[rgoulter]

> ... Unfortunately this also gets framed as a "filter bubble". > I want a filter bubble.

I think describing a "topic-focused, outrage-free" curation strategy as 'filter bubble' is somewhat asinine.

"Filter bubble" is a dirty term because it suggests at best an isolated, distorted view of how things actually are, at worst active exclusion of valid dissent. The point is that important details aren't being noticed in the domain of what has attention.

I understand a lot of outrage comes from righteous minds who want to make the world a better place (or prevent it from becoming a worse place). -- All the same, just excluding outrage feels more like it's (at worst) ignoring 'allegedly important, unrelated things', rather than ignoring 'important, related things'.

[searchableguy]

Relevant from my old comment here:

I have thought about this before. I believe internet lacks enough echo chambers. In real world, people automatically segregate based on their income bracket, community, values, lifestyle, job, family (kids or not?), healthcare, accessibility to various things, etc. People have all sorts of stereotypes and things they expect other people to conform to based on visible factors. This isn't possible online. There is too little information and our stereotypes will never be correct (too big number). It shocks people. In real life, oh that's a catholic person. Of course I would expect them to say this. Too much difference in opinions leads to defensiveness rather than acceptance. You cannot accept 180 degrees but you can accept 10 degrees slightly left.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23937973

[glial]

> "topic-focused, outrage-free" curation strategy

In the old days this work was done by an editor and published in a periodical fashion. My recurring quip about social media is that it’s helping us collectively realize the value of good editors.