Answering for GP:

1. Education (how to form solid arguments and how to view topics from multiple sides)

2. Plurifomity. By combining people from different social-economic groups. Basically an anti divide and conquer which state sponsored media have driven us towards.

3. Acceptance. Everyone picks their fruits of freedom of speech. Just because the fruits of one are the pains of others does not mean we should throw the baby away with the bath water.

4. New policy and law. The anti-vac movement indicates the necessity of new laws and policies. Perhaps vaccines should be mandatory. Perhaps we should let the anti-vaccers pay for the damages.

5. Work on the public perception of that which is embattled. In this case of anti-vac it is science as a whole.

In my opinion we should do loads and loads more of #2, but it seems everyone and everything is in its own filter bubble. We need much more social cohesion.

The "problem" with your #2 is that only one side wants that.

The other side fears losing their privilege/capital/power/reputation and cares not a whit for those they consider sub-human.

Putting some foxes into the henhouse won't go well for the hens when it's dinner time.

Well, obviously we can effect change outside of the social networks. We can invite people into dialogues. We can provide them with vision and narrative based on higher principles.

> The "problem" with your #2 is that only one side wants that.

If this were true, only one side would have wedge issues.

Do you honestly believe conservatives want an open, honest, inclusive dialogue in which both sides of all issues are considered with respect for every viewpoint?

Their "gotta get mine before anyone else gets theirs" attitudes and beliefs are absolutely antithetical to such a thing.

So I stand by my statement: Only one side is willing to have a productive conversation about any given issue.

This is impossibly naive. Large social media companies are highly incentivised to derail any of these utopian efforts.

#6 discourage the use of those platforms. Disable your accounts; Meet face to face; use & promote alternatives (Mastadon, Signal, Scuttlebutt); collectivise and lobby against them.

All if these ‘utopian‘ concepts have been successfully implemented in the past by governments and social organizations. The only naive part of my narrative is if we expect the change to come from the social networks. We need to step outside of that sphere and influence via other channels such as work, sports, spiritual life, books and the public sphere.

I think the best example to consider is the tobacco industry. Smoking is by any measure a scourge on society. Untold numbers of people have suffered and died because of it. Healthcare systems haemorrhage money they don’t have treating conditions that basically don’t exist without smoking.

The tobacco industry pulled every trick in the book to maintain their own interests. Society spends even more money on public messaging, education etc etc to try and reduce smoking rates.

Do we want more of the same, but with social media this time? They do us harm. The rule is we do not let anyone make money by doing us harm.

Funny, I argued similarly 11 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19665221

We do ourselves harm because we do not understand the power of the interactions we are part of. Children should be protected. Adults should know better.