Agreed. But I think it's DOA anyway? Such a beautiful idea but the folks who are going to participate in this in good faith are already doing so elsewhere I would guess.
Agreed.
But I think it's DOA anyway? Such a beautiful idea but the folks who are going to participate in this in good faith are already doing so elsewhere I would guess.
I agree that the folks who would do this in good faith already try more than most to get a picture of both sides of the aisle. I’m actually curious how much the private nature of the discourse...
Such a beautiful idea but the folks who are going to participate in this in good faith are already doing so elsewhere.
I agree that the folks who would do this in good faith already try more than most to get a picture of both sides of the aisle.
I’m actually curious how much the private nature of the discourse will make a project like this more or less inflammatory than the Internet already is.
Private conversations in-person are always less inflammatory, but (in my experience) in-person interaction has this way of activating “I need this person to like me” signals in my brain in a way that virtual discourse doesn’t.
Having thought about it, I suspect it's intended as a way to combat bots. If it was a webapp, it would be overrun by bots in about a minute. I'm assuming they're leveraging device attestation as a...
Having thought about it, I suspect it's intended as a way to combat bots. If it was a webapp, it would be overrun by bots in about a minute. I'm assuming they're leveraging device attestation as a proxy for human user validation. It ensures one account per valid physical device, and while abusable, doesn't scale because devices are expensive.
That would be my expectation, that emulators and rooted devices would fail. On Android, there's 3 levels of device integrity: basic (software), device (fingerprint), strong (hardware). In the age...
That would be my expectation, that emulators and rooted devices would fail. On Android, there's 3 levels of device integrity: basic (software), device (fingerprint), strong (hardware). In the age of AI bots and manipulation campaigns I'd expect smart phone only platforms (especially a political one) to require device integrity or strong integrity as a solid counter measure to botting.
Device integrity is spoofable, but kinda like in online gaming, subject to ban waves where Google bans a bunch of fingerprints all at once. So it works until it doesn't and then you're caught.
Of course that's assuming a lot. This could be smart phone only just so they can vacuum up data and/or do daily nag notifications for engagement. I'll throw it in waydroid later and follow up.
Soo I'm wrong. Just an app for the sake of being an app. Threw it in an obviously rooted emulator (fails every check and doesn't hide any indication it's a rooted emulator) and it happily runs....
Exemplary
Soo I'm wrong. Just an app for the sake of being an app. Threw it in an obviously rooted emulator (fails every check and doesn't hide any indication it's a rooted emulator) and it happily runs.
Which means for those of you put off by having to interact with this on a phone instead on a desktop w/ keyboard, you can actually do that! Unfortunately windows pulled the plug on WSA (windows subsystem for android), but there's several other options for windows. On Linux, waydroid works well in my experience.
I've been trying this for the last couple of weeks, so I thought I'd share my experience in case anyone else was holding out on giving it a go. My first match and I shared much of the same views....
I've been trying this for the last couple of weeks, so I thought I'd share my experience in case anyone else was holding out on giving it a go.
My first match and I shared much of the same views. My understanding is that the app aims to match you with someone with whom you disagreed on some of the prompts at the beginning of the week. Unfortunately, since the prompts are short quotes, its easy to say "agree" or "disagree" but be talking about either the quote itself, the intention behind the quote, the broader article/essay the quote come from, etc. This meant that lots of our explanations started with "I put down agree, but what I meant was...".
My second match was substantially different, having a notably contrasting worldview to my own. They seemed very interested in the concept of "debate" as a rigorous method of getting at some truth or best decision, which I suspect motivated their decision to use the app. There were a few things on which we properly and decisively disagreed, but for the most part seemed to be able to take the best from each other's perspective.
I think the short quote format is interesting. It does allow you to potentially "agree" with someone on one point despite having conflicting perspectives on the broader topic. I suspect this is by design, as they included things like a quote from Obama criticizing "woke" perspectives and other seemingly discordant excerpts which give lots of room for interpretation. However, I'm still wary of encouraging people to discuss topics just based on short excerpts, as I think a lot of discourse could be improved if we push participants to delve into the complexity before taking a stance.
Pity it's apparently not available for desktop, only mobile, because I require a real keyboard for anything like that.
Agreed.
But I think it's DOA anyway? Such a beautiful idea but the folks who are going to participate in this in good faith are already doing so elsewhere I would guess.
I agree that the folks who would do this in good faith already try more than most to get a picture of both sides of the aisle.
I’m actually curious how much the private nature of the discourse will make a project like this more or less inflammatory than the Internet already is.
Private conversations in-person are always less inflammatory, but (in my experience) in-person interaction has this way of activating “I need this person to like me” signals in my brain in a way that virtual discourse doesn’t.
Having thought about it, I suspect it's intended as a way to combat bots. If it was a webapp, it would be overrun by bots in about a minute. I'm assuming they're leveraging device attestation as a proxy for human user validation. It ensures one account per valid physical device, and while abusable, doesn't scale because devices are expensive.
So that would mean no virtual devices?
That would be my expectation, that emulators and rooted devices would fail. On Android, there's 3 levels of device integrity: basic (software), device (fingerprint), strong (hardware). In the age of AI bots and manipulation campaigns I'd expect smart phone only platforms (especially a political one) to require device integrity or strong integrity as a solid counter measure to botting.
Device integrity is spoofable, but kinda like in online gaming, subject to ban waves where Google bans a bunch of fingerprints all at once. So it works until it doesn't and then you're caught.
Of course that's assuming a lot. This could be smart phone only just so they can vacuum up data and/or do daily nag notifications for engagement. I'll throw it in waydroid later and follow up.
Soo I'm wrong. Just an app for the sake of being an app. Threw it in an obviously rooted emulator (fails every check and doesn't hide any indication it's a rooted emulator) and it happily runs.
Which means for those of you put off by having to interact with this on a phone instead on a desktop w/ keyboard, you can actually do that! Unfortunately windows pulled the plug on WSA (windows subsystem for android), but there's several other options for windows. On Linux, waydroid works well in my experience.
Bluetooth keyboard getting paired to my phone in 5....4....
You can technically wire one. I’ve done it with my 40%s but I suspect it’ll work with larger
I've been trying this for the last couple of weeks, so I thought I'd share my experience in case anyone else was holding out on giving it a go.
My first match and I shared much of the same views. My understanding is that the app aims to match you with someone with whom you disagreed on some of the prompts at the beginning of the week. Unfortunately, since the prompts are short quotes, its easy to say "agree" or "disagree" but be talking about either the quote itself, the intention behind the quote, the broader article/essay the quote come from, etc. This meant that lots of our explanations started with "I put down agree, but what I meant was...".
My second match was substantially different, having a notably contrasting worldview to my own. They seemed very interested in the concept of "debate" as a rigorous method of getting at some truth or best decision, which I suspect motivated their decision to use the app. There were a few things on which we properly and decisively disagreed, but for the most part seemed to be able to take the best from each other's perspective.
I think the short quote format is interesting. It does allow you to potentially "agree" with someone on one point despite having conflicting perspectives on the broader topic. I suspect this is by design, as they included things like a quote from Obama criticizing "woke" perspectives and other seemingly discordant excerpts which give lots of room for interpretation. However, I'm still wary of encouraging people to discuss topics just based on short excerpts, as I think a lot of discourse could be improved if we push participants to delve into the complexity before taking a stance.