Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

'We' only ever seem to be caring about over 'Freedom of Speech''ing 'them' while they don't care that their speech is right, that just care that their REACH is better.

Is it time to start developing the tools, platforms, and taking over platforms and destroying corrupted platforms to change the balance of REACH?

'We' only ever seem to be caring about over 'Freedom of Speech''ing 'them' while they don't care that their speech is right, that just care that their REACH is better. Is it time to start developing the tools, platforms, and taking over platforms and destroying corrupted platforms to change the balance of REACH?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (12).
[–] • 2 pts

Humans, as a whole tend to treat the most oft repeated "fact" as true. Or the most recently heard argument.

The side with the larger reach means more people hear the statement more. This adds some of what I'll call factual inertia.

Its kinda like food and water. Water may be more important, but you need both

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Reach is actually more important and you can prove these types of things by going to the extreme.

Being factually right but reaching no one = zero

Being factually wrong but being the only one who reaches anyone = winner

Your overall affect / "win" value is a product of both.

But still lets say you being factually right means your exposure wins out 100% of the time to someone who is exposed to both (which isn't even true in real world cases). Then reach STILL! wins.

If you don't even reach over 50% when the other side does you basically automatically lose. Whether you were right or not.