Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

I say unpopular things but never something I know to be untrue. Always open to hear good-faith counter arguments. My goal is to engage in dialogue that seeks truth rather than scoring points.

  • 2 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 4 days ago
cake
Cake day: November 21st, 2024

help-circle
  • Few days ago someone said reddit is mostly bots and when I said I went and checked the profiles of 10 different top commentors from the most popular subs and said that none of them seemed like bots to me I was then essentially told that they mimic real humans so well that it’s impossible to tell.

    So in other words it’s not actually mostly bots but this is just a narrative the people hating on reddit want to believe in. If it was actually mostly bots it would be easy to verify by opening 3 random profiles. Atleast one of those should be a bot.








  • I’ve often thought about how social media might change if we had a fair way to rank users based on the quality of the content they post - perhaps with the help of a benign and truly competent AI for example. This AI could analyze everyone’s post history to assess how they engage with others. People who are intellectually honest and participate in good faith would be ranked higher, while those making broad generalizations, demonizing others, being mean, or just low-effort shitposting would rank lower.

    If enough people fed up with online toxicity enabled such a filter, the most toxic users would suddenly find themselves shouting into the void. This would discourage toxic behavior and encourage users to put more thought and effort into their contributions. Unlike the current system, where saying popular things can easily rack up upvotes, this tool would hold people accountable for the actual quality of their engagement.

    Ideally, everyone should be faced with information every day that they feel is a little uncomfortable and goes against their prior beliefs but also realise is probably true.