Danterious

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/11168397

F.Y.I: This is a thought experiment, Not a prediction, that I am trying out and I would like feedback. I got the idea from a forecasting book where you choose something true today and flip it so it isn't true 10 years from now plus giving the reason why (the book's name was imaginable). I am trying to do that and include a more detailed timeline of events.

Statement: Most Social Media platforms are funded through advertisements.

Flipped Statement: In ten years most social media platforms aren't funded through advertisements.

2024

• Economic pressures cause more social media companies to push for a greater return on investment which in turn causes them to push for more ads, higher premiums, and more actively blocking loopholes.

• The fediverse continues to grow in numbers and more organizations start using the platform as their main base of operations because it gives them more control over how they want to present themselves and a more fine-grained look into user data which they in turn use to optimize their content.

• The US presidential election causes a lot of turmoil on social media platforms as there becomes a more active effort to push people's opinions in one way or another causing some burnout and pushing people to either move to alternative platforms where there is less active interference or a general downturn in social media use in general.

2025-2026

• An increase in data breaches worldwide causes a renewed effort to make self-hosting data servers cheaper and more accessible for customers which leads to some development in personal hosting of data.

• Social media platforms that mainly run through creator-based content begin to start changing terms of service to extract more revenue from the creators, such as changes to how much of a cut the platform gets when a creator is being sponsored among other things. This leads to a backlash among creators who in response put in more effort to move into paid subscription services like Nebula.

• Some drama happens between For-profit companies joining the fediverse and some servers colluding with such companies which in turn causes some major user pushback and a shift in the user distribution among the servers. This also causes servers to more explicitly enshrine an attitude against for-profit companies in their code of ethics. Servers are still run on donations but donating is more encouraged than before.

2027-2028

• There is an ongoing resurgence of indie creators who start gaining traction and decide to start moving to alternative platforms such as Nebula to gain a more direct stream of revenue. This in turn draws some attention away from mainstream social media platforms. These alternative platforms also allow creators to start setting some of their videos to be free to watch so that the platform itself gets more traction and viewers.

• Software and hardware developers are creating better networking solutions so the burden of traffic becomes less of a problem over time allowing for hosting services to handle higher traffic more cheaply.

• Companies who are trying to streamline their business to gain more profits start trying to find where they can make budget cuts. After seeing smaller businesses succeed with more direct social media advertising and AI technology has advanced a bit decided to try and automate the promotion of products at the right time and right place using fake user accounts. As a consequence, they significantly reduce their spending on direct advertising on social media sites.

• After more election shenanigans happen but this time more supercharged than before there is a push for more walled-off communities where it is easier to have relations with users and identify bad actors. This second surge affects the admins of the fediverse, who after dealing with some interference before decide to take a more cautious approach in accepting new users and setting up ways of monitoring the effects of the choices they make (the admins' choices not users') PS: This is assuming US elections still take place at this time but even if it doesn't I believe these techniques might still become more common anyways.

2029-2030

• The user experience of the fediverse has improved a lot as there are more features for users, it is easier to moderate, and hosting servers are much cheaper. The fediverse would now be considered semi-mainstream.

• Due to shifts in marketing spending, mainstream social media companies decide to pivot their funding strategy and instead tap into their massive pre-existing databases, advanced algorithms, and knowledge of social phenomenons to produce more directly profitable products for other companies like creating their automated promotion bots, advising on distribution techniques based on detailed user data, etc.

• Some creator-driven platforms have started to implement a format where they make all of their videos free to watch and it is now a platform where you subscribe with how much you want to subscribe and the profit is distributed based on what the viewers watch.

This isn't necessarily the timeframe that I think things will happen just the most convenient numbers I could think of.

Also, does anyone know of any communities where they make narrative predictions of the future similar to this? I've heard of prediction markets where there are numeric forecasts and reasons why you make certain predictions but they usually don't flesh out their reasoning steps that happen from point A to point B which doesn't help give a more fleshed-out understanding of the world.

F.Y.I: This is a thought experiment, Not a prediction, that I am trying out and I would like feedback. I got the idea from a forecasting book where you choose something true today and flip it so it isn't true 10 years from now plus giving the reason why (the book's name was imaginable). I am trying to do that and include a more detailed timeline of events.

Statement: Most Social Media platforms are funded through advertisements.

Flipped Statement: In ten years most social media platforms aren't funded through advertisements.

2024

• Economic pressures cause more social media companies to push for a greater return on investment which in turn causes them to push for more ads, higher premiums, and more actively blocking loopholes.

• The fediverse continues to grow in numbers and more organizations start using the platform as their main base of operations because it gives them more control over how they want to present themselves and a more fine-grained look into user data which they in turn use to optimize their content.

• The US presidential election causes a lot of turmoil on social media platforms as there becomes a more active effort to push people's opinions in one way or another causing some burnout and pushing people to either move to alternative platforms where there is less active interference or a general downturn in social media use in general.

2025-2026

• An increase in data breaches worldwide causes a renewed effort to make self-hosting data servers cheaper and more accessible for customers which leads to some development in personal hosting of data.

• Social media platforms that mainly run through creator-based content begin to start changing terms of service to extract more revenue from the creators, such as changes to how much of a cut the platform gets when a creator is being sponsored among other things. This leads to a backlash among creators who in response put in more effort to move into paid subscription services like Nebula.

• Some drama happens between For-profit companies joining the fediverse and some servers colluding with such companies which in turn causes some major user pushback and a shift in the user distribution among the servers. This also causes servers to more explicitly enshrine an attitude against for-profit companies in their code of ethics. Servers are still run on donations but donating is more encouraged than before.

2027-2028

• There is an ongoing resurgence of indie creators who start gaining traction and decide to start moving to alternative platforms such as Nebula to gain a more direct stream of revenue. This in turn draws some attention away from mainstream social media platforms. These alternative platforms also allow creators to start setting some of their videos to be free to watch so that the platform itself gets more traction and viewers.

• Software and hardware developers are creating better networking solutions so the burden of traffic becomes less of a problem over time allowing for hosting services to handle higher traffic more cheaply.

• Companies who are trying to streamline their business to gain more profits start trying to find where they can make budget cuts. After seeing smaller businesses succeed with more direct social media advertising and AI technology has advanced a bit decided to try and automate the promotion of products at the right time and right place using fake user accounts. As a consequence, they significantly reduce their spending on direct advertising on social media sites.

• After more election shenanigans happen but this time more supercharged than before there is a push for more walled-off communities where it is easier to have relations with users and identify bad actors. This second surge affects the admins of the fediverse, who after dealing with some interference before decide to take a more cautious approach in accepting new users and setting up ways of monitoring the effects of the choices they make (the admins' choices not users') PS: This is assuming US elections still take place at this time but even if it doesn't I believe these techniques might still become more common anyways.

2029-2030

• The user experience of the fediverse has improved a lot as there are more features for users, it is easier to moderate, and hosting servers are much cheaper. The fediverse would now be considered semi-mainstream.

• Due to shifts in marketing spending, mainstream social media companies decide to pivot their funding strategy and instead tap into their massive pre-existing databases, advanced algorithms, and knowledge of social phenomenons to produce more directly profitable products for other companies like creating their automated promotion bots, advising on distribution techniques based on detailed user data, etc.

• Some creator-driven platforms have started to implement a format where they make all of their videos free to watch and it is now a platform where you subscribe with how much you want to subscribe and the profit is distributed based on what the viewers watch.

This isn't necessarily the timeframe that I think things will happen just the most convenient numbers I could think of.

Also, does anyone know of any communities where they make narrative predictions of the future similar to this? I've heard of prediction markets where there are numeric forecasts and reasons why you make certain predictions but they usually don't flesh out their reasoning steps that happen from point A to point B which doesn't help give a more fleshed-out understanding of the world.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2491711

I was wondering if there was a community where admins of different instances got together and chat in general about decisions for how they run their instances.

Sort of like an informal U.N. for Lemmy admins.

I was wondering if there was a community where admins of different instances got together and chat in general about decisions for how they run their instances.

Sort of like an informal U.N. for Lemmy admins.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2421185

Safe spaces are places that help build community and support between people that are marginalized in wider society (like LGBTQ+, African/Native/Asian Americans, autistic people, etc.)

In our day and age this is necessary because the wider world can be hostile to ideas and behaviours that push against the social norm. These ideas and behaviours that are expressed in these communities are, almost by definition, actively pushing against the social norm and trying to advocate for new and better social norms.

The way that these ideas are attacked can either be direct or indirect in their nature but all of the attacks essentially boils down to unhelpful criticism of the core idea.

For example, if someone made a comment about LGBTQ+ rights and how they need to be advocated more in general society but then someone else comes along and questions whether or not there is any fundamental inequality between LGBTQ+ people and wider society they are implicitly stifling conversation through questioning the core premise of inequality which stops further conversation.

Criticism can be great and help expose weaknesses in initial ideas but at the same time, it also can end up stifling creativity and discussion when people don't feel emotionally safe sharing their views with others in the community.

This is exactly why ideas can be fragile. Even great ideas and behaviours can end up being forgotten or abandoned because people excessively criticize them without actually developing them further.

This is why safe spaces are important to help nurture and build ideas/behaviours that otherwise would have a hard time gaining traction and help develop them so they become more resilient.

So how do we balance the need for critique and support in communities?

I think a good way of doing this would be to encourage constructive dissent - disagreeing in ways that help build on top of an idea instead of directly stifling it.

This is done by accepting the core premise from the person you are talking to and finding ways to make the idea/behaviour they presented better.

This is exactly why in improv it is important to have the attitude of "Yes, and" because otherwise the scene won't go anywhere and will either be stuck or completely dissolve.

Takeaway:

We need more communities where ideas can be built on top of each other instead of just being beaten down.

Safe spaces are places that help build community and support between people that are marginalized in wider society (like LGBTQ+, African/Native/Asian Americans, autistic people, etc.)

In our day and age this is necessary because the wider world can be hostile to ideas and behaviours that push against the social norm. These ideas and behaviours that are expressed in these communities are, almost by definition, actively pushing against the social norm and trying to advocate for new and better social norms.

The way that these ideas are attacked can either be direct or indirect in their nature but all of the attacks essentially boils down to unhelpful criticism of the core idea.

For example, if someone made a comment about LGBTQ+ rights and how they need to be advocated more in general society but then someone else comes along and questions whether or not there is any fundamental inequality between LGBTQ+ people and wider society they are implicitly stifling conversation through questioning the core premise of inequality which stops further conversation.

Criticism can be great and help expose weaknesses in initial ideas but at the same time, it also can end up stifling creativity and discussion when people don't feel emotionally safe sharing their views with others in the community.

This is exactly why ideas can be fragile. Even great ideas and behaviours can end up being forgotten or abandoned because people excessively criticize them without actually developing them further.

This is why safe spaces are important to help nurture and build ideas/behaviours that otherwise would have a hard time gaining traction and help develop them so they become more resilient.

So how do we balance the need for critique and support in communities?

I think a good way of doing this would be to encourage constructive dissent - disagreeing in ways that help build on top of an idea instead of directly stifling it.

This is done by accepting the core premise from the person you are talking to and finding ways to make the idea/behaviour they presented better.

This is exactly why in improv it is important to have the attitude of "Yes, and" because otherwise the scene won't go anywhere and will either be stuck or completely dissolve.

Takeaway:

We need more communities where ideas can be built on top of each other instead of just being beaten down.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2313987

I have noticed that alot of people think the majority of people are stupid based on the things they read online or maybe even experience in real life but I think that there is better explanation than just assuming people are stupid.

A common example people bring up to show that other people are stupid is mentioning how a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories ( such as Qanon or Flat earth) and point out how they are objectively false therefore the people that believe it are stupid.

However when you examine these beliefs in more depth there is obviously some amount of internal logic that is used to justify these beliefs to themselves and others in the group.

You can go to flat earthers forum and they can give huge amounts of "evidence" about how light shouldn't be visible after 50 kms if the earth was round or how in Qanon there are probably people who have whole boards detailed with connections between how and where democrats participate in satanic rituals but my point is that all conspiracy theories tend to form one cohesive narrative like a collective story that are building.

To be able to make a story that is this detailed it definitely required some amount of forethought and reasoning to make it so everyone in the group reaches the same collective understanding.

This then might lead you to ask why are people susceptible to these ideas and what makes them stick. Well I think that it boils down to three different things.

1. Our collective feeling that things aren't going well
2. Our general distrust in current authorities
3. Our collective belief that an authority is good/necessary

When you look at how people tend to be influenced into accepting these beliefs it also follows this same general pattern.

1. People feel that some part of their life isn't going well and that current institutions aren't helping them anymore.
2. A guru/influencer shows up and offers advice (sometimes good advice) to fix their problem
3. People then start trusting these gurus/influencers and seeing them as authorities
4. Finally these people take what these gurus/influencers say at face value and build internal lore for their community that makes sense to them given that they accept what the new authority says as fact.

If you want to tackle the root of what makes people susceptible to these ideas you have to tackle those three things or else people will fall into those same traps just with different authorities saying different things.

Also as a semi-related point there are a million and one things that an individual can choose to focus on and become knowledgable about so whilst some people spend that mental capacity on understanding tech or politics others spend that mental capacity on flat earth theory or UFOs.

Main point:

So all of this is to say I think that people aren't stupid and that we should not treat them as they are such instead if we understand that they are capable of complex reason but they are starting with different base knowledge it'll be easier to empathize with others. Also if we want society to be less susceptible to this we need to fix one or all of the three things I mentioned that makes us susceptible.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2313987

I have noticed that alot of people think the majority of people are stupid based on the things they read online or maybe even experience in real life but I think that there is better explanation than just assuming people are stupid.

A common example people bring up to show that other people are stupid is mentioning how a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories ( such as Qanon or Flat earth) and point out how they are objectively false therefore the people that believe it are stupid.

However when you examine these beliefs in more depth there is obviously some amount of internal logic that is used to justify these beliefs to themselves and others in the group.

You can go to flat earthers forum and they can give huge amounts of "evidence" about how light shouldn't be visible after 50 kms if the earth was round or how in Qanon there are probably people who have whole boards detailed with connections between how and where democrats participate in satanic rituals but my point is that all conspiracy theories tend to form one cohesive narrative like a collective story that are building.

To be able to make a story that is this detailed it definitely required some amount of forethought and reasoning to make it so everyone in the group reaches the same collective understanding.

This then might lead you to ask why are people susceptible to these ideas and what makes them stick. Well I think that it boils down to three different things.

1. Our collective feeling that things aren't going well
2. Our general distrust in current authorities
3. Our collective belief that an authority is good/necessary

When you look at how people tend to be influenced into accepting these beliefs it also follows this same general pattern.

1. People feel that some part of their life isn't going well and that current institutions aren't helping them anymore.
2. A guru/influencer shows up and offers advice (sometimes good advice) to fix their problem
3. People then start trusting these gurus/influencers and seeing them as authorities
4. Finally these people take what these gurus/influencers say at face value and build internal lore for their community that makes sense to them given that they accept what the new authority says as fact.

If you want to tackle the root of what makes people susceptible to these ideas you have to tackle those three things or else people will fall into those same traps just with different authorities saying different things.

Also as a semi-related point there are a million and one things that an individual can choose to focus on and become knowledgable about so whilst some people spend that mental capacity on understanding tech or politics others spend that mental capacity on flat earth theory or UFOs.

Main point:

So all of this is to say I think that people aren't stupid and that we should not treat them as they are such instead if we understand that they are capable of complex reason but they are starting with different base knowledge it'll be easier to empathize with others. Also if we want society to be less susceptible to this we need to fix one or all of the three things I mentioned that makes us susceptible.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2313987

I have noticed that alot of people think the majority of people are stupid based on the things they read online or maybe even experience in real life but I think that there is better explanation than just assuming people are stupid.

A common example people bring up to show that other people are stupid is mentioning how a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories ( such as Qanon or Flat earth) and point out how they are objectively false therefore the people that believe it are stupid.

However when you examine these beliefs in more depth there is obviously some amount of internal logic that is used to justify these beliefs to themselves and others in the group.

You can go to flat earthers forum and they can give huge amounts of "evidence" about how light shouldn't be visible after 50 kms if the earth was round or how in Qanon there are probably people who have whole boards detailed with connections between how and where democrats participate in satanic rituals but my point is that all conspiracy theories tend to form one cohesive narrative like a collective story that are building.

To be able to make a story that is this detailed it definitely required some amount of forethought and reasoning to make it so everyone in the group reaches the same collective understanding.

This then might lead you to ask why are people susceptible to these ideas and what makes them stick. Well I think that it boils down to three different things.

1. Our collective feeling that things aren't going well
2. Our general distrust in current authorities
3. Our collective belief that an authority is good/necessary

When you look at how people tend to be influenced into accepting these beliefs it also follows this same general pattern.

1. People feel that some part of their life isn't going well and that current institutions aren't helping them anymore.
2. A guru/influencer shows up and offers advice (sometimes good advice) to fix their problem
3. People then start trusting these gurus/influencers and seeing them as authorities
4. Finally these people take what these gurus/influencers say at face value and build internal lore for their community that makes sense to them given that they accept what the new authority says as fact.

If you want to tackle the root of what makes people susceptible to these ideas you have to tackle those three things or else people will fall into those same traps just with different authorities saying different things.

Also as a semi-related point there are a million and one things that an individual can choose to focus on and become knowledgable about so whilst some people spend that mental capacity on understanding tech or politics others spend that mental capacity on flat earth theory or UFOs.

Main point:

So all of this is to say I think that people aren't stupid and that we should not treat them as they are such instead if we understand that they are capable of complex reason but they are starting with different base knowledge it'll be easier to empathize with others. Also if we want society to be less susceptible to this we need to fix one or all of the three things I mentioned that makes us susceptible.