What's Your Take On Minneapolis E-Democracy?
Posted: December 28th, 2018, 11:30 am
Hey all-
I believe I've seen a couple comments by more than a few regular contributors/posters here regarding the Minneapolis E-Democracy forum indicating it is not a safe neighborhood for sane minds to walk in even during the light of day. Not being able to resist gawking at a really good car wreck, I've spent the past couple of months following the activity there and have only this to say:
Holy Hell in a Handbasket, What a Shit Show!
Though clearly the same broad brush cannot apply to all individuals who participate in the site, here are my general impressions of what I've seen and I'm curious if my take on that very special place is similar to others:
- Clearly there are a lot of old timers there. It looks like there is a core group that's probably been there since inception and the site works out very nicely for them. Nothing inherently wrong with this fact on its own, the only danger is that it can lead to being a bubble with an 'in-group' that effectively pushes out a lot of opposing voices.
- It's a bubble that effectively pushes out a lot of opposing voices. Further, people in the bubble don't apply critical thinking to other 'in-group' members' posts. It's perhaps the clearest example of political tribalism I've seen.
- It uses an archaic technology best suited for its core demographic of what I'm gathering is white property owners over 40 (a demographic that I am part of).
- Despite its term of service, it is a hotbed of spreading rumors and innuendo bordering on defamation against political opponents. This is the main reason I will not become part of this site.
- There really is no fact checking. I don't mean in the formal sense, where someone(s) goes through and verify the 'facts' presented by various participants, but in an informal sense where participants don't feel the need to be factual or honest. This likely springs from the tribalism I mentioned above.
- There aren't a lot of facts, period. In addition to rumor and innuendo against individuals, it seems like a great place to go if you want to toss out assertions that not only have no backing data but that data suggests are false.
- It's dying. No posts since December 26th, and rarely is there much volume in general.
It may very well have been a robust, productive site in the past for discussing local issues...now, it's an embarrassment. I was just wondering if my take is similar to others.
I believe I've seen a couple comments by more than a few regular contributors/posters here regarding the Minneapolis E-Democracy forum indicating it is not a safe neighborhood for sane minds to walk in even during the light of day. Not being able to resist gawking at a really good car wreck, I've spent the past couple of months following the activity there and have only this to say:
Holy Hell in a Handbasket, What a Shit Show!
Though clearly the same broad brush cannot apply to all individuals who participate in the site, here are my general impressions of what I've seen and I'm curious if my take on that very special place is similar to others:
- Clearly there are a lot of old timers there. It looks like there is a core group that's probably been there since inception and the site works out very nicely for them. Nothing inherently wrong with this fact on its own, the only danger is that it can lead to being a bubble with an 'in-group' that effectively pushes out a lot of opposing voices.
- It's a bubble that effectively pushes out a lot of opposing voices. Further, people in the bubble don't apply critical thinking to other 'in-group' members' posts. It's perhaps the clearest example of political tribalism I've seen.
- It uses an archaic technology best suited for its core demographic of what I'm gathering is white property owners over 40 (a demographic that I am part of).
- Despite its term of service, it is a hotbed of spreading rumors and innuendo bordering on defamation against political opponents. This is the main reason I will not become part of this site.
- There really is no fact checking. I don't mean in the formal sense, where someone(s) goes through and verify the 'facts' presented by various participants, but in an informal sense where participants don't feel the need to be factual or honest. This likely springs from the tribalism I mentioned above.
- There aren't a lot of facts, period. In addition to rumor and innuendo against individuals, it seems like a great place to go if you want to toss out assertions that not only have no backing data but that data suggests are false.
- It's dying. No posts since December 26th, and rarely is there much volume in general.
It may very well have been a robust, productive site in the past for discussing local issues...now, it's an embarrassment. I was just wondering if my take is similar to others.