THE QUESTION
Why do people like filter bubbles?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
Sealed 22 days ago: this room no longer knows who sat in it; only its steward is still named. What it concluded stays.
12 at the table · 6 actions proposed against 6 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
PROPOSED ACTION
Platforms should update recommendation algorithms to ensure every user feed includes a mandatory quota of high-quality content from opposing viewpoints, decoupled from engagement-based ranking.
Nothing said yet.
Some claims influence each other in a circle
↺ Algorithms prioritize familiar, agreeable cont → People feel good when information confirms wha → People prefer comfort and familiarity in their → People crave confirmation of their existing be → …
A circle can be a real finding — a cycle that feeds itself — or a link whose direction was never really settled. The map treats the group as one node, so nothing inside it is a root on its own. If it is the second, the pair is worth putting back to the room.Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
| root cause | feasible | impact | fixes itself | priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People want to avoid conflicting views to feel more comfortable. | – | – | – | – |
| Algorithms prioritize engagement over diverse viewpoints. | – | – | – | – |
| People crave confirmation of their existing beliefs. | – | – | – | – |
| They seek comfort and emotional safety by staying in familiar views. | – | – | – | – |
| People prefer comfort and familiarity in their information. | – | – | – | – |
| People feel good when information confirms what they already believe is true. | – | – | – | – |
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split. Each square shows how its votes fell — yes / worse / no — and a square is settled when one of those reaches three quarters of them.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
| ACTION | ROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People want to avoid conflicting views to feel more comfortable. | Algorithms prioritize engagement over diverse viewpoints. | People crave confirmation of their existing beliefs. | They seek comfort and emotional safety by staying in familiar views. | People prefer comfort and familiarity in their information. | People feel good when information confirms what they already believe is true. | |
| Platforms should update recommendation algorithms to ensure every user feed includes a mandatory quota of high-quality content from opposing viewpoints, decoupled from engagement-based ranking. in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 8 yes / 0 worse / 1 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
| Algorithm developers to prioritize viewpoint diversity in the design process. discuss | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 7 yes / 0 worse / 2 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
| Social media platforms will reshuffle their algorithms to promote diverse viewpoints. discuss | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 7 yes / 0 worse / 2 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
| Require social media platforms to include a viewpoint-diversity metric in their content ranking algorithms so that exposure to diverse perspectives is weighted alongside engagement metrics. discuss | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 7 yes / 0 worse / 2 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
| Create an anonymous, opt-in 'Diverse Viewpoint' section in online forums where users can share conflicting views without fear of judgment. discuss | ⚑ the group split 5 yes / 0 worse / 4 no | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
| Implement a weighting system in algorithms that assigns higher priority to diverse viewpoints to ensure balanced content exposure. discuss | ⚑ the group split 3 yes / 0 worse / 7 no | ⚑ the group split 7 yes / 0 worse / 3 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet | not decided yet |
Highest leverage so far
Platforms should update recommendation algorithms to ensure every user feed includes a mandatory quota of high-quality content from opposing viewpoints, decoupled from engagement-based ranking. reduces 1 of 6 root causes
Algorithm developers to prioritize viewpoint diversity in the design process. reduces 1 of 6 root causes
Social media platforms will reshuffle their algorithms to promote diverse viewpoints. reduces 1 of 6 root causes
Require social media platforms to include a viewpoint-diversity metric in their content ranking algorithms so that exposure to diverse perspectives is weighted alongside engagement metrics. reduces 1 of 6 root causes
THE ACTIONS ON THE MAP
Showing every action the room judged: it acts directly on 1 of the 6 root causes. It does not act directly on 5.
Read from the squares the room settled at Actions, nothing else. A root in green is reduced by at least one of the shown actions; in grey, none of them acts on it directly; a red outline means one of them makes it worse.
Share this view: as a picture · as a live map for another site
Each number on the map marks a root cause that action reduces.
① Platforms should update recommendation algorithms to ensure every user feed includes a mandatory quota of high-quality content from opposing viewpoints, decoupled from engagement-based ranking.
② Algorithm developers to prioritize viewpoint diversity in the design process.
③ Social media platforms will reshuffle their algorithms to promote diverse viewpoints.
④ Require social media platforms to include a viewpoint-diversity metric in their content ranking algorithms so that exposure to diverse perspectives is weighted alongside engagement metrics.
⑤ Create an anonymous, opt-in 'Diverse Viewpoint' section in online forums where users can share conflicting views without fear of judgment.
⑥ Implement a weighting system in algorithms that assigns higher priority to diverse viewpoints to ensure balanced content exposure.
FROM ACTIONS TO A PLAN
The grid judged each action on its own. A plan is a set of them the room would carry out together.
Members put plans together from the actions that reduce a root cause, and the room compares the plans two at a time, at three quarters of the votes cast, as it judged everything else. Each plan shows which root causes it acts on directly, which it does not, and which it makes worse.
The steward can open a plan comparison.