[HN Gopher] Debubble
___________________________________________________________________
Debubble
Author : apsec112
Score : 103 points
Date : 2020-07-03 23:21 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (debubble.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (debubble.me)
| stepstop wrote:
| > But context is often lost and then incorrectly inferred.
| Twitter is one big misunderstanding.
|
| This seems like a misunderstanding of the effect of Twitter. If
| you click on any individual tweet during a /x thread or debate,
| you'll see detestable and repugnant replies. People do not want
| to participate, they just want to criticize
| adamsea wrote:
| Seems like the people who need this the most are the least likely
| to use it.
| putlake wrote:
| From the name I assumed it was about breaking out of filter
| bubbles, which is something I'm very interested in. A couple of
| years ago I created a news mixer that pulled stories from left
| and right-leaning outlets and intermingled them:
| https://smashthebubble.com/
|
| Since RSS is pretty much dead, it was hard to find the right
| feeds for US politics from each source. So you may see some non-
| political stories there from time to time.
| senderista wrote:
| Why would I want my news to be equal parts Breitbart and Daily
| Kos?
| [deleted]
| gurkendoktor wrote:
| Maybe the situation was different 35 minutes ago, but neither
| source is featured on the site. It actually looks pretty
| decent, but I shouldn't spend more time on US news.
| tenuousemphasis wrote:
| This seems to make the mistake that by looking at two
| oppositely biased sources you can come to a reasonable
| conclusion about truth.
| lucio wrote:
| at least you'll be aware of bubbles.
| FailMore wrote:
| As someone who has promoted debubble in other HN comments [1], I
| thought I'd share my own discussion platform I'm building too:
|
| Taaalk (https://taaalk.co/) is less focused around debate, and
| more around exploring topics:
|
| E.g. OCD: https://taaalk.co/t/exploring-obsessive-compulsive-
| disorder Eating disorders: https://taaalk.co/t/discussing-eating-
| disorders Bitcoin: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-
| crypto-things Flag design: https://taaalk.co/t/the-power-and-
| significance-of-flags Chess: https://taaalk.co/t/how-to-think-
| about-chess Psychedelics & Mental Health:
| https://taaalk.co/t/falling-inward-discussing-the-role-of-ps...
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23728449
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| I'm sure Debubble.me means well, but misses the mark with respect
| to why people use Twitter. It's entertainment first and foremost.
| I would be interested to hear the creator's user research.
|
| Framing every argument as a debate is disingenuous. A debate
| implies that both sides are of equal merit, debating only works
| between two people of similar values. I.E. if I'm debating a
| Nazi, it's hard to "debate" nearly anything in the sphere of
| politics because they do not believe all people are equal.
|
| Third, what of debates that have largely been settled by
| consensus? Would a flat earther be able to enter into debates
| with me whenever I retweet a photo from NASA? Debating assumes
| that either side is going to play by a certain set of rules. How
| does this prevent a DDOS via Ad Hominem?
| brandonmenc wrote:
| > Have you ever tried to follow or, God forbid, participate in a
| debate on Twitter or any social network or online forum?
|
| Not for many years because - to paraphrase the comedian Norm
| Macdonald - social media posts are the equivalent of bathroom
| graffiti.
|
| imo the medium itself is the problem, and no amount of external
| tooling will fix that.
| dcow wrote:
| I've been sketching out ideas for a tool that tries to solve the
| online discussion problem, too. The conclusion I have come to is
| that you need to actually have a minimum word requirement in
| addition to a limit. I like the idea of rounds but have always
| felt structured debate was easily game-able. I think there also
| needs to be some form of moderation, whether managed or
| community, whereby interested volunteers can help guide the
| course of the argument if it starts devolving. I would love to
| try this tool but I don't use twitter ):
| Joeri wrote:
| I've been thinking for a while along similar lines for a
| discussion platform, but came to a different conclusion. I
| think the trick is turning weakness into strength. People
| really want to fight, they want to make bold statements, and
| they don't want to take the time to read or write long nuanced
| arguments. What if you made something that leaned into that?
|
| I was thinking about a CMV sort of site where you can tweet a
| reply to a view in support or in disapproval, sorting
| automatically in two halves of the page, and people can like
| those tweets. It would allow the strongest pro/con arguments
| from either side to bubble to the top, and the short length of
| a tweet and inability to chain multiple together would require
| succinct and single arguments. The site would rank views by
| recent replies, which would reward controversy with attention
| and draw out more responses.
| searchableguy wrote:
| > The site would rank views by recent replies, which would
| reward controversy with attention and draw out more responses
|
| How will you stop it from becoming 4chan in a different
| layout?
| flir wrote:
| At this point I'd be much more interested in a tool designed by
| someone who was an expert in dispute resolution - a
| relationship counsellor, say. Something that emphasizes points
| of similarity to build on them, not points of difference to
| amplify them.
|
| "Debate" is entirely the wrong model. It's about winners and
| losers. How about a tool for dialogue?
| sethammons wrote:
| Look into "non-violent communication." From their website:
|
| > Through the practice of NVC, we can learn to clarify what
| we are observing, what emotions we are feeling, what values
| we want to live by, and what we want to ask of ourselves and
| others. We will no longer need to use the language of blame,
| judgment or domination. We can experience the deep pleasure
| of contributing to each others' well being.
|
| I'm most definitely not a self-help book person. A colleague
| and friend at work introduced me to the book. I found it very
| convincing for a way to approach communication in a way that
| tries to make all parties better.
| dcow wrote:
| Yup, I'm interested in the policy direction. Assuming a good
| tool existed, could we use such a tool to drive policy
| decisions? I think part of the solution is reconnecting
| people with a channel for political agency.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Ditto. If there is no email sign-up I will not sign up.
| Fogest wrote:
| This project in discussion is using Twitter so you do require
| an email and more.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Great idea!
|
| Somewhat offtopic but I'd like to see videos of average or below
| educated, hyper partisan people debating. I feel like it would be
| enlightening for people with strong opinions.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Someone on HN made a site called "how truthful". I thought that
| was a good idea too. Two people create one to debate a topic and
| they drill down into each fact until they get to something they
| agree on.
|
| I can't seem to find it now. It seemed like a good idea.
|
| Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21687403.
| (The video probably explains it best
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PXvU1h44jVw)
| jsf01 wrote:
| This seems like a good approach. Often we either have a
| different set of underlying assumptions/facts or different
| axioms. For the former case, the "how truthful" approach makes
| a lot of sense.
| thih9 wrote:
| I enjoyed the demo debate on the landing page and I'd like to see
| more.
|
| Are there any examples of this being used by actual users?
| Kerrick wrote:
| Even after signing up, I am unable to find any arguments to
| browse, star, or participate in.
| toby wrote:
| Same. A matching site should at least seed with some content,
| I'm just staring at a blank screen.
| searchableguy wrote:
| I like the design of the site. It's simple and easy to follow. I
| would appreciate if you had more login options and examples than
| simply twitter. I don't see an option to edit the title or delete
| a debate/point. I think it would be reasonable to give people
| option to bury the debate or change the course within a
| reasonable time period.
|
| Why debubble won't work: https://debubble.me/opi6znpcml
|
| Social media is a net positive: https://debubble.me/axyrntvh4e
|
| Let's debate or debubble?
| devwastaken wrote:
| Debate doesn't do well in vague topics and the internet. If you
| care about the truth then you debate people that have the
| knowledge you're disagreeing with. That's difficult online
| because it turns into a sourcefest, where each party just gives
| links and you have no time to be sorting through that
| information, nor the expertise necessary to understand it. Like
| any time psychology studies are brought out. Theres so much work
| involved in getting to the truth.
|
| I like the idea of how civil courts work with evidence. Each
| party has weeks to prepare refutal to the other, and no one can
| communicate with the judge without the other party present.
| teddyh wrote:
| By limiting the length and number of responses, the debate is
| trivially vulnerable to the Gish gallop1.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
| thih9 wrote:
| Gish gallop seems most effective in live debates and in
| discussions with limited third party interactions.
|
| Online it should be possible to link a third party article that
| explains a misconception in detail. Or to request an
| independent fact check.
|
| It probably won't make Gish gallop completely harmless, but
| hopefully it would reduce its effectiveness.
| teddyh wrote:
| Hyperlinks are, like most things, a two-edged sword.
|
| If you allow hyperlinks, any Gish galloper could also use
| that to link to enormous texts of gallops with even more
| misinformation and half-truths.
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| The gish gallop is still extremely effective online, as you
| can see it in widespread use in almost every HN comments
| section. Simply quote every 3rd sentence of the source
| comment and reply with 'citation needed'. This takes 30
| seconds and will tie up the other side for hours. When they
| finally collect a reputable source for every claim, just
| repeat with sample size, perceived bias of the publisher, or
| 'did they control for X?'. Even if they eventually untangle
| themselves from this web, you've won anyway because you
| framed the flame war about the truthfullness of the base
| facts and not their policy positions.
| thih9 wrote:
| You give an example of requesting sources. I think wouldn't
| mind having more of that in twitter debates.
|
| I see how this could be a time waster, but I see the
| benefits too and I'd say that more often than not we forget
| about checking sources.
|
| Also, in a debate (which is usually longer and more focused
| than discussions elsewhere online), both sides can use this
| tactic. In this case the person with better sources seems
| more likely to win. Again, this looks OK-ish to me.
| nihil75 wrote:
| I'm going to stop clicking on "cryptic" one-word HN posts.
| ThouYS wrote:
| Interesting, would love to see some argument graphs included in
| this. Too often debates don't work because nobody is attacking
| the arguments, but just some stuff around them, anecdotes,
| insults, etc.
|
| I would love to see some formalization of attacking an axiom vs
| attack what follows from that axiom. If you formalize arguments,
| users could pick if they disagree with the conjecture or what
| follows from it.
|
| And in the end you could nicely display the entire argument as a
| graph showing who doesn't agree with what, what gets canceled out
| by what etc.
| Kerrick wrote:
| Isn't this the primary value proposition of Arguman?
| https://en.arguman.org/everything-in-the-universe-is-either-...
| imustbeevil wrote:
| I wouldn't find value if arguments about the Confederate flag
| or the morality of eating meat ended in that level of
| nonsense.
|
| We're trying to talk about reality in a way where we can make
| decisions about it. If only 63% of people can agree that
| "true != false" then it will be impossible to build any
| arguments on top of priors.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| It's far too common for civility to be lost in an online
| argument. A platform like Debubble may do well to include a
| reference to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement[1] to keep a
| debate from going off the rails.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-05 23:00 UTC)