Peeps by @tnotm
Showing page 2 of 2 (65 peeps total)
Replying to @theoldsparrow (0xd2b45813e53e03bf6bb2cd49b2dd6ba2a46e79e8)
Our connectivity and tailoring our feeds to match our opinions created the divide. Try to go out of your way to read some contrary rhetoric to provide healthy temporary cognitive dissonance.It's like having a debate between objective reality and our confirmation bias in our heads
I have heard that advice before... Laziness pushed it to priority 1048 on my list. Point taken and I need to make the effort.
Hope we all can do that.
Replying to @BrunchTime (0x6aa005a134be951e1047f19eee46e1d5229c09d5)
Smaller echo chambers mean more overall diversity of thinking, but also many more insular populations mislabelling/misunderstanding outgroups. I'm optimistic about human nature in the long term, but you're right about intolerance at present. Love everyone!
What Michael said! (bump)
Replying to @tnotm (0xeac76c5ad6de18749700306df11b09c261346be1)
But diversity has also lead to a kinda coalescing of groups and more vitriol. Group think is scary rampant right now, to the point that violence has been used by the individuals and by actors(supposed) to prove their point. ... ugh this is getting to deep for a Fri afternoon ;)
Correction: Diversity didn't lead it, our connectivity(internet) did.
Replying to @BrunchTime (0x6aa005a134be951e1047f19eee46e1d5229c09d5)
I think ppl have always been this partisan and tribal, but legacy media pushed a more homogeneous narrative, hence Dems/Republicans being 2 flavors of the same corporatism. The internet allowed more diverse thinking to get a foothold in our cultural consciousness.
But diversity has also lead to a kinda coalescing of groups and more vitriol. Group think is scary rampant right now, to the point that violence has been used by the individuals and by actors(supposed) to prove their point.
... ugh this is getting to deep for a Fri afternoon ;)
Replying to @theoldsparrow (0xd2b45813e53e03bf6bb2cd49b2dd6ba2a46e79e8)
Almost posted phallacies instead of fallacies which would have a completely different meaning. :P
Well they have a class on phallacies(sorta) in High School, and I think there should be one on fallicies. How news is gathered and written. Authors and editors are doing a job, providing a service, and trying to make money. Sometimes the service part is forgotten.
Replying to @tyson (0xc9ad401dcc9fc73f77e77de693b9c6782170d9d2)
Right around the time, Mitch Mcconnel decided to wage war on Obama's agenda.
I get it I think. If those numbers are true then we truly are in a diff era of politics, and accountability. Back to news though, but on the same subject. Will we all need a course on how to read the news, seeing through to the objective truth vs personal truth of the author?
Replying to @BrunchTime (0x6aa005a134be951e1047f19eee46e1d5229c09d5)
The internet knocked ppl off the rails provided by 20th century broadcast monopolies. In a good way.
Michael, I am still trying to understand this graph, but I think I get what you are saying. Both sides now vote on their party line? We have more partisanship, not less, since the dawn of the info age? Also more accountable to things said on the campaign trail?
Replying to @theoldsparrow (0xd2b45813e53e03bf6bb2cd49b2dd6ba2a46e79e8)
I've been reading news on the internet since the early 2000s and it's never been this rhetorical. Much more opinions that facts and what facts are out there are manipulated. I hate when the whole landscape basically reblogs one news story. Used to be fighting for scoops.
I understand the reblogging. I use Google News as my source...say what you will about that but, to your point we have to dig and dig to find something more than a 3 paragraph article w/o a click bait title. Oh if I had an eth for every highly inaccurate article title I would be..
Do I simply get it now... So close to 40 and all of a sudden I understand? Was the Clinton and Bush eras of new just as bad, and I was just not aware? Is social networking and media making it worse or is more information better? Is the info accurate?
Truth. Fair. Balanced. Fake.
I consider whether or not news in general has reached a tipping point of being objective at all. Where is simple news w/o the twist? I know I have to read between the lines, but why so blatant now?
Replying to @Bevan (0x30755d3e65c0cf46c35b72d11e52d941c5fc3a3e)
Flair warnings are only an example of moderation in the case of "nsfw". But the content is still visible- just need to click reveal. "politics" hashtag is included by users as a courtesy. TOS-violating posts will be removed from the feed, but are still onchain.
So either another service would offer 'pure peeps' or do you think sometime in the future peepeth will? Just a question on 'Well they say it isn't censored, but no one knows how to get the data' argument. (I mean I know it can be extracted, but most might not get it)
Replying to @Bevan (0x30755d3e65c0cf46c35b72d11e52d941c5fc3a3e)
Peepeth.com has always been a moderated platform. However, what you saw was not an example of that. People are now asked to tag their own posts with the politics or NSFW hashtags, as a courtesy to others. ☢️=> attempt at humor
I haven't dug much but I think I get it. Peepeth is 'moderated' meaning that when displaying peeps on the site there is flair and javascript stuff happening, but anyone can see all peeps if they review the contract? So in the end no censorship whatsoever?
Replying to @noah (0xa11ac7218d9da713711cceee60b1352ebb814c4f)
Better save that action to the blockchain quick, for posterity 😂🤣
I think I like the idea... I need more details. Are there enough emoji or are you making a lot of sushi and eggplant dishes?
Replying to @MattJohnson (0x58172a8c86faad1657549cfcdb311e845ddfd22c)
Woohoo, awesome! 🎉 Welcome to Peepeth, John! 🐧
Thanks Matt! Glad to be here. Very exciting to get on the platform
I am new #peepeth as of today! Found out about it through @joerogan podcast with @shooterjennings.