diff --git a/Garden b/Garden index 0c17b8ee..7b910f1f 160000 --- a/Garden +++ b/Garden @@ -1 +1 @@ -Subproject commit 0c17b8ee616b8338e31427c83d8abc164bac72bd +Subproject commit 7b910f1fc2e3e8bc80a5a9164ca5aecf8ba129dd diff --git a/site/garden/anarchism/index.md b/site/garden/anarchism/index.md index f3dbd0e9..64389067 100644 --- a/site/garden/anarchism/index.md +++ b/site/garden/anarchism/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

1821 words, ~10 minute read.

-
Referenced by:IndividualismLeftismLocal CommunitiesMy Political BeliefsRepresentative Democracy
+
Referenced by:Digital LocalityIndividualismLeftismLocal CommunitiesMy Political BeliefsRepresentative Democracy
Anarchism is a political philosophy centered around the idea that authoritative hierarchies are unjust, and aim for a society completely devoid of a state. They see a state as inherently self-preservationist and oppressive, thus that it has no place in society nor the transition to an egalitarian society. diff --git a/site/garden/chromatic-lattice/index.md b/site/garden/chromatic-lattice/index.md index f0156b30..940762f6 100644 --- a/site/garden/chromatic-lattice/index.md +++ b/site/garden/chromatic-lattice/index.md @@ -14,6 +14,6 @@ const pageData = useData();

7 words, ~0 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Fedi v2Incremental Social/now
+
Referenced by:Digital LocalityFedi v2Incremental Social/now
A multiplayer game I have in development :) diff --git a/site/garden/commune/index.md b/site/garden/commune/index.md index 075ea93a..98552869 100644 --- a/site/garden/commune/index.md +++ b/site/garden/commune/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

144 words, ~1 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Federated IdentityOrchardWebringsWeird
+
Referenced by:Federated IdentityFilter BubblesOrchardWebringsWeird
An [Open Source](/garden/open-source/index.md) [Matrix](/garden/matrix/index.md) web client built to be better for communities than anything else out there - Currently in development diff --git a/site/garden/digital-gardens/index.md b/site/garden/digital-gardens/index.md index 2253bfe5..7c686146 100644 --- a/site/garden/digital-gardens/index.md +++ b/site/garden/digital-gardens/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

67 words, ~0 minute read.

-
Referenced by:ChronologicalCommuneGarden-RSSNetwork of KnowledgeOrchardThe Cozy WebThe Small WebThis Knowledge Hub
+
Referenced by:ChronologicalCommuneFilter BubblesGarden-RSSNetwork of KnowledgeOrchardThe Cozy WebThe Small WebThis Knowledge Hub
Digital Gardens are [Freeform](/garden/freeform/index.md) collections of information made by an individual or community - Alternatives to [Chronological](/garden/chronological/index.md) personal blogs diff --git a/site/garden/digital-locality/index.md b/site/garden/digital-locality/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1b8f1727 --- /dev/null +++ b/site/garden/digital-locality/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +--- +public: "true" +slug: "digital-locality" +title: "Digital Locality" +prev: false +next: false +--- + +

Digital Locality

+

1648 words, ~9 minute read.

+
+ +
Referenced by:Filter BubblesSocial Media
+ +## The Problem with Global Social Media + +Digital spaces ([Social Media](/garden/social-media/index.md)) lack locality. If you see a post or thread, you'll see comments and replies from all sorts of people from all across the world and across the ideological spectrum, and you won't recognize a single one. There are no neighbors in cyberspace. This leads to interactions feeling a bit impersonal, as both the interaction and the other person only matter for this brief period of time, and you'll likely never interact again. + +The only exception to this are influencers and people who are highly active within specific communities, who will gain a reputation through their name recognition. However, for people who aren't influencers or aren't highly active, these will be one-sided relationships (parasocial). The systems have been designed, often intentionally, to elevate a handful of accounts to celebrity status, a form of class struggle in the attention economy. + +The virality sought after by influencers can sometimes happen to "normal" users as well (essentially randomly and non-consensually). This results in the phenomomen of people having their posts "blow up", reaching a much larger audience than intended and with it a lot more attention than intended. People who fall victim to this receive large amounts of negative attention that can seriously impact their mental well-being. + +## Networks with Digital Locality + +I believe healthier communities should allow for a higher concentration of recognition, as that will lead to more meaningful relationships. This would mean a shift to smaller communities that aren't dominated by a couple personalities. Ones where you see the same people regularly. This would be in alignment with Dunbar's research on communities, which found there's a cognitive limit to how many people we can meaningfully "know". He discusses his research and how it's held up over the years in [this article](https://theconversation.com/dunbars-number-why-my-theory-that-humans-can-only-maintain-150-friendships-has-withstood-30-years-of-scrutiny-160676). + +Discord creates an environment like I describe, at least within it's smaller servers, but introduces a new issue in doing so: Discord servers aren't porous. You're either in the server or not, and you can only reach outside a server by fully joining another. This means that it's more difficult to actually discover people with which to form these meaningful relationships. + +A network based on digital locality should operate more similarly to neighborhoods in the real world - you're most likely to see those living closest to you, but you can still see others by just going a little further out. It's "porous" in the sense that you aren't limited to your immediate neighbors; It's a gradient, where more effort will always allow you to reach more people, rather than hitting a wall. + > Unfortunately, with car dependent society this analogy breaks down a bit, as now people are covering such a large physical area regularly that its still rare to see a familiar face while, for example, buying groceries. + +On a forums for discussing design of social spaces, [this post](https://discuss.coding.social/t/discuss-sx-anti-pattern-reply-sigh-aka-reply-guy/531/2) describes how a sense of locality could improve social interactions online, due to social media not having discrete concepts of "living room" discussion versus "public square" discussion. We're both getting at this idea of limiting the reach of posts, or at least making it more intentional to make a post to be shown to everyone. + +## Building the Network + +There are various values and principles to keep in mind when building this network. + +### Decentralization + +It should already be clear by how I've described this network, but a lot of its design is specifically trying to limit the reach of individuals. Philosophically, this network is opposed to centralization. The same way no user should accumulate power and influence over other users, the network itself, and whoever runs/maintains it, shouldn't either. Centralized ownership and moderation over the network leaves it vulnerable to enshittification and [other problems](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/01/the-digital-town-square-problem.html). + +In practice, this likely means using something like the [Agentic Fediverse](/garden/fedi-v2/index.md) as a base. Either way, ensure servers are only useful as relays; replaceable and without authority. Also design the protocol so that it can be improved and built upon without the need for a central authority. This goes beyond the efforts of AcivityPub and AtProto, which enable federations of smaller centralized authorities, not full decentralization. + +### Moderation + +Being decentralized does not mean it cannot be organized and moderated. Decentralization is not an excuse to not moderate, and stopping the spread of hateful content does shouldn't be objected to on the principles of free speech. + +I discuss how to organize without introducing authoritarian hierarchies while exploring the philosophy behind [Anarchism](/garden/anarchism/index.md). I explore decentralized moderation in my proposal for [Fedi v2](/garden/fedi-v2/index.md). The network of vouches idea I describe in the moderation section is prototypical of the principles of locality describe here. + +Moderation is pretty tricky though, and while I believe the above can be quite effective, particularly at eliminating spam, this is something that will need review and iterations. No social media has solved the moderation problem. As [this article](https://privacy.thenexus.today/blocklists-in-the-fediverse/#centralize-power) points out, it's easy for moderation to have unintended side effects, particularly for marginalized groups. + +For specifically tackling the problem of keeping fascism out of a community, I recommend [this video](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g) (and the whole series) by Innuendo Studios. + +### Avoiding [Filter Bubbles](/garden/filter-bubbles/index.md) (or echo chambers) + +The natural argument against what I'm describing here is that it would encourage the creation of filter bubbles. But I'd like to counter that argument by saying you're tackling the wrong issue, and that filter bubbles are typically innocuous and abolishing them would be actively harmful to marginalized communities. I've written a lot about filter bubbles on their own page, so I recommend you check it out. + +## Related Concepts + +### Webrings + +Erlend discusses a similar concept to locality in his blog post [Federated Webrings](https://blog.muni.town/federated-webrings/), which describes how the old internet would make frequent use of webrings to connect similar sites. This would effectively create digital neighbors and make both the site owner and visitors connect with the owners and visitors of the other sites in the webring. Although I think these webrings become a bit too large and centralized. I would've preferred to see them work more like cooperatives, with some form of democratic decision making. + +Erlend's suggestion for bringing webrings back is through the use of communities using shared topic-specific rooms. For example, several rust game development libraries having a shared chatroom for discussing game development in general. This makes the communities more porous, so members can discover related people and communities. + +I recommend reading through the rest of Erlend's writing and keeping up with their projects. They've done a lot in this sphere, both while working at discourse and since, and are leading the charge for designing and implementing the agentic fediverse. + +### [IndieWeb](/garden/the-small-web/index.md) + +Personal websites form a fully decentralized social network called the indie web, which focuses on data ownership. However, it's quite small due to the technical and financial barriers to creating a website. Due to the lack of centralization or algorithms, sites spread primarily by being linked to by others. That brings it close to what I'm describing here, although without asynchronous chat I don't think it's quite what I'm looking for. + +### MUDs + +What I'm describing is also a lot like a MUD, classic online games where players existed in a world of connected rooms, where they interacted via a command line interface, including local and global chat. If it were decentralized and people all had control over their own room, it would look a lot like what I am describing (but much nerdier and less modern). It's a big inspiration for a lot of these ideas. + +## The [Chromatic Lattice](/garden/chromatic-lattice/index.md) Experiment + +I've been working on designing a game, chromatic lattice, that will involve social elements and be a "living game". It would avoid issues with the network effect by justifying it's existence with it's gameplay, similar to how many MMOs work. This makes it a great testing grounds for some of the ideas discussed in this document, particularly with respect to a community with digital locality. + +A person's board will act as their profile page, and will include a local chat room (as opposed to the global one), a description, a list of people actively on the page, and a friends list that can be broken down into categories. Cursors also appear on the board for all users, although those can be toggled off in settings. + +The idea is that whenever someone isn't actively working on improving their design, they can be visiting other players and chatting. They should still be able to see their resource amounts and buy upgrades while "abroad". + +These chats will need some system for messages being reported, and users banned or silenced. No private chats - those will have to be taken to matrix, which every player will have. + +The friend lists effectively work as the links between nodes, creating locality. Everyone has a link to their own board accessible at all times, and from there to their friends. All links would also show a count of how many people are on that board. + +In addition to friends, you can jump to a players board or to wherever the player is by right clicking their name in global chat. You can also share links to your board off platform as well. + +In theory, by making friends public and mutual, and showing the count of who is actively there, we should see clusters forming. My concern would be everyone just joining a single board, but hopefully stuff like wanting to discuss different topics can naturally prevent that from occurring. + +I'll consider this experiment a success if people actually explore the network by jumping between boards, and if there are more messages sent in local chat than global chat. I'd like the average amount of players in a non empty room to be close to log_2(active players). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/site/garden/fedi-v2/index.md b/site/garden/fedi-v2/index.md index 13b5ebf4..1b018413 100644 --- a/site/garden/fedi-v2/index.md +++ b/site/garden/fedi-v2/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

3918 words, ~21 minute read.

-
Referenced by:DecentralizedIncremental Social/nowOrchardSocial MediaThe IndieWeb/Signature BlocksWeird
+
Referenced by:DecentralizedDigital LocalityFilter BubblesIncremental Social/nowOrchardSocial MediaThe IndieWeb/Signature BlocksWeird
A placeholder name for a theoretical new federated network that is client-centric, in contrast to the server-centric [Fediverse](/garden/fediverse/index.md). Many of the ideas here will be implemented as described or similarly by people much smarter than me as part of [Agentic Federation on Iroh](https://github.com/commune-os/weird/discussions/32), an initiative by the [Weird](/garden/weird/index.md) developers. diff --git a/site/garden/filter-bubbles/index.md b/site/garden/filter-bubbles/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9a28a462 --- /dev/null +++ b/site/garden/filter-bubbles/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +--- +alias: "Echo Chambers" +public: "true" +slug: "filter-bubbles" +title: "Filter Bubbles" +prev: false +next: false +--- + +

Filter Bubbles

+

2980 words, ~16 minute read.

+
+ +
Referenced by:Digital LocalityObjectivity
+ +Filter bubbles refer to how users may be intellectually isolated as a result of [Social Media](/garden/social-media/index.md) with algorithmic feeds, coupled with things like personalized search engine results and other services catering to someone's existing preferences and world views. + +## Are you in a filter bubble? + +Absolutely, and without a doubt. Filter bubbles fractal inside each other, and most of them are entirely innocuous - they're not the scary boogeyman they've been portrayed as. If your search results are primarily English - you may be in a filter bubble. If the news you watch covers domestic issues within your country more than domestic issues in other countries - you may be in a filter bubble. If the local news you watch covers the weather in your local area but not in areas halfway across the globe - you may be in a filter bubble. These are not significantly contributing to the "intellectual isolation" filter bubbles are said to create, and no one is arguing we must be equally aware of the local weather across the world. + +So yes, you're in a filter bubble - likely many, even. But that's not the right question to be asking; We must delve deeper into filter bubbles' causes and manifestations to determine what their negative aspects are and ultimately how to fix them. + +## Filter bubbles in search engines + +The author of The Filter Bubble describes what is supposed to be a [chilling story](https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/the-filter-bubble/181427/) of a search for BP giving results on investment opportunities to one person, and news about the oil spill disaster to another. They posit this is indicative of a problem, but I question that the personalized search results did anything wrong here. Searching BP just by itself is a "neutral" search, and so I think its fine for it to have shown results based on what its learned that user usually looks companies up for. The implication is that the former is an individual who regularly searches companies to see their current investment opportunities, and got what they wanted. If this person were to suddenly want to, say, write a report on BP's history or ecological impact, they'd naturally search for something more specific than just "BP", and certainly find the results they're looking for. And of course, there's layers to this - Google is also figuring out what search results the average person usually wants when searching a given term, and ranking those higher. So the more people search for BP to get info on the disaster, the more prominent that disaster will be. + +The problems stem from the various biases we all bring with us when researching anything, whether we're in a filter bubble or not. In this regard, filter bubbles are just automated applications of our own biases. For example, if you're researching the impact of the BP ecological disaster, your pre-conceived notions over its impact - and perhaps your personal financial interests - will dictate which sources you read at all, or ultimately decide to reference or ignore when discussing the issue with others. And to be clear, _all sources_ will have a bias. There is no such thing as [Objectivity](/garden/objectivity/index.md), and even seemingly "neutral" outlets are implicitly defending the status quo of society. + +I think most of you may relate to this, because we're all guilty of it, myself included. I've certainly shared news articles based on the headline, and perhaps even spend a bit too much time writing and not enough reading. Research papers in particular are incredibly dry and most people will only read articles about the paper, which may not be accurate, or perhaps only read the abstract, which may not be thorough. I'm keenly aware when citing a source that its unlikely someone will actually follow that link, to the point where it almost feels futile. Perhaps even now you're only skimming this page? Taken together, it seems an article existing with a given headline is more important than any arguments held within it. + +## Filter bubbles in social media + +The more insidious issue of filter bubbles is when it applies passively, such as when you're on social media and simply don't see anything about an important topic, say the BP oil spill. But actually, part of the issue here isn't just not seeing the post, as even if someone sees posts about the event, they may be tainted with biases towards their existing world view, and the reader will just accept that interpretation at face value. After all, most users are not going to see a headline and start doing independent research to verify the claims held within the article. Hell, most won't even go as far as reading the article itself - as has been [studied](https://inria.hal.science/hal-01281190/document) [many](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02067-4) [times](https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24458), sometimes in quite amusing widely shared but fake ["prank" articles](https://thesciencepost.com/study-70-of-facebook-commenters-only-read-the-headline/). + +Even if you click a link, you may just skim the results. This is a problem because people are not reading articles to actually learn from them, but rather to confirm their pre-existing opinions on the topic. With that reassurance in hand, they'll share the articles and [feel more confident](https://www.futurity.org/sharing-news-expert-2792872-2/) they actually understand the topic. + +A lot of the articles even available to share on social media are being crafted especially to be sharable using clickbait, caring more for covering topics profitably rather than ethically. AI slop has significantly compounded this issue by being able to mass produce articles that wholly lack meaningful insight, and is now a major problem for both search engines and social media platforms. + +All the biases described above contribute to an especially problematic aspect of filter bubbles: the spreading of misinformation. If people are unwilling to verify provocative but ultimately wrong claims they read in a headline, then how do we fix that? There are different approaches people have suggested: algorithmic suppression by a independent organization tasked with verifying articles' legitimacy like Facebook, relying on community-driven notes like Twitter, or just trying to shift the culture to engage with social media more productively/healthily. + +### Are safe spaces filter bubbles? + +The internet is a dangerous place, especially for members of marginalized groups. There are a lot of -phobes in the world, and the internet gives them a platform to harass far more widespread than before. It takes concerted effort to keep them out of communities, as described by Innuendo Studios' [How to radicalize a normie](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g). I think we should all be in agreement that it is entirely fine for people to want to filter out this kind of hateful content. So safe spaces are filter bubbles, but also are good and important things to have access to. + +I bring this up to really drive home that filter bubbles are not intrinsically good or bad. They happen innocuously and are even beneficial for filtering out certain kinds of content. It's important any solution to the issues with filter bubbles focuses doesn't involve exposing people to, say, those who'd like to see them dead. + +The line doesn't have to be at hateful content though. There's any number of content someone may want to filter out - gore, SA, or other PTSD triggers. Ultimately the line is subjective, and where the line is shouldn't be restricted or imposed. Empathy is the key here, and the same way a trans person shouldn't be encouraged to interact with transphobes, no one should be encouraged to engage in any social interactions they deem uncomfortable, even if others don't think it's uncomfortable. + +## Filtering politics + +In the previous section I proposed that allowing people to decide what they want to see should is important. Most people can, I imagine, agree with that, barring one notable and often contested exception: politics. Our liberal democracy insists that universal political engagement is required for it to function properly. While I agree politics are critically important, politics should not be an exception that people "must" be subjected to regardless of their consent. + +First off, _everything_ is political. Politics have shaped every institution, norm, and cultural artifact in our society. They both reflect and reproduce the power dynamics created by our politics. The reason for anything to not be deemed political is because they've been normalized; the "apolitical" position is typically one aligned with dominant systems of power, such as capitalism, patriarchy, or white supremacy. If everyone agrees on something, it must not be political. As the "How to radicalize a normie" video linked earlier uses as an example: saying "Nazis are bad" might feel apolitical because it reflects a societal consensus, but saying "feminism is good" challenges entrenched norms and becomes "political". [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_234m1zGf4) also goes over how essentially everything is political, through the framework of searching for an "apolitical" video game. Essentially, politics affect all of us and everything is political, and if you believe politics don't effect you, that's probably because the current political and economic systems work in your favor. Privilege doesn't make you feel special, it makes the world feel "normal". + +Second, some political topics are deeply personal and emotionally exhausting to engage with, particularly for those marginalized under the current power structures. For example, trans rights are an extremely important political issue, but demanding that trans people continually defend their very existence against reactionary attacks amounts to a form of re-traumatization. People not being exposed to these kinds of upsetting things is not a problem to be solved, and democracy can survive while allowing people to filter out political topics or perspectives they don't want to see. You do not need to tolerate the intolerant (as argued by Karl Popper, who coined the term "[paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)"). + +Lastly, this constant pressure to debate is simply not productive. Individuals are often far less interested in arriving at the right answer than they are in winning the debate. Understanding theory and coming to the correct conclusion is a far different skillset compared to debating, and engaging in debates often just further entrenches us in our beliefs regardless of their actual legitimacy. Debaters are all too often ones not directly affected by these policies due to their position of privilege, and for them politics are a purely academic affair with no "real" consequences. Debaters are especially a problem for culturally relevant personalities who receive large amounts of criticisms from people who all demand to have their concerns individually argued against. This practice is called "sea lioning" after [this comic](https://www.ethicsandculture.com/blog/2016/beware-the-sea-lion). The issue is the sheer amount of criticism, the mental and emotional drain filtering through it can be, and the nebulousness of what even is "valid criticism". Innuendo Studios discussed this concept in [Why Don't You Respond to Criticism?](https://youtu.be/BFSe5-i1LoU). + +Admittedly, as a [Leftist](/garden/leftism/index.md), I desire revolutionary change and see such transformation as necessary before this framework of consent can fully hold true. Today, the drive to filter out politics often stems from alienation or reactionary thinking—a symptom of a capitalist system designed to depoliticize and pacify the masses. While I respect individual consent, I believe that disrupting the status quo through discomfort is sometimes essential, as liberation requires collective, organized resistance. + +### Radicalization + +"Radicalization" is a nebulous term that's been used for a variety of purposes. The ACLU, for example, [warns against its usage](https://www.aclu.org/documents/qa-myth-radicalization) by saying this: +> The government’s “radicalization” theory has become a euphemism for religious and ideological profiling. It leads to discrimination and stigmatization, and is fundamentally un-American. Casting suspicion on American faith or belief communities is wrong and does nothing to make us safer. + +Personally, I think the term has been decontextualized a bit, as I see it used today to describe people moving to the left or right. In leftist communities, sharing "what radicalized you" is commonplace and not stigmatized. I think what most accurately describes radicalization is that it's the process of people moving outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion, which in American politics goes from the Republican part to the Democratic party. All other opinions are largely seen as extremist or otherwise untenable. Noam Chomsky describes how this framing perpetuates itself like this: +> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. +> \- Noam Chomsky + +So, personally, I don't see radicalization as an inherent issue because the current spectrum of acceptable opinion is atrocious (and, separately, an example of a filter bubble that encapsulates most of the US). I'm biased, as by my own definition I'm a radical, but I don't think radicalization should be a reason to fight against filter bubbles. Suppressing it is ultimately a way of enforcing the status quo and enabling those at the top of the status quo to perpetuate their reign. + +Of course, I _do_ want to stop people from radicalizing towards fascism. But the solution isn't to restrict all "extremist" content so that only the acceptable opinions are allowed, because fascism _is_ acceptable! The spectrum I've been discussing is so far right that fascist and genocidal rhetoric are normal in our presidential elections and takes like "I won't vote for genocide" are met with "but ending the genocide isn't on the table". Combatting extremism explicitly means supporting our rightwards trend towards fascism. + +Jubilee exemplifies the issues I'm discussing here with shows like "middle ground". Besides their clear bias in picking media trained individuals for the right but not the left, they also place the "middle ground" as being between the far right position and a moderate/central position. Funnily enough, it's a great example of why middle grounds as a concept are not intrinsically better than the extremes, as often claimed (again, in defense of the status quo). Drawing a middle point is arbitrary and tied to whatever the currently established spectrum of acceptable opinion happens to be. I recommend [this podcast episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JP7DbzxRK8) that explores the issues with Jubilee and the "free market of ideas". Naturally, they also uphold the principle that marginalized groups should be expected to relive their traumatic experiences with those who wish them harm, under the justification that democracy falls without that. + +## Echo Chambers vs Filter Bubbles + +I've been mostly referring to filter bubbles all this time, but it's time to make an important distinction that will really tie this whole thing together. Filter bubbles are simply having preferences towards the kind of content you see being reflected by algorithms. They can be emergent or intentional, are often innocuous and even helpful, and sometimes may be bad. They have no intrinsic moral value. + +Echo Chambers is the term for when filter bubbles turn bad. This is the term for when those inside a filter bubble turn against those outside it. When the only portrayal of those outside the bubble are hateful caricatures from those within it. This is truly where the hateful content and misinformation comes from. Echo Chambers are the problem to solve. But since they're composed of two parts - filter bubbles and hateful content and misinformation - we have a choice for approaching the problem. + +Traditionally, people argue the solution to echo chambers is removing the filter bubbles. That if people are simply exposed to more ideas, the echo chamber goes away. As discussed earlier, this cannot be accepted when some of those ideas actively wish harm upon you. + +The other approach is just solving the issues with misinformation and hateful content directly. They cannot be tolerated, and should be entirely suppressed. Free speech should not protect people actively doing harm upon others. + +## Moderating away hate and misinformation + +So if the issue isn't the filter bubbles but rather hateful content and misinformation... what do we do to combat it? + +On an individual level, we can try to improve our media literacy and spread accurate information with positive values like DEI and class consciousness. Every person counts, although the system is working against us currently. + +On a systemic level, a new social media can be designed so they are more protected from misinformation spreading. For example, by allowing users to publicly "vouch" for other users for writing and sharing accurate posts, forming a web of trust/reputation. Also designing the network so those who are popular are not prioritized in algorithmic feeds, essentially centralizing influence into the hands of the few. I explore this topic and other aspects to a radical new social media network in [Fedi v2](/garden/fedi-v2/index.md) and [Digital Locality](/garden/digital-locality/index.md). + +Taking a step back, several of these issues described - clickbait and spam, specifically - only exist due to financial incentives brought on by our capitalist system. Additionally, Capitalism is the reason for people not having the time, energy, or motivation to more healthily approach social media and combat misinformation. Therefore, we need a [Leftist](/garden/leftism/index.md) shift to fix these problems and bring us to a more media literate society free of influencers and advertisers. It's the only long term solution. + +### Message gardening + +This is largely theoretical, but something I've been thinking of a lot about are [Digital Gardens](/garden/digital-gardens/index.md), and I think the philosophy of them could lead to a different kind of solution to tackling hate and misinformation. Right now a lot of news and discourse about said news is essentially frozen in time. Corrections to stories never get as much attention as the original incorrect story. We have the same discussions over and over again. I thinking we could improve this situation by explicitly framing social media as a tool for building a network of knowledge, like a wiki (or rather, a communal digital garden). + +This is something that would need to be explored more before it could be implemented, but I'm sort of envisioning something like twitter's community notes system alongside something like [Commune](/garden/commune/index.md) where informal discussions are part of a process of continuously updating a formal document about the topic/event, with new developments, perspectives, and context. I think structuring social media this way, and updating people of important changes to these formal documents people have read or participated in, could lead to a more well informed populace. + +## Further Reading + +Everything discussed in this article falls under the field of sociology, so you may be interested in looking more into that study. I recommend a few of the games by [Nicky Case](https://ncase.me/), which share a common thread of exploring sociological concepts: +- [The Wisdom and/or Madness of Crowds](https://ncase.me/crowds/) +- [The Evolution of Trust](https://ncase.me/trust/) +- [WE BECOME WHAT WE BEHOLD](https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-developers/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-developers/index.md index 759a0d47..f4bfd84a 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-developers/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-developers/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

636 words, ~3 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
There are a lot of developers in the incremental games community - the genre seems to draw them in, and convert a lot of players _into_ developers. Let's explore the reasons why this genre appeals to developers. diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md index 4c6dc8b8..6d29da77 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

2166 words, ~12 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
This is something that has been discussed and analyzed by many people, and to some extent, I feel like everything that can be said on the topic already has. However, a lot of these analyses are from the perspective of those with not as much experience and involvement within the genre as I'd argue would be necessary for a fully contextualized answer. I'm interested in ludology and part of that includes interpreting games as art, and to that end what constitutes a game, let alone a "good game". Incremental games are oft criticized, unfairly in my biased opinion, of not even constituting games, such as was posited by [this polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2013/9/30/4786780/the-cult-of-the-cookie-clicker-when-is-a-game-not-a-game). diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md index 5c48dd8a..db57ae39 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

4048 words, ~22 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
Video games are placed into genres for a variety of reasons. They can give a mental shorthand to set the player's expectations up, they can help a game market itself by its similarities to other, already popular games, and honestly, people just love categorization for its own sake. For this guide, it's important to define the genre so it is clear what games it's even talking about. diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/navigating-criticism/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/navigating-criticism/index.md index 4cda62f5..01b7ed11 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/navigating-criticism/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/navigating-criticism/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

747 words, ~4 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
Developing games is fun and exciting and teaches a lot of wonderful skills - I enthusiastically encourage anyone with an interest in game development to try it out - and incremental games are a wonderful way to get started. However, there are many challenges young and inexperienced developers have to face, and I think the hardest one - harder than coding, debugging, balancing, etc. - is handling criticism. When you put your heart and soul into a game it is natural to feel very vulnerable. While I think there's a lot communities can do to ensure they're welcoming, positive and constructive with their criticisms, inevitably you will eventually read some, and potentially a lot, of comments that can deeply affect you. No one is immune to this, from young incremental game developers to the largest content creators you can think of. That's why it's important to be able to process and navigate criticism, because ultimately collecting feedback is essential to the journey to becoming a better developer. On this page, we'll explore how to embrace criticism, grow from it, and continue to post your games publicly with confidence. diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/what-is-content/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/what-is-content/index.md index beaf559c..317876c9 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/what-is-content/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/what-is-content/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

2272 words, ~12 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
If you've been in the incremental games community for any amount of time, you'll quickly find the number one thing players want is _content_. They want as much of it as possible! The most popular incremental games have tons of content, so they just keep stretching on and on and on, introducing mechanic after mechanic, and players love it. In fact, players seem to value the _amount_ of content over the quality of any _specific_ content. However, there's a bit of a lack of understanding concerning _what_ content is, and I'd like to explore what counts as content, and how we measure it. As a baseline definition, I think "content" can just be described as the parts of the game that engage the player, but to truly understand it we need to contextualize what that means and how it affects the gameplay experience. diff --git a/site/garden/leftism/index.md b/site/garden/leftism/index.md index 2dab2175..0faa9483 100644 --- a/site/garden/leftism/index.md +++ b/site/garden/leftism/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

1794 words, ~10 minute read.

-
Referenced by:My Political BeliefsMy Political Journey
+
Referenced by:Filter BubblesMy Political BeliefsMy Political Journey
[My Political Journey](/garden/my-political-journey/index.md) has brought me to the broad label of being a leftist. Leftism encompasses many ideologies, each with unique visions for an egalitarian society and strategies to achieve it. These pages are my tool to test my understanding by articulating these ideas in my own terms. I don't care to label myself any further than leftist, as in my mind I'm still a student of leftist ideologies and have personally been finding insight across the spectrum of leftist ideologies. As a reminder, this digital garden is a perpetual work in progress and only reflects my understanding of a topic at time of writing. diff --git a/site/garden/objectivity/index.md b/site/garden/objectivity/index.md index af80fa25..99d36c6e 100644 --- a/site/garden/objectivity/index.md +++ b/site/garden/objectivity/index.md @@ -11,18 +11,16 @@ import { useData } from 'vitepress'; const pageData = useData();

Objectivity

-

629 words, ~3 minute read.

+

589 words, ~3 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Scientific Constructivism
+
Referenced by:Filter BubblesScientific Constructivism
-Objectivity is a myth. All we have are our subjective experiences, which are shaped by our environments and it's [Social Constructs](/garden/social-constructs/index.md). +Objectivity is a myth. All we have are our subjective experiences, which are shaped by our environments and it's [Social Constructs](/garden/social-constructs/index.md). Often something _appearing_ objective more likely means its biased towards either your pre-conceived opinion, or the "status quo" opinion of the society or culture the work was created in. When a social construct becomes sufficiently ingrained within society to the point it's not recognized as a construct, it can begin to be considered an "objective truth", which can lead to harmful results. -These social constructs form echo chambers around the entire society. In this way, echo chambers fractal within each other. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it's often difficult to recognize echo chambers from inside, and we're all ultimately inside at least one. - -> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky +These social constructs form [Echo Chambers](/garden/filter-bubbles/index.md) around the entire society. In this way, echo chambers fractal within each other. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it's often difficult to recognize echo chambers from inside, and we're all ultimately inside at least one. In practice, the idea that objectivity doesn't exist doesn't really impact anything. Our shared experiences are similar enough that our truths about most every day things are compatible. Where this most applies is when there's an argument between two people who are reaching different conclusions despite the same level of knowledge about the topic. In theory, you could probably find a shared common ground and determine that specific logical step in which you diverge. That divergence may be explained by our subjective perspectives on the world, mixed with our personal values. However, a side may _claim_ their side of the divergence is the correct one due to some "objective truth". This is simply not so, but is all too often used to justify bigoted arguments. diff --git a/site/garden/social-media/index.md b/site/garden/social-media/index.md index a1d2b0fe..ae26f5ce 100644 --- a/site/garden/social-media/index.md +++ b/site/garden/social-media/index.md @@ -12,23 +12,15 @@ import { useData } from 'vitepress'; const pageData = useData();

Social Media

-

98 words, ~1 minute read.

+

206 words, ~1 minute read.

-
Referenced by:CommuneFediverse
+
Referenced by:CommuneDigital LocalityFediverseFilter Bubbles
-Traditional social media -- Not [Decentralized](/garden/decentralized/index.md) - - Can't choose your own rules, sorting methods, data queries, etc. -- Overrun by scams and ads and influencers +Social media is how we interact with people online. It's also increasingly becoming how we discover and discuss news and ideas. It's incredibly important, but flawed. A lot of pages in this digital garden criticize and attempt to solve these flaws. -[Federated Social Media](/garden/fediverse/index.md) -- Partially [Decentralized](/garden/decentralized/index.md) - - Self hosting is too hard for everyone to do - - Still subject to instance's moderation, limitations, etc. -- Users need to pick an instance, associating their identity with one specific group - - People belong to many groups - - The person is permanently associated with that one group - - You have to pick before getting a "trial period" to ensure you actually like that group/instance +Traditional social media is centralized, meaning you have to trust the central authority to be acting in your best interests. It also means you likely won't have control over the moderation rules, sorting methods, filters, or other aspects of the platform. Traditional social media is also overrun by entities trying to accumulate wealth in the "attention economy", meaning feeds are littered with influencers, advertisers, and scams. It's not a safe place to be and its not conducive to health conversations. -My take on an ideal social media [Fedi v2](/garden/fedi-v2/index.md) +[Federated Social Media](/garden/fediverse/index.md) is partially [Decentralized](/garden/decentralized/index.md), and includes services like Mastodon or Lemmy. These require self hosting, leading to it being a federation of smaller centralized authorities. Most people still won't have control over the platform, but may find a platform that's more tolerable to them. However, the process of doing so greatly increases the barrier of entry into the network, and stifles their adoption. + +I personally advocate for a full decentralized social media, as described in [Fedi v2](/garden/fedi-v2/index.md). It should give full agency to the individual, and perhaps even introduce the concept of [Digital Locality](/garden/digital-locality/index.md). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/site/garden/the-indieweb/amplification/index.md b/site/garden/the-indieweb/amplification/index.md index d5696734..d0e2bd42 100644 --- a/site/garden/the-indieweb/amplification/index.md +++ b/site/garden/the-indieweb/amplification/index.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

57 words, ~0 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
Refers to reblogging (and re-hosting, sometimes) of someone else's content on your own site diff --git a/site/garden/the-indieweb/signature-blocks/index.md b/site/garden/the-indieweb/signature-blocks/index.md index 4efeae61..3d5cd145 100644 --- a/site/garden/the-indieweb/signature-blocks/index.md +++ b/site/garden/the-indieweb/signature-blocks/index.md @@ -14,6 +14,6 @@ const pageData = useData();

14 words, ~0 minute read.

-
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronosSocial Media
+
Referenced by:Incremental SocialKronos
A proposal I want to write for posting signed content on your [IndieWeb](/garden/the-small-web/index.md) website diff --git a/site/garden/the-small-web/index.md b/site/garden/the-small-web/index.md index 981266e5..3d8d70d8 100644 --- a/site/garden/the-small-web/index.md +++ b/site/garden/the-small-web/index.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ const pageData = useData();

778 words, ~4 minute read.

-
Referenced by:CommuneFederated IdentityFedi v2My Personal WebsiteThe IndieWeb/Signature BlocksThis Knowledge HubWebringsWeird
+
Referenced by:CommuneDigital LocalityFederated IdentityFedi v2My Personal WebsiteThe IndieWeb/Signature BlocksThis Knowledge HubWebringsWeird
The small web (also known as the indie web, personal web, the web revival movement, and other terms) refers to small, personal, independent websites. It is seen as a direct alternative to the centralized and homogenized websites like X, Meta, and TikTok. [My Personal Website](/garden/my-personal-website/index.md) is part of the small web! diff --git a/site/garden/video-essays/index.md b/site/garden/video-essays/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..45b4f196 --- /dev/null +++ b/site/garden/video-essays/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +public: "true" +slug: "video-essays" +title: "Video Essays" +prev: false +next: false +--- + +

Video Essays

+

542 words, ~3 minute read.

+
+ +Video essayists are an interesting case study here. I _love_ video essays, they're often entertaining and you can tell the effort and care put into them. A lot of my favorite creators are video essayists, like [hbomberguy](https://www.youtube.com/c/hbomberguy), [Folding Ideas](https://www.youtube.com/@FoldingIdeas), and [Philosophy Tube](https://www.youtube.com/@PhilosophyTube) (and probably more - its hard to keep track of my favorites since they upload infrequently). Unfortunately, video essays have now been recognized as successful ways to make videos with high watch time which has led to an explosion of video essays, with varying levels of skill, ethics, and effort put into researching the topics. + +The format of video essays makes them feel credible - being longform, speaking authoritatively, and including relevant footage all contribute to this. However, none of those actually necessitate the creator being a subject matter expert. + +"Video essayists" as a concept is a bit concerning because it positions those creators on a treadmill of constantly having to be (or at least appear to be) an expert of a brand new topic. I'm skeptical of any video essayist that uploads frequently or across a very large variety of topics. + +Sometimes the extra duration of the footage is less to do with it deeply diving into the subject matter, but padding and fluff that's tangential to the point of the video. This is stuff like describing the process of how the creator did online research, or the methods they used to reach out to relevant people. In addition to padding the runtime, this shifts the focus off the subject of the video and onto the creator. I found [this video](https://youtu.be/ZYcHOEjGzPA) to exemplify both this issue and many of my qualms with video essays. + +## Media Analysis Video Essays + +Some video essays are very easy to make quickly and are doing so for profit. No video essay exemplifies this more than the media analysis video essay. While this doesn't apply to _all_ video essays over media, all too often they'll just be summarizations of popular and nostalgic media that never gets into any meaningful analysis or offering genuine insights. It's just an easy way to make a lot of content, and thus watch time. + +Personally, I think these specific video essays are slop taking advantage of people who like having their intellectual ego stroked. By watching media get lightly criticized, we position ourselves above the people actually out there creating original media. These videos are for the pretentious, who likely watch far more analysis of original media than original media itself. It's reaction content for those who feel they're above reaction content. [This video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj694hdG6u8) (heh) goes further into the issues with this type of video essay. + +## Self Reflection + +Part of my feelings towards video essays, and indeed such strong feelings as to include it here where its tangential at best, stems from self-confidence issues. Wondering if these articles I write are any better. I criticize video essays for being critical like an ouroboros, relying on this very statement to at least prove I'm aware of the hypocrisy. + +## Further Reading + +Hey, did you know there's video essays about how video essays are bad? Well of course they are, a natural extension of the "thing bad" trend exemplified in the media analysis video essays and in Youtube culture at large. Anyways, I enjoyed [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx635p4tSfo) covering other criticisms of video essays on Youtube. \ No newline at end of file