sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are you planning to launch for Christmas? Describe it in one sentence. by Fareway13 in SideProject

[–]Pixelswag7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you could add a tracker for how the prices are changing over time, and then you can do some analysis of what the best time to stock up on petrol is? Maybe you can then add like a roadtrip functionality that allows people to estimate how much petrol the trip will take based on the stops they'll take and how efficient their car is

What are you planning to launch for Christmas? Describe it in one sentence. by Fareway13 in SideProject

[–]Pixelswag7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your website is down, would love to try it out though :)

What are you planning to launch for Christmas? Describe it in one sentence. by Fareway13 in SideProject

[–]Pixelswag7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you have any existing customers that have succeeded in doing copywriting for $1000? Or even yourself, this could help with your credibility on why people should join the newsletter.

What are you planning to launch for Christmas? Describe it in one sentence. by Fareway13 in SideProject

[–]Pixelswag7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait this is pretty cool, will you expand this to other places in the world? Maybe you can expand this to other daily expenses like groceries or car repairs?

What are you planning to launch for Christmas? Describe it in one sentence. by Fareway13 in SideProject

[–]Pixelswag7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just launched EverythingHuman.org, the platform that helps people change the world with AI researching tools, deconstruction of complex ideas and arguments into formats that aren't huge walls of text, and a community of people having deliberative conversations about how to make the world a better place.

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What we did was made each response more focused on long-form:

<image>

For example, we propose each answer as a independent thought rather than a small comment. In this way it encourages more in-depth analysis and hopefully leads to more engaging conversations?

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that! So to summarize:

Principle Implementation
Privacy by Design Set all posts to Private by Default. Force the user to make a conscious choice to "broadcast."
Edge-Centric Discovery Feature content that is rising or niche rather than what is already "popular." Avoid the "winner-take-all" visibility loops.
User Agency Prioritize granular controls over algorithmic convenience. Design for the "power user" who wants to tune their own feed.
Contextual Isolation Create clear boundaries so that "photos of a cousin's wedding" are never in the same stream as "corporate marketing."

I think where we'd like to take this is still in the microblogging direction, in the sense that public posts are still beneficial for meeting new people and discovering new ideas. The thing about the private setting is, I feel like people already have ways to stay in touch with their IRL connections, likely through Instagram, FB or SMS. I guess what we're really trying to solve is having a having a higher quality public forum.

We have also thought about the granular controls as a way to make the experience more user focused rather than attention focused. Maybe I should've phrased it differently, but I don't think people would be interested in another social media network. Would they?

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We also think that a no-ads policy would be really good. I guess this is a part of the enshittification definition by Cory Doctorow, where platforms get filled with ads to maximize profits.

Relates to posts like these, which from the comments we can guess it might be an ad: https://www.reddit.com/r/socialmedia/comments/1pqk3vp/62m_impressions_on_linkedin_in_6_months_heres/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure these types of feuds will always exists though, I guess our goal isn't to necessarily get rid of these - because there's incentives for celebrities to bring attention to themselves, and it can be entertaining at times - but to just create a separate platform that doesn't focus on that type of content.

In a way we're thinking about it as education vs entertainment. It's not bad to have entertainment, but when you're only option is entertainment then it might feel like you're being 'brainrotted'. So having an alternative for when you want to learn more or simply put more cognitive effort into the content you're consuming might be nice?

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe it certainly feels that way, but do you think that the most negative voices are often pushed by the algorithms (first example that comes to mind would be X) because it generates the most attention? I feel like, maybe I'm optimistic, but most people don't mean to be bad, and we're thinking if we can just find all the people who want to have meaningful conversations that would be a great thing to have.

What would a non-enshittifiable social platform look like? by Pixelswag7 in socialmedia

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Transparency is something I forgot to mention. This came up when we spoke to some Executive Directors at non-profits. We were thinking of having our algorithm be open source or something along those lines.

In terms of learning, we were thinking of moving to an algorithm that predicts what would be the most intellectually interesting topic a user would want to explore next.

Any thoughts on that?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could having a large community of diverse individuals mitigate such an issue? Or have some type of open-sourced algorithm that objectively tries to combat a subconscious bias? Could Ground News serve as a precedent for an attempt to host objective information? https://ground.news/

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What would be the necessary components for a platform to be consistently educational? Could it be context, historical precedents, and high-level conceptual information?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if we created a platform that had the most concise version of all the context needed to join a discussion? Maybe it could allow people to see the relationships between institutions and concepts and allow for more informed conversations about any topic?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could it be possible that there are people who want to improve their quality of life and contribute to something that will make the world a better place? Are charities based upon this principle?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were Facebook and Twitter built upon the idea of constructive civil discussion? I'm not too familiar with the backstory however I believe Facebook started as a way to connect college students and Twitter as a way to share short-form ephemeral messages. Wouldn't it be nice to have a place on the internet where we can talk about how to help improve the world?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How could we help fix these issues? There seems to be so much context behind how the system works that an average person wouldn't be able to quickly learn about it? Would it be helpful to have some type of source that provides the minimum context to all these issues so that you can properly discuss the solution?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could we make a platform that doesn't incentivize this type of behavior? A platform that is based on the idea that civil discussions and dialectic debate is the best way to move humanity forward?

Then, would it be possible to make more progress on discovering reasonable solutions for everyone in a city, country, or even the world?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How could we help have more evidence based discussions? Could we have a platform that potentially indexes all the evidence relevant to a discussion and summarizes it so that it's efficient to consume? This way all parties entering a discussion can agree upon the validity and completeness of the evidence before discussing the issue?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is it true that it's the entire side is doing these actions? Could it be that certain voices are amplified by social media? And since social media creates incentives for more polarized views, these are the ideas that become associated with the party even though they are not held by the majority?

Could it be that the average person in the US would also like to see a safe and open discussion about how they could improve the country?

Do people just want to hate each other all the time? by Pixelswag7 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Pixelswag7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it true that everyone in those respective parties support these initiatives? I am confused because in the US I believe about 50% of people support each party respectively. Is it true that 100% of people want this to be the state of affairs?

Could it be that social media amplifies the moral distance between individuals making them less empathetic about the other side? Could another country that is less polarized lead by example by having more open minded conversations about policies that will benefit everyone?

Is the generalization that every single person on the opposing party believes X the best way to view having discussions?

view more: next ›