> In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media?
Not really. The analogy between guns and social media is not perfect. Training as a solution has special problems with applied to media access that it doesn't have with guns. Specifically, it would probably amount to some kind of indoctrination program. Gun training is a technical topic, like how to drive a car safely.
>> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc.
> This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do.
Actually, that was me dictating a solution to Facebook that stopped short of shutting them down. I'm pretty sure they'd hate to follow it.
And the important difference is that everything I suggested is content neutral, so it can't accurately be called "censorship."
> Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach.
Yes, but if it's happening today, I'd bet money it's mostly people who can handle social media relatively well. The problematic people who probably shouldn't have access to a broadcast megaphone are likely still on Facebook and Twitter and are unlikely to leave.
Friction.
> In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and education/training that many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be applied to social media?
Not really. The analogy between guns and social media is not perfect. Training as a solution has special problems with applied to media access that it doesn't have with guns. Specifically, it would probably amount to some kind of indoctrination program. Gun training is a technical topic, like how to drive a car safely.
>> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc.
> This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution - not that much different than the unilateral censorship they do.
Actually, that was me dictating a solution to Facebook that stopped short of shutting them down. I'm pretty sure they'd hate to follow it.
And the important difference is that everything I suggested is content neutral, so it can't accurately be called "censorship."
> Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good approach.
Yes, but if it's happening today, I'd bet money it's mostly people who can handle social media relatively well. The problematic people who probably shouldn't have access to a broadcast megaphone are likely still on Facebook and Twitter and are unlikely to leave.