This is a tricky situation. We don’t want the purely emotional fights that we see in other social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. But that emotion is what keeps users engaged. And a big part of our push is to argue without emotion, and only with reason and evidence.
That is the thing about TruStory. You are looking at emotion in a negative perspective. As stated in this article https://www.nirandfar.com/2012/05/spotting-the-next-facebook-why-emotions-are-big-business.html. Emotions are a big business, and is one of the best ways that a platform can get mainstream.
Yes you can have senseless statements full of biases. However, i see TruStory at a place where the community will be engaged in discussions AND add the proof to back their statements. If a user spams stupid messages, the community could backlash against him/her and lower their reputation or score. And because there is monetization involved you really don’t want to just spam and get less rewards/reputation.
TruStory needs to be careful and implement a way to self-aware. If the user and the community are both aware, more meaningful interactions, even with emotion, can be made. There is a study on how self-aware influences this. TruStory can make users aware they are not helping and let the community be aware as well about that. Also, add a way to ban/block bad actors. This will make bad actors leave the community and regular users dedicate more research time in their claims.
Very well said. I agree. We are doing exactly this. We want to make it easy for the community to deem obviously bad behavior as bad.
I’m excited to have you on board so that we can together build a community that is self-aware.
this is a very interesting topic, because just like @priyatham stated, users keep going back to sites because of the emotions that arise from it. most of those emotions are superficial and empty, and have no real importance, otherwise the issue would be solved. what i find interesting about social media, is how all these “under the table” vibrations keep occurring (drama, disagreements, etc), but never occur in “real life”. So much emotion and time is spent over these type of situations, but when you see people that are involved in the “drama”, there is so much discomfort where it is not even talked about. Yet, people get into tears over social media drama.
what i like about TruStory, (and yes, this is my first post so pardon me if I’m doing this wrong)…is that there is meaning behind it. we’re on a path to discussing all of these topics which aren’t talked about, but need truth to it. great place to divulge my energy!
The way social media is designed to engage our emotions is a hot topic now. It’s a hard problem to solve. On a psychological and biological level, our negative emotions are often stronger and longer lasting than our positive ones. This makes it an easier task for platforms to elicit those emotions from us in order to keep us engaged. And sadly it works. The problem with platforms that attempt to remain positive, or atleast neutral, is that engament falls off. The Knife Media attempted to publish news devoid of all shadings or interpretation - straight facts in context devoid of emotional cues or nudges. As much as I intellectually appreciated their effort, the articles always ended up a bit dry and sometimes just boring. Which is probably why they are now out of business. I don’t have any answers here, but this is a problem that needs fixing. I know I’ll feel better be healthier long -term is I eat my kale, but damn those cupcakes looks so good right now. How can we keep ourselves and others engaged without devolving into petty arguments, name-calling, virtual-singalint, etc? I’m curious and optimistic about this.
oh boy. I love this response so much.
There’s constructive emotion and destructive emotion. It’s okay (and good!) for people to have emotion on the platform. But we also must maintain a set of core values that helps us understand and agree on what is unacceptable emotion – i.e. behavior that is destructive and doesn’t add value to the conversation in any way – and remove this behavior when we see it.
Good points. Sounds promising!
My bigger concern here is that this discussion is still grounded in the us v them mentality of you’re either “emotional” or “rational”, which to me is a false dichotomy. All humans are inherently irrational; there’s a lot of research to suggest (from guys like Jonathan Haidt and Robin Hanson) that what we call “rationality” is simply a post-hoc way to justify emotional responses to stimuli. I think the biggest thing here is to find the right mix of incentives that make TruStory engaging AND that it encourages behavior that creates value for TruStory’s product as a warehouse of validated crypto knowledge. Right now, there’s still so much disinfo on the cryto space, that there is value in it for a consumer to find a “one stop shop” for onboarding into the ecosystem, even if that centralized element might bug a few hardcore decentralists.