One thing I think the article maybe misses. I love playing Civilization but when I play, I rarely win militarily, or in fact, at all. Instead I just build up and up and up until my winning feels like a foregone conclusion and then I quit and start a new game. Building up and up and up is fun. But actually building a huge military and marching it through my enemies and taking over is really slow and kind of a slog actually.
I see a similar dynamic going on online, over on twitter and stuff. I think many people think those people who enter their online filter bubbles and rarely leave do so because they know their worldview is fragile or they're afraid to be proven wrong or whatever but actually it's primarily just that being inside the filter bubble and slowly building an argument that you just know will crush your enemies is really fun and actually leaving the bubble to go do that crushing isn't that fun, it's kind of a slog actually.
Anyways it points to at least one technological mitigating factor, which is that the engagement with those opposite you needs to be gamified in a similar way to make it more appealing to more people. Going on twitter or reddit and openly disagreeing with someone inside their bubble means I'm likely to soon be arguing with about 12 different people who all disagree with me, often in different ways (very unfair/unfun to fight on a dozen fronts) or going 30 comments deep with someone (you can never actually win so there is no reward.) I think technology has found a lot of easy wins in creating engagement by building bubbles but all the things we really want to do with those bubbles - merge them, pop them, slowly dissipate them, transplant them, etc. still remain unsolved problems.
And since the article asked: 1. T 2. T 3. F 4. F 5. IDK/C 6. F 7. F
I see a similar dynamic going on online, over on twitter and stuff. I think many people think those people who enter their online filter bubbles and rarely leave do so because they know their worldview is fragile or they're afraid to be proven wrong or whatever but actually it's primarily just that being inside the filter bubble and slowly building an argument that you just know will crush your enemies is really fun and actually leaving the bubble to go do that crushing isn't that fun, it's kind of a slog actually.
Anyways it points to at least one technological mitigating factor, which is that the engagement with those opposite you needs to be gamified in a similar way to make it more appealing to more people. Going on twitter or reddit and openly disagreeing with someone inside their bubble means I'm likely to soon be arguing with about 12 different people who all disagree with me, often in different ways (very unfair/unfun to fight on a dozen fronts) or going 30 comments deep with someone (you can never actually win so there is no reward.) I think technology has found a lot of easy wins in creating engagement by building bubbles but all the things we really want to do with those bubbles - merge them, pop them, slowly dissipate them, transplant them, etc. still remain unsolved problems.
And since the article asked: 1. T 2. T 3. F 4. F 5. IDK/C 6. F 7. F