Category: social media

Of “echo chambers” and “preaching to the converted”

10th November 2022

Some places – like courts and legislatures – have shared rules for discourse.

But courts and legislatures are not “echo chambers”.

Certain things are not readily said, and certain hard things are to be said softly.

This is not because there are not disputes – and some differences may be fundamental and life-changing.

It is because shared rules for discourse enable constructive engagements and facilitate important exchanges.

*

But.

For some on the internet, the slightest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse triggers (ahem) the instant accusation that you want to be in an “echo chamber” or that you “want to preach to the converted” or want to be in “a bubble”.

These phrases – clichés – are usually substitutes for thought.

Yet so accustomed are many to the shoutiness and rancour of internet exchanges that the merest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse is seen as some sort of assault on “free speech”.

Shared rules are not, however, undermining of dialogue – they instead make meaningful dialogue possible.

Shouting at people – either in real life or on the internet – is a form of monologue, especially if it inhibits the other person from engaging, or saying something they would like to say.

As such the real echo chambers and preached at choirs are not platforms where there are shared rules, but places where such rules are disdained.

Places like Twitter.

*

On this blog I will write things which a number of readers will disagree with: Brexit (where I am ultimately neutral in principle, though critical in practice), codified constitutions (where I am sceptical), electoral reform (where I am wary), and so on.

And the commenters on this blog – many of whom provide comments that are better quality and more informed/informative than my head post – will engage, often with other perspectives.

You can then form your own view.

Pre-moderation and my “irksome” rule prevents comments derailing the discussion.

(And, in practice, few comments are not published.)

As such, I do not think this blog is an “echo chamber”, or that I am “preaching to the converted” (though I sometimes wish I could convert more of you to my idiosyncratic views).

*

In practice, accusations such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted” can be rhetorical devices to shut down unwanted forms of discourse.

The important thing is that if you want a platform that suits you then you should be free to use a platform that suits you.

And do not be afraid of comments such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted”.

Hierarchies vs networks in the age of Musk and Mastodon

9th November 2022

Regular readers of this blog will know that central to my thinking about law, government and politics is the so-called Dunbar’s Number.

This number – which is about 125-150 for members of our species – is the number of individuals with which one can have meaningful relationships with at one time.

The implication of this number (in my view) for law, government and politics is that with any community or society larger in size than this number there will tend to be a limit on what can be done without shared rules and recognised commands and notions of status.

It is very difficult to be sustainably dominant merely on a face-to-face basis with large numbers of people.

One way of scaling upwards (and downwards) is by having hierarchies.

And with hierarchies we get the conceptual paraphernalia of lordship and kingship (and ladyship and queenship), with lower levels and higher levels.

But another way of scaling is more horizontal: networks and shared protocols.

Here certain signifiers and agreed rules and lore will mean that groups of people can interact.

What has made me think about this is the current contest between commercial social media platforms (like Facebook and Twitter) and the protocol-based Mastodon, of which I have become a great fan.

(And where I somehow now have 18,000 followers in just a few days.)

The commercial platforms are sometimes called “proprietary” because the software is owned by the corporation.

But they can also be regarded as “proprietary” by how they treat their users.

The new owner of Twitter, in particular, seems to see the users of Twitter as a standing asset to be exploited, by charging users for this or that.

The assumption seems to be that the users will stay and pay.

And the way the Twitter acquisition was structured and financed suggests that there has to be a high level of return very quickly.

Perhaps some users will stay and pay: but many will not.

And some will move to forms of social media where there is not one big corporation in charge, imposing its own standards (and whims), but lots of smaller platforms joined by optional or negotiated protocols.

If so, this will be nothing that new in human history.

Human activity often moves between from hierarchies and networks, and between cathedrals and bazaars.

Networks, of course, bring their own problems – especially when selflessness and self-restraint begin to fall away.

And corporations will tend to have better access to resources to finance and maintain the development of platforms.

But Elon Musk and others will not be the first to discover that the ways and means by which individuals will interact cannot easily controlled by those asserting and expecting dominance.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

From Twitter to Mastodon

7th November 2022

At the end of last week – exasperated by Twitter and the antics of its new owner – I opened a Mastodon account.

In one way, this is of no wider interest to anyone but me: it is just one person preferring one social media platform to another.

But in other ways, I do think there is something worth commenting on about this shift by me and many others – and worth assessing whether or not it is significant.

(For what it is worth, I acquired over 9k followers on there in 48h hours, and a number of legal and other commentators have joined the site too – I have called this a “Lexodus”.)

*

Social media cannot be un-invented.

As long as a person has access to the internet and another person is willing to provide a platform for communication, there will be social media.

The particular platforms, however, will come and go.

Some of you will remember MySpace and Bebo and so on.

There is no reason why any one platform will always be the dominant platform.

And what is a business giant or successful commercial model at one time may not be a business giant or successful commercial model at another time.

For that is the nature of business and of technology.

*

On the face of it, I should have a “stake” in Twitter.

I once spent a couple of years of my life litigating the once-famous TwitterJokeTrial case so as to explain Twitter and social media to the English legal system.

And I have acquired around 240k followers for my main Twitter account.

I am as versed in the lore and the tides and the currents and the perils of Twitter as any old sailor is of those of the sea.

So why move from there?

Well.

First, I am not moving completely – I will still use it as a medium for “broadcasting” my posts and my content elsewhere.

But Twitter is now pretty much a hellsite and a cesspit.

Every time you log in, the list of “trending” topics will make any liberal person’s heart sink.

Quote-Tweets and pile-ons and instant unpleasant replies mean that any considered conversation is all but impossible.

*

Of course, much of this will be defended as “free speech!”.

But the free speech of one can mean the inhibition from speaking for others.

And that is as least as much of a free speech issue, if you think about it.

Twitter is structured so as to encourage rage-tweeting and it enables you to say the most vile things you can think of and get away with, just because you can.

I do not think it brings the best out of people.

I think social media can be done differently.

*

Mastodon is different from Twitter in many ways, some of which are partly unseen and difficult to grasp.

Instead of it being one big site, it is a lot of sites with a common set of protocols.

As such, it is de-centralised.

But once you are in, you can communicate with those who joined via other “servers”.

Yes, some of the jargon is initially inaccessible – but so were RTs, DMs, QTs, #hashtags, and so on, once upon a time.

And each of those servers is independent, and they form a federation as an aggregate.

This means decision-making is decentralised and different servers can have different rules and policies.

And if one server turns vile – or allows vile stuff – then it can be rejected by the others.

As a liberal I find this system, with its in-built checks and balances, a lot more attractive and welcoming than Twitter.

*

And what about in practice?

So far, the conversations and engagement on the new site have been pleasant and constructive.

As a worked example, click here for a question about Brexit which led to many helpful and informative replies.

Yes, some of the replies don’t directly engage the terms of the question, but you will see there is a general civility and calmness that contrasts with Twitter.

The longer character limits help too.

So far – and it is still an early stage – Mastodon seems a serious site for serious conversations.

*

You may not want to join Mastodon – and I know several of you are not on Twitter.

That may be wise.

But if you do want to try a social media platform wired to avoid many of the unlikeable things about Twitter then Mastodon is worth having a try.

I cannot recommend any particular server – and there are glitches for many when they try to join, and so you may need to be patient.

And if you do join, do say hello and mention this post.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.