Fight!

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the current state of online discourse and the negative impacts of the incentive structures of social media platforms, which are fueling polarization, conspiracy theories, and a lack of empathy. It calls for individuals to take back control of their attention and choose to engage with more trustworthy communicators.

🙋 Q&A

[01] The Current State of Online Discourse

1. What are the key issues with the current state of online discourse described in the article?

• The online conversation is "awash with fevered conspiracy theories and degenerate grandstanding by an endless parade of digitally addled hucksters seeking to exploit tragedy for personal gain"
• The "loudest, most craven voices are winning a game that doles out rewards to those who will do whatever it takes to win attention, with no regard for truth or trust"
• Other platforms are "down-ranking news and politics, preferring suppression to whatever it would otherwise be loosed by their machines"
• The incentives of the current system "get stronger with polarization, feeding on conflict and histrionics"
• It has become "increasingly difficult to see each other's humanity" as political disagreements become increasingly extreme

2. How does the article characterize the current tone and tenor of online discourse?

• The article states that in the current system, "Biden isn't just bad—he's an evil globalist lizard person" and "Trump isn't just disgraceful—he's a democracy-destroying demon"
• It describes the discourse as being filled with "Democrats are despicable! Republicans are traitors! Hamilton gives you herpes!"

[02] Proposed Solutions

1. What does the article suggest individuals can do to improve the state of online discourse?

• "We can refuse to accept the system's rules and hold ourselves above them"
• "We can choose to spend our attention intentionally instead of endlessly scrolling for dopamine hits"
• "We can choose to reward the communicators we most trust with direct support"
• "You can slow down. You can take a breath. You can take back your mind."

2. Why does the article say this is not a problem that can be solved by political leaders alone?

• The article states that "to change the conversation—not just its contents, but also its tenor and tone—we need to change the incentives of a system that has ensnared us in its addiction feeds. But we don't need to rely on political leaders to do that. We can do it ourselves."