Unclear how groups will solve any problems here, other than actually preventing individual freedom of speech, so arguably even more draconian that the authoritarian examples cited in the article. At least it is making the attempt to square the circle of free speech vs social cohesion, though I suspect in the end, one of the two is going to have give
My theory on why social media has a net bad effect on society is that it devolves into an internet mob generation machine. Mob's are almost guaranteed to be unintelligent. They destroy individual discourse and they quell independent thought. There is a lot of truth to the quote that "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..." -- Ed Solomon, Men in Black. Social media flips us from "a person" to "people"<p>Social Media makes us dumber because it tries to force us into mobs. The problem I think is caused by engagement metrics. They optimize for mobs because mobs are the easiest form of engagement to measure. I'm not even sure you <i>can</i> measure the better forms of engagement to be honest. Which perhaps means that this isn't fixable without destroying Social Networks as a business.
While I like Jared and the ideas that he puts forward, I can’t help but feel that in reality they would fail abysmally.<p>Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns. Why would these people want to join a social group and only post through that group? Also, why would it limit misinformation? Aren’t there already communities of these like minded people who are even more extreme?
Just turn it off. Are we really losing anything (besides shareholder value) if FB, Twitter, Tiktok, LinkedIn and Instagram all disappear?<p>What positive have any of those platforms delivered that outweighs the tremendous burden they have externalized on society?