Social media has been blamed for locking people in a bubble, only showing them news that is in line with their beliefs. This divides society into different groups that have almost nothing in common. People read what they think they want to read, never seeing a different opinion. At the same time governments and influencers have started to call for filtering. Facebook would have to filter out lies and fake news, so we all see the truth only. The problem with the filter approach is that it will cause opinions to drift toward some bottom line truisms we can all agree on. If we start fining social media for violations, the companies will get more and more conservative, and we’ll end up in a boring world. Like having a perpetually overcast sky and an eternal drizzle. Grey goo everywhere.
This is not what we need. What we need is to be confronted with opinions that differ from what we think is right. So we (i.e. Albert Brand, Arjan Molenaar and myself) started a one-day research project at Xebia, inspired by a feature of my favorite Dutch newspaper, NRC. The feature is called Twistgesprek. The format is that two people discuss a statement during the week. Their conversation is summarized and published in the Saturday paper as a back-and-forth of messages. Quite often I start with a strong opinion about the subject being discussed, but end up with a more thorough understanding of its nuances because of the discussion. Having your convictions challenged and modified is a wonderful gift.
So, the idea was to show people ideas that directly contradict each other.