構造化 · Why do we stay inside echo chambers?

問い

Why do we stay inside echo chambers?

一方は他方に大きく影響しますか？投じられた票の4分の3で決まります。

ゲストとして閲覧中。参加するにはユーザー名を入力してください。

問いはグループに分配されるので、あなたに届くのは自分のグループに割り当てられたものだけです（全180件ではありません）。

理由

数百ものペアに答えられる人はいません。各ペアは一つのグループに渡され、意見が割れたペアは他のグループに回されます。そのため、別のところで始まったペアが後からあなたの一覧に現れることがあります。決着の数にはすべてのグループの作業が含まれるので、自分の一覧が減るより速く増えていきます。

決着 176/180 あなたの回答待ち：0

前回の集計：決着 176 · グループ横断パネルへ回付 0 · 争いあり 0 · 定足数未満 4 — パネルには max(2, パネルの75%) 以上の票が必要です。最小のパネルのメンバーは15人です.

閉じる ✕

The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff → 影響する？ → Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify

まだ発言はありません。

完了した段階です。ペアと投票の記録は上にあります。論理を確かめる ↗

Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	未決	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	未決	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	未決	表示中 ↑ · 閉じる ✕
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	未決	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✓ はい	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✓ はい	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✓ はい	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✓ はい	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✓ はい	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✓ はい	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✓ はい	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✓ はい	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✓ はい	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✓ はい	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✓ はい	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✓ はい	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✓ はい	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✓ はい	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✓ はい	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✓ はい	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✓ はい	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✓ はい	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✓ はい	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✓ はい	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✓ はい	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✓ 推論	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	→	The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	✗ いいえ	議論する
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports	✗ いいえ	議論する
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre	✗ いいえ	議論する
Researchers ask for data and legal says no	→	Automated removal is cheaper than being right	✗ いいえ	議論する
Automated removal is cheaper than being right	→	Researchers ask for data and legal says no	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	✗ いいえ	議論する
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	→	People choose the sources that already agree with them	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	→	An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	✗ いいえ	議論する
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify	✗ いいえ	議論する
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week	→	We built for a scale nobody had governed before	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する
We built for a scale nobody had governed before	→	Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest	✗ いいえ	議論する
People choose the sources that already agree with them	→	The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff	✗ いいえ	議論する