I wonder if the buddy system framework could be extended - maybe an option for algorithmic buddy matching, connecting people who are ideologically dissimilar but with similar levels of engagement and status. Like an online pen pal amidst the larger conversation. Could be a disaster, but maybe some variation could be useful.
Person A picks Person B, who shares many/most of the same prejudices and preconceptions, as their Twitter Buddy, then continues on being rude to people who do not share those prejudices, feeling it safe to do so since the Tweets are directed toward someone who is likely to validate the rudeness.
The problem isn't the anonymity, it's the lack of social consequences.
Other measures that might encourage politeness: (1) Time limit to respond to tweets in any way, per-client from the time you read a tweet. (2) Once you post something, you can't delete it. Maybe highlight as "disavowed" status if it violates social norms, but it stays visible forever. But why would Twitter ever want to encourage politeness? Their business model appears to be to hook you on crack.
This is a version of localism, which does several things: it makes everybody much more polite, reduces tension stress and threat, allows people the freedom to shape their local community, increases tribalism, permits echo chambers, and creates local variations in norms. There are people who think that their own dictatorship should touch every individual and enforce their own values in a totalizing way. They will disapprove of the entire concept because it reduces the reach they believe they can have (and in some cases seem to be well on their way to attaining).
I think your weak formulation will not work at all because the phenomena of two person podcasts doesn't arise from an audience effect, but your strong formulation of having each tweet be 'co-authored' will work very well at duplicating the effect, and the 'chaining' approach has some other complicating factors which will create a directed graph with an inherent hierarchy - some people will be popular co-authors for reasons of prestige, or laxity, or both - and attempting to restrict it will only make the prestige element more prominent by reducing supply and encouraging gaming.
What do you see as the potential beneficial effects of a less rude twitter? Do you see it as a way to decrease polarization? Would it cause less "rotting of the mind" than the current version of twitter does, as you describe it? Or would it just make twitter a less unpleasant place, thus allowing one to derive its current benefits with less of the current costs?
I'd also add: I certainly don't doubt that a given individual is "ruder" and less thoughtful on twitter than on other mediums. That said, I suspect that even on twitter, Russ Roberts isn't too rude. And my guess is that the stereotypical crazy twitter poster wouldn't be the most thoughtful person even if hosting a podcast with a guest.
I wonder if the buddy system framework could be extended - maybe an option for algorithmic buddy matching, connecting people who are ideologically dissimilar but with similar levels of engagement and status. Like an online pen pal amidst the larger conversation. Could be a disaster, but maybe some variation could be useful.
Person A picks Person B, who shares many/most of the same prejudices and preconceptions, as their Twitter Buddy, then continues on being rude to people who do not share those prejudices, feeling it safe to do so since the Tweets are directed toward someone who is likely to validate the rudeness.
The problem isn't the anonymity, it's the lack of social consequences.
Other measures that might encourage politeness: (1) Time limit to respond to tweets in any way, per-client from the time you read a tweet. (2) Once you post something, you can't delete it. Maybe highlight as "disavowed" status if it violates social norms, but it stays visible forever. But why would Twitter ever want to encourage politeness? Their business model appears to be to hook you on crack.
This is a version of localism, which does several things: it makes everybody much more polite, reduces tension stress and threat, allows people the freedom to shape their local community, increases tribalism, permits echo chambers, and creates local variations in norms. There are people who think that their own dictatorship should touch every individual and enforce their own values in a totalizing way. They will disapprove of the entire concept because it reduces the reach they believe they can have (and in some cases seem to be well on their way to attaining).
I think your weak formulation will not work at all because the phenomena of two person podcasts doesn't arise from an audience effect, but your strong formulation of having each tweet be 'co-authored' will work very well at duplicating the effect, and the 'chaining' approach has some other complicating factors which will create a directed graph with an inherent hierarchy - some people will be popular co-authors for reasons of prestige, or laxity, or both - and attempting to restrict it will only make the prestige element more prominent by reducing supply and encouraging gaming.
What do you see as the potential beneficial effects of a less rude twitter? Do you see it as a way to decrease polarization? Would it cause less "rotting of the mind" than the current version of twitter does, as you describe it? Or would it just make twitter a less unpleasant place, thus allowing one to derive its current benefits with less of the current costs?
I'd also add: I certainly don't doubt that a given individual is "ruder" and less thoughtful on twitter than on other mediums. That said, I suspect that even on twitter, Russ Roberts isn't too rude. And my guess is that the stereotypical crazy twitter poster wouldn't be the most thoughtful person even if hosting a podcast with a guest.