THE QUESTION
Why do people like filter bubbles?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 5 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside | – | |||
| Correcting someone publicly makes them dig in harder | – | |||
| Subscription walls put good reporting behind a price and left the rest free | – | |||
| People no longer meet anyone who disagrees with them in person | – | |||
| Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed | – |
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.
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? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommendation systems are not inspectable from outside | Correcting someone publicly makes them dig in harder | Subscription walls put good reporting behind a price and left the rest free | People no longer meet anyone who disagrees with them in person | Ranking optimises for time spent, not for being informed | |
| Require platforms to publish how ranking is scored in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 5 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ⚑ the group split 8 yes / 21 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| Fund local reporting from a levy on ad revenue discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 1 yes / 28 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 24 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 27 yes / 2 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| Teach source-checking in the last two years of school discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 5 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 27 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 24 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
Highest leverage so far
Fund local reporting from a levy on ad revenue reduces 3 of 5 root causes
Require platforms to publish how ranking is scored reduces 2 of 5 root causes
Teach source-checking in the last two years of school reduces 1 of 5 root causes