[1516] Content Discontent

[Verdant Haven]

Here's a little issue on the subject of internet echo-chambers, and the danger they pose to consensus and civilized dialogue. Why do echo chambers exist? What can be done about them? Should the government care?

2nd draft:

[TITLE]
Content Discontent

Co-Author Credit: Terrabod

[DESCRIPTION]
A recent survey revealed a stark divide amongst @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, with citizens across the political spectrum strongly agreeing that anybody who holds different views than their own is a "blithering idiot," an "unpatriotic traitor," and that they "probably have ugly children, too." The focus group assembled to address this phenomenon placed the blame squarely on the increasingly personalized nature of internet content, before itself splitting into warring factions over what to do about it.

[VALIDITY]
Has Internet
Capitalist

[CHOICE 1]
"We know what the problem is," argues @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, spokesperson for one of the factions. "Big business has infested the internet with tracking algorithms, and pushes content to reinforce peoples' existing positions. Social media, video sites, news feeds... it's all a profit-driven scheme to trap people in their comfort zones where they'll spend their time and money! You need to prohibit trackers and ban corporate echo chambers, so those fools on the other side will finally be exposed to the truth!"
[EFFECT 1]
it's become a lot harder to find what you're looking for on the web

[CHOICE 2]
"That's not the problem!" yells rival faction member @@RANDOMNAME@@ over the top of @@HIS@@ colleague. "The problem is snowflakes like @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ who won't listen to opposing views! They don't like what I say and unfriend me when I point out how wrong they are. You need to make sure those algorithms are forcing people to consume opposing viewpoints in equal proportion to ones they want to hear. Only then will those weaklings finally see the truth!"
[EFFECT 2]
children searching for cat videos must watch dogs in equal proportion

[CHOICE 3]
"Regulations? Government mandates? Those solutions are worse than the problem!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, who claims not to belong to any faction. "If people want to buy into an echo chamber, let them! If they want to do their own thing, let them! Why should the government have any control over the internet at all? Get rid of any regulations you do have, and let companies and consumers do what they want. The government needs to back off, and that's the truth!"
[EFFECT 3]
belief that @@LEADER@@ is a lizard-person from outer space has reached an all-time high

[CHOICE 4]
"What a bunch of fools!" comments your personal assistant, as you pull away from the argument. "Easily manipulated fools… That gives me an idea! Listen, if the citizenry is so stupid that they believe whatever content they read on the internet, why not provide that content ourselves? We can quietly develop our own algorithms to direct everyone towards the same pro-government messages. Then we'll see true unity… unity led by you!"
[EFFECT 4]
netizens fiercely argue over who loves @@LEADER@@ more

Full 1st draft:

[TITLE]
Content Discontent

Co-Author Credit: Terrabod

[DESCRIPTION]
A recent survey revealed a stark divide amongst @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, with citizens across the political spectrum strongly agreeing with statements suggesting that anybody who holds different views than their own is "a blithering idiot," an "unpatriotic traitor," and that they "probably have ugly children, too." A focus group intended to identify the source of this phenomenon placed the blame squarely on the increasingly personalized nature of internet content, before itself splitting into warring factions over what to do about it.

[VALIDITY]
Has Internet
Capitalist

[CHOICE 1]
"We know what the problem is, @@LEADER@@" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson of one of the factions. "Big business has flooded the internet with tracking algorithms that suggest content to reinforce peoples' existing positions. Social media, video sites, news feeds... it's all a profit-driven scheme to trap people in their comfort zones where they'll spend their time and money! You need to clamp down on these corporate echo chambers, so those fools on the other side will finally be exposed to the truth!"
[EFFECT 1]
it has gotten a lot harder to find what you're looking for on the web

[CHOICE 2]
"We do know what the problem is, @@LEADER@@!" yells rival faction member @@RANDOMNAME@@, over the top of @@HIS@@ colleague. "It's snowflakes like that who don't want to hear opposing views! They don't like what I say and unfriend me every time I try to point out how wrong they are. You need to make sure those algorithms are serving up opposing viewpoints in precisely equal proportion to ones people want to hear. Only then will those weaklings finally see the truth!"
[EFFECT 2]
children searching for cat videos are served up dogs in equal proportion

[CHOICE 3]
"Regulation? Government mandates? Those 'solutions' are worse than the problem they allege to solve!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, who claims not to belong to any faction. "If people want to buy into an echo chamber, let them! If they want to do their own thing, let them! In fact, why should the government have any control over the internet at all? Let companies and consumers do whatever they want. The government needs to give control to the people, and that's the truth!"
[EFFECT 3]
belief that @@LEADER@@ is a lizard-person from outer space has reached an all-time high

[CHOICE 4]
"What a bunch of maroons!" comments your personal assistant, as you pull away from the argument. "Listen, if the citizenry is so stupid that they believe whatever content they read on the internet, why not provide that content ourselves? Just quietly develop our own algorithms to direct everyone towards the same government messages. Then we'll see true unity… unity led by you!"
[EFFECT 4]
netizens fiercely argue over who loves @@LEADER@@ more

Old version of Choice 2:

[CHOICE 2]
"We do know what the problem is, @@LEADER@@!" yells rival faction member @@RANDOMNAME@@, over the top of @@HIS@@ colleague. "It's snowflakes like that who don't want to hear opposing views! They don't like what I say and unfriend me every time I try to point out how wrong they are. You need to ban folks from only hanging out with the people they agree with online, and force them to listen to other perspectives, like mine! Only then will those weaklings finally hear the truth!"
[EFFECT 2]
friends are forbidden to 'be friends' online

Minor edit made to 1st draft:

Nothing removed, but added a few words to Option 1 to clarify where the alleged algorithms are found.
Previous version:
"We know what the problem is, @@LEADER@@" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson of one of the factions. "Big business has flooded the internet with tracking algorithms that suggest content to reinforce peoples' existing positions. It's all a profit-driven scheme to trap people in their comfort zones where they'll spend their time and money! You need to clamp down on these corporate echo chambers, so those fools on the other side will finally be exposed to the truth!"

[Honeydewistania]

Literally Reddit

[Trotterdam]

People preferentially hanging out with people they agree with is something that happened even before the internet.

The habit of modern search engines (okay, let's be honest, Google, they have a near-monopoly on the sector to the point that most people call it "Googling" rather than "searching") to provide personalized search results based on data collected from past searches may exacerbate this a little, but it's not the root source of the problem and it's also concerning for additional reasons, such as privacy. As such, it's better treated as its own topic, rather than simply "the reason we have echo chambers".

[New Ladavia]

Is capitalism is a necessary validity?

[Verdant Haven]

People preferentially hanging out with people they agree with is something that happened even before the internet.

The habit of modern search engines (okay, let's be honest, Google, they have a near-monopoly on the sector to the point that most people call it "Googling" rather than "searching") to provide personalized search results based on data collected from past searches may exacerbate this a little, but it's not the root source of the problem and it's also concerning for additional reasons, such as privacy. As such, it's better treated as its own topic, rather than simply "the reason we have echo chambers".

Of course they did, but when it comes to creating a bubble, the effect has been dramatically enhanced by the internet, where people can globally seek out those who share and reinforce their niche fixations whereas previously they would be isolated.

This isn't about search engine results, it's about feeds - social media, video sharing sites, 'news' sites - all of those that have the "you followed/watched/read this... you might also like this!" are extremely oriented towards reinforcing a person's existing habits and manipulating their emotions accordingly. That isn't even opinion - that's a deliberate and publicly acknowledged hard-coded feature. Feeding people what they want or agree with increases their linger time, which increases revenues. You make an important point that it could be confusing - I'll add some language to make it clearer that I'm talking about those feeds, rather than SE results.

(I'd also point out that just because a speaker with an agenda appearing in an issue blames something for a problem, that isn't a claim that it is the real-world truth. Nearly every issue has somebody blaming something for some situation they don't like, with their position having little relation to the real world. Interestingly, different players will probably argue over which speaker is that person, based on their real-world views!)

Is capitalism is a necessary validity?

Because of the way the game treats Capitalism, I feel like it is required for three of the four options to make any sense. Option 1 is based around the accusation of private businesses manipulating things, Option 3 is about the government simply not being involved in the internet (which is impossible if there isn't private business, since government would have to be the provider), and Option 4 addresses developing government means of control in opposition to whatever is currently happening, which only makes sense if what's currently happening is non-governmental (ie private) in nature. In order to avoid running afoul of Autarky and certain other validities, we can't assume the availability of foreign services or outside influence groups to act as content providers in the game's 'Socialism' system. Short of basically writing two stacked issues, with wildly different options for Capitalist/Socialist, I think this would be a sticking point. I definitely welcome suggestions that work to avoid that if you see a way!

[Terrabod]

Literally Reddit

Yup, and YouTube, Facebook, imageboard websites (coughcough4chan)...

People preferentially hanging out with people they agree with is something that happened even before the internet.

The habit of modern search engines (okay, let's be honest, Google, they have a near-monopoly on the sector to the point that most people call it "Googling" rather than "searching") to provide personalized search results based on data collected from past searches may exacerbate this a little, but it's not the root source of the problem and it's also concerning for additional reasons, such as privacy. As such, it's better treated as its own topic, rather than simply "the reason we have echo chambers".

I'd also like to respond to this point to reinforce the comments made by Verdant Haven.

The issue of internet algorithms driving users to extreme content is well known - I direct you to this article in the Guardian which found that the YouTube recommendation algorithm was promoting videos that described the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting (2 years ago tomorrow) as a hoax. The promotion of this kind of content, as I'm sure you can imagine, has extremely damaging and wide-reaching consequences; for example, relatives of shooting victims and survivors of shootings that are described as hoaxes receive harassment and sometimes death threats from conspiracy theory groups online.

The sad fact is that many of the "post-truth" movements (conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, modern white supremacists etc) we see today originated online or have "bubble" communities on social media sites. These communities share posts with content recommended to them by YouTube or Reddit (for example) containing false information, which are themselves based on online content containing false information, which are also based on online content containing false information... and this process generates a sort of vicious cycle that's difficult to escape from and gradually progresses from a mild misunderstanding about a piece of science or political idea to a strong belief in blatantly false information. The real-world impact of the problem discussed in this issue cannot be overstated, and we probably all have had some experience of these algorithms whether we realise it or not, perhaps by coming face-to-face with the above-mentioned extreme online communities or even being subconsciously led down the garden path ourselves.

[Trotterdam]

I think I haven't noticed this as much as some people have because, as someone who actually knows how computers work, I'm not stupid enough to trust a computer algorithm to know what I like.

[Terrabod]

I think I haven't noticed this as much as some people have because, as someone who actually knows how computers work, I'm not stupid enough to trust a computer algorithm to know what I like.

That's good critical thinking from you! However, other people who are driven towards the kind of extreme content described above do cause real damage even outside of the online world. A good example of this is the anti-vax movement which is responsible for the recent explosion in measles cases across the Western hemisphere. The resulting measles outbreaks don't just affect vaccine refusers - they're also life-threatening for people undergoing chemotherapy, transplant recipients, people with HIV and other infections that compromise the immune system, people with immune disorders etc.

Thanks for your input so far; let us know if you have any further comments on the draft!

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2's effect seems a bit dull. I'd like to see how it would impact the politically apathetic

[Terrabod]

I noticed a few subtle grammatical errors on my latest read-through.

[CHOICE 2]
"We do know what the problem is, @@LEADER@@!" yells rival faction member @@RANDOMNAME@@, over the top of @@HIS@@ colleague. "It's snowflakes like that who don't want to hear opposing views! They don't like what I say, and unfriend me every time I try to point out how wrong they are. You need to ban folks from only hanging out with the people they agree with online, and force them to listen to other perspectives, like mine! Only then will those weaklings finally hear the truth!"

This is an excessive comma (marked in red). I would also probably italicise 'It's snowflakes like that who don't...' just for emphasis.

[CHOICE 3]
"Regulation? Government mandates? Those 'solutions' are worse than the problem they allege to solve!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, who claims not to belong to any faction. "If people want to buy in to an echo chamber, let them! If they want to do their own thing, let them! In fact, why should the government have any control over the internet at all? Let companies and consumers do whatever they want. The government needs to give control to the people, and that's the truth!"

This should be 'into'.

[EFFECT 3]
belief that @@LEADER@@ is a lizard-person from outer space has reached an all time high

This should be 'all-time'.

[Verdant Haven]

I noticed a few subtle grammatical errors on my latest read-through.
-snip-

Made all the suggested edits!

Option 2's effect seems a bit dull. I'd like to see how it would impact the politically apathetic

That is a very interesting thought. How might being forced to read "the other side's" political propaganda look to somebody who doesn't have a side at all? I'll speak with Terrabod and see if we can come up with something!

[Verdant Haven]

Ok, we've replaced Choice 2 with something that should be a bit clearer in terms of what it's doing, and gave it an effect line that might help account for the idea of "what about non-political content?"

[Verdant Haven]

A new full draft is up! Changelog is as follows:

2nd draft changelog:

Description - slightly shortened and cleaned up the text for readability

Choice 1 - Tweaked to clarify requested action, cleaned up flow of language

Choice 2 - Similar to above, made the requested action clearer and cleaned up flow of language

Choice 3 - Shortened and clarified the wording to make it more to the point

Choice 4 - Modified to give the speaker and proposal a more consistent flavor

[Terrabod]

Thanks for looking at our draft; let us know if you have any comments! We hope to submit this quite soon so we appreciate your feedback.

[Verdant Haven]

Thanks for looking at our draft; let us know if you have any comments! We hope to submit this quite soon so we appreciate your feedback.

I've updated the thread to Last Call IAW Terrabod's post! Let us know if you have any final thoughts :-)