True Causes
EN
Bahasa IndonesiaDanskDeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoNederlandsNorskPolskiPortuguêsSrpski (latinica)SvenskaTiếng ViệtTürkçeΕλληνικάРусскийСрпски (ћирилица)Українська中文日本語한국어
← lobby
7/7 · Actions · viewing Structure
30 people · 32 ideas
walkthrough · not counted
obstacles · anyone with the link · listed publicly · federation on
stewarded by its steward (sealed)
30 people · 32 ideas · 2 groups · 3 rooms federated
Passport → · Logic → · record
↗ share this map
On another site, as a live map:
As a picture: https://truecauses.org/d/55824a6/map.svg
As data: every judged pair in this room (CSV). Each claim has its own address, /c/55824a6/<card>, listed under the map.
Credit when you publish: Causal map: True Causes, https://truecauses.org/d/55824a6
THE QUESTION

Why do we stay inside echo chambers?

Does one significantly influence the other? Three quarters of the votes cast decide.

closed · back to Actions
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Questions are shared out between groups, so you get the ones your group was given — not all 180.
why
Nobody could answer several hundred pairs. Each pair goes to one group; a pair that splits is then referred to other groups, so it can appear in your list later even though it started elsewhere. The settled count includes every group's work, which is why it climbs faster than your own list shrinks.
176 / 180 settled 0 for you to answer
Last tally: 176 decided · 0 escalated to cross-group panels · 0 contested · 4 below quorum — panels need at least max(2, 75% of panel) votes cast; your smallest panel has 15 members.
close ✕
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true → influences? → We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it
Nothing said yet.
Completed phase — the record of pairs and votes stands above.Check the logic ↗
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we makeopendiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staffopendiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verifyopendiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a weekopendiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✓ yesdiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✓ yesdiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✓ yesdiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✓ yesdiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✓ yesdiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✓ yesdiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✓ yesdiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✓ yesdiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✓ yesdiscuss
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✓ yesdiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✓ yesdiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→People choose the sources that already agree with them✓ yesdiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✓ yesdiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✓ yesdiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✓ yesdiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✓ yesdiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✓ yesdiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✓ yesdiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✓ yesdiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✓ yesdiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✓ yesdiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✓ inferreddiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→The metric was chosen because it was easy to log✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed→The rules are written in one country and applied in forty languages✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds✗ nodiscuss
Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
The metric was chosen because it was easy to log→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→Safety work has no metric, so it has no headcount✗ nodiscuss
The rules are forty pages and the decision takes twelve seconds→There is no reviewer who speaks the language of half the reports✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→A moderator sees the worst of it for the wage of a call centre✗ nodiscuss
Researchers ask for data and legal says no→Automated removal is cheaper than being right✗ nodiscuss
Automated removal is cheaper than being right→Researchers ask for data and legal says no✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✗ nodiscuss
An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest→People choose the sources that already agree with them✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it✗ noin focus ↑ · close ✕
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✗ nodiscuss
The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
Nobody agrees on who should decide what is true→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify→An A/B test measures engagement because that is what we can measure in a week✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
Ad money rewards volume of attention, not quality of it→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→Nobody outside can reproduce a single claim we make✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→Regulation asks for transparency reports nobody can verify✗ nodiscuss
We cannot publish what we remove without teaching people to evade it→We built for a scale nobody had governed before✗ nodiscuss
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✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✗ nodiscuss
We built for a scale nobody had governed before→Every fix ships to the users who complain loudest✗ nodiscuss
People choose the sources that already agree with them→The people affected worst are in markets we do not staff✗ nodiscuss