Social media currently rewards outrage over reason, functioning as a profit-driven "shoutocracy" that fuels online division. What if we could fix our digital public square using the same principles of governance that make Wikipedia generally reliable?

In this video, I explore the stark contrast between Wikipedia's structured meritocracy and the chaotic nature of modern platforms. While Wikipedia’s genius was focusing on the NPOV - the Neutral Point of View as the way its many participants converge on a common standard. It’s inherently harder on social media. That’s because so much discussion on social media isn’t just about what is the case but how society ought to be. It’s harder to get people to converge on better rather than worse responses to that question. But Wikipedia gives us some clues. I think the answer lies in bridging algorithms, tools designed to amplify voices that earn respect even from their ideological opponents.

Because bridging societal divides doesn’t generally maximise profit, I argue that cultural institutions, public broadcasters, and universities must take the lead. By pioneering pro-social networks, we can rebuild the vital "middleware" of our democracy. This video examines how prioritising collective sense-making over rage could fundamentally transform our algorithms and our future.

▶ Enjoy the next episode on ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ or Spotify next week

📽️ Find this video on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

🎙️ Listen to the “Talking it Through” episode where I talk more about these ideas on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

👉 Join the conversation on my ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord server