2019/Brighton/betterui

How to disagree online → A better Twitter was a session at IndieWebCamp Brighton 2019.

IndieWebCamp Brighton 2019
Session: How to disagree online → A better Twitter
When: 2019-10-19 11:40

Participants

Twitter without silos
find a way to pull content from different sources (web, Twitter)
UI to list, categorize content
a way to associate 'tweets' with each other on a base of subject
a way to split them into 'arguments' and 'counterarguments'
There is a website kialo.com
- Each claim has pros and cons; each of those has a claim and counterclaim too.
- How can that be indie?
- Not a way to change people's minds, but a way to get closer to the truth.
- Depends on people being rational and logical to get a clear view of the truth.
- snopes.com ; fact-checking organizations
One of many that are checking "truthiness".
Some of which are very well funded.
Verifiable claims; in future, could you verify that somebody said something, e.g. In an interview
Make the claims machine readable.

Problems:

TWitter's mtivation (as a company) is unknown and not transparent.

Everybody should be able to say anything, and it is up to us to decide whether to listen to them or not.

- But they can say what they want on their own site, just not on Twitter.
recommendation algorithm is not transparent; it might be in favour of the Twitter profit model, insted of the end-user
- Twitter has a monopoly, and competition cant do a tool that would give a better value to the users (i.e. with better recommendation algorithm)
- users cant leave their filter buble
@Jeremy: Twitter is poisonous, why would you use that?
algorithm is hidden. It's up to Twitter whether it works ok for us or not.
If alternative content readers could be created; we would have bigger competition (and transparency?) for recommendation algorithms
@Juan: Twitter is good to just have content to listen to; but... (?)

UI:

@Juan: I want to have a better way to see content

What about citation and references to viewpoints

Is non scientific / mathematic (verifiable / quantifiable) content bound for entropy? Is poor online discourse evidence of this?