Personally, I don't. I think the flaw in this reasoning is to think that people join social networks with the sole purpose of exchanging information effectively, but I could probably make a list of 50 reasons that make people participate more than that.
There is also the aspect that SNR is frankly a bad metric. We are quite able to filter things ourselves, which means that in the end we will flock to the places where the total signal is what matters, regardless of how much noise comes along with it.
I think you're also not being particularly charitable in your interpretations of what I'm saying, or opening yourself up to the possibility for other ways things can operate. If you were to be, you'd find we have quite a bit of agreement about this. Total signal also matters, good point I can see how you read it that way. I'd put that in the umbrella of SNR, as my intent is to advocate for better signal - both in quantity and quality.
Where I think we may disagree is that existing filtering capabilities are sufficient and broadly used. I mean, if you can imagine a world where it takes users less effort in setting up their twitter account to get the same quality output, then we're in agreement that there's work to be done on signal and noise. Currently it's a hell of a lot of effort, and you still run into a lot of unnecessary strife and bullshit. I'd push you to consider that twitter's current feature set around discourse is also not the end all be all of online communication, and there is room for improvement. If you can accept that there is room for improvement in these domains, then we're on the same page here.
In fact I think this very conversation is a decent example of how the design of a medium can cause some unnecessary strife and result in the rather silly situation of being in violent agreement. Food for thought.
What I am failing to understand is idea that "quality output" is a measurable metric in any meaningful way. The dimensionality of this metric would be almost as big as the number of people you have in your network, so in the end you are just trying to solve an infinite customization problem.
> can cause some unnecessary strife and result in the rather silly situation of being in violent agreement.
Or perhaps it is a good way to illustrate that the strife is actually necessary and should be embraced and seen as a natural consequence of any group of people who are trying to make sense of their internal worldview and how it fits with the real world?
There is no place in the real world where people "connect and form bonds" by following a strict protocol and have all their interaction methods designed. Every attempt at crating those end up with a system that feels forced and boring, like speed dating, town hall meetings or those ridiculous college assemblies where they need to have a mediator to constantly remind everyone what they should and should not do.
Conflict and strife is not a problem to be removed away. If you succeed at doing that, you'll end up removing an important part of what makes us human. What we need is to have better mechanisms to deal with conflict and strife, and I really don't believe that the way to go is by throwing tech designs around.
I specifically said 'unnecessary conflict' to mean the part of conflict that is induced by the limitations of the medium, the topic of this thread. I too believe that some conflict is absolutely necessary and our communication mediums must be able to hold space for that conflict. We agree!
Again, I encourage you to interpret more charitably and to make fewer assumptions. This is the second time you've put words in my mouth and defended a position I'm not attacking and I'm trying to be polite but it's kinda tedious (can you see this?).
The time could have been better spent in exploration; I still don't know if you see any room for improvement anywhere, you don't seem to be engaging on that. A good design discussion doesn't consist of 'no no no'.
