the ability to scream so loud that other voices can’t reach the audience.

Could you elaborate on that? It’s hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)

I personally think it’s more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).

If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.

So you’re not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?

But what’s the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they’re part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by… What, exactly?

According to which definition?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it either. But the only difference between someone knowingly propagating misinformation, and someone doing it because they honestly believe it to be true… is in their head. You can’t control for that (not should you want to, imho).

For that matter, repeat the misinformation enough, and the former group disappears until only the second group is left.

I’m a bit torn about this. On one hand I fully agree with you, let them stew in their filth. But on the other hand: I still have to live in a society where people who have been indoctrinated by their filter bubble get to vote.

Then on the first hand again: messing with their freedom of speech because I disagree with it is fucked up. It’s complicated.

Since the day twitter introduced their algorithmic timeline, they kept the option around to watch your feed chronologically. So the big “what if” of this articles headline is just “what if I just use twitter the way I could since it’s inception”.

Instead, rather than an algorithmic filter bubble, the author want a human-imposed filter bubble. So much better.

Does that mean that the only way of stopping my data from reaching Threads would be for them to defederate from my instance?

Ah, bummer. I thought I’d be in the clear because we’re having this conversation on Lemmy.ml. Thanks for straightening me out.

I might end up using a personal instance as well. But in that case I’ll probably end up with an instance whitelist, rather than defederating from disliked ones.

I wouldn’t put it past them to put tracking images into posts though. Either way… I wouldn’t be happy on a server that is connected to threads.

Speaking of which… I see lemmy world see still hasn’t defederated from Threads. I guess it’s time for me to kill my account here.

Ip address is only sent to a users home server though.

You forgot to put “temporarily” in your headline.

Hopefully: more gradual exposure to contrary opinions, allowing to decrease the amount of polarisation. Less filter bubbles, and more cooperation.

The problem with that is that you lose out on part of the comments.

That would still create a fragmented comment situation. Ideally, the server should be aware of “sister communities”, so it could merge the comment threads, or at least tell the client to do so. But that has all kinds of moderation implications, as noted elsewhere.

In the end you’re either doing federation on community level (which would require another level of federation administration - you can’t just merge like-named communities from Any instance), or you’d have to convince 1 community to go read only and refer to the “defacto” community.

The first one has a lot of technical hurdles (servers and clients would have to adapt, and then community admins would be responsible for deciding who to federate their communities with). The second depends on mods giving up their community, which is unlikely and undesirable in case of defederation. Or option 3: keep the status quo, of course.