THE QUESTION
Why do people like filter bubbles?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
Sealed 21 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 2 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Some claims influence each other in a circle
↺ They confirm existing beliefs, giving users a → They provide psychological comfort by confirmi → People seek information that confirms their ex
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 avoid the discomfort of encountering information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. | – | – | – | – |
| Filter bubbles provide constant emotional validation by reinforcing a user's pre-existing beliefs and values. | – | – | – | – |
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 avoid the discomfort of encountering information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. | Filter bubbles provide constant emotional validation by reinforcing a user's pre-existing beliefs and values. | |
| Require recommendation algorithms to replace every fifth suggested item with a concise, topic-matched opposing view written in the same tone as the user's usual content. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 10 yes / 0 worse / 2 no | not decided yet |
| Introduce a weekly “perspective swap” where each team member reads and briefly summarizes an article or viewpoint that opposes their usual stance, then shares the summary in a 5‑minute stand‑up. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 11 yes / 0 worse / 1 no | not decided yet |
| Schedule a weekly 20-minute session to deliberately read one article from a source or perspective you normally avoid, and write down the single point you find most difficult to dismiss. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 12 yes / 0 worse / 0 no | not decided yet |
| Design and implement digital literacy workshops that teach users how to critically evaluate diverse perspectives and manage the emotional discomfort associated with encountering opposing viewpoints. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 12 yes / 0 worse / 0 no | not decided yet |
| Social media platforms should add a required step where users must read and summarize one article from an opposing viewpoint before posting or sharing familiar content. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 9 yes / 0 worse / 3 no | not decided yet |
| Introduce a weekly cross-view reading rotation where each participant must summarize one source that presents a credible opposing perspective. discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 11 yes / 0 worse / 1 no | not decided yet |
Highest leverage so far
Require recommendation algorithms to replace every fifth suggested item with a concise, topic-matched opposing view written in the same tone as the user's usual content. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
Introduce a weekly “perspective swap” where each team member reads and briefly summarizes an article or viewpoint that opposes their usual stance, then shares the summary in a 5‑minute stand‑up. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
Schedule a weekly 20-minute session to deliberately read one article from a source or perspective you normally avoid, and write down the single point you find most difficult to dismiss. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
Design and implement digital literacy workshops that teach users how to critically evaluate diverse perspectives and manage the emotional discomfort associated with encountering opposing viewpoints. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
Social media platforms should add a required step where users must read and summarize one article from an opposing viewpoint before posting or sharing familiar content. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
Introduce a weekly cross-view reading rotation where each participant must summarize one source that presents a credible opposing perspective. reduces 1 of 2 root causes
THE ACTIONS ON THE MAP
Showing every action the room judged: it acts directly on 1 of the 2 root causes. It does not act directly on 1.
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 Require recommendation algorithms to replace every fifth suggested item with a concise, topic-matched opposing view written in the same tone as the user's usual content.
② Introduce a weekly “perspective swap” where each team member reads and briefly summarizes an article or viewpoint that opposes their usual stance, then shares the summary in a 5‑minute stand‑up.
③ Schedule a weekly 20-minute session to deliberately read one article from a source or perspective you normally avoid, and write down the single point you find most difficult to dismiss.
④ Design and implement digital literacy workshops that teach users how to critically evaluate diverse perspectives and manage the emotional discomfort associated with encountering opposing viewpoints.
⑤ Social media platforms should add a required step where users must read and summarize one article from an opposing viewpoint before posting or sharing familiar content.
⑥ Introduce a weekly cross-view reading rotation where each participant must summarize one source that presents a credible opposing perspective.
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.