashid, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons / height edited to fit as banner
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS