So let me ask you something. We all know that a big part of shaping public opinion online is simply just being exposed to an opinion repeated over and over again. Like when someone says something and then has multiple rebuttals that are similar. Or like when we read an opinion over and over again that is not contested. Given what you said, how do we make headway in shaping opinions publicly by disengaging and allowing their opinions to freely go uncontested. If online debate is a waste of time, why are the just powerful and richest people investing in shaping it while you tell others to disengage
If you’re interested in shaping public opinion I think you need to ask yourself why you are on Lemmy instead of somewhere else?
(Not OP)
Because the “somewhere elses” all have their own fucked up problems, like algorithms that optimise for combativeness, and corporate control of various debates. Lemmy has the potential to provide a viable alternative, and it needs content in order to get big enough to do it. It’s the long game.
the “somewhere elses” all have their own fucked up problems, like algorithms that optimise for combativeness, and corporate control of various debates
I think keeping this in mind is key. When corporations have full control of these debates we realize maybe we’re wasting our time trying to appeal to their algorithms and should just build a new space without it.
Inherently the new space will be a little smaller and reach less people, but we value that because it gives us a bit more room to speak.
So let me ask you something. We all know that a big part of shaping public opinion online is simply just being exposed to an opinion repeated over and over again. Like when someone says something and then has multiple rebuttals that are similar. Or like when we read an opinion over and over again that is not contested. Given what you said, how do we make headway in shaping opinions publicly by disengaging and allowing their opinions to freely go uncontested. If online debate is a waste of time, why are the just powerful and richest people investing in shaping it while you tell others to disengage
To engage you’d have to go into those public spaces, go back to reddit, YouTube comment sections, Facebook groups, etc.
Because the powerful and richest have more money and power than you do.
If you’re interested in shaping public opinion I think you need to ask yourself why you are on Lemmy instead of somewhere else?
(Not OP) Because the “somewhere elses” all have their own fucked up problems, like algorithms that optimise for combativeness, and corporate control of various debates. Lemmy has the potential to provide a viable alternative, and it needs content in order to get big enough to do it. It’s the long game.
Great answer.
I think keeping this in mind is key. When corporations have full control of these debates we realize maybe we’re wasting our time trying to appeal to their algorithms and should just build a new space without it.
Inherently the new space will be a little smaller and reach less people, but we value that because it gives us a bit more room to speak.