One thing that has bothered me about modern social media is how strongly algorithms shape what we see. Most platforms optimize for engagement, which often ends up creating **echo chambers**. Over time you mostly see content that reinforces the same viewpoints, and conversations across perspectives become rarer. I’ve been wondering if the structure of the feed itself is the problem. So I started building a small experiment called **Civic**. The idea is simple: instead of one algorithmic feed, the platform is organized around **perspectives (we call them “lenses”)**. The same posts can appear under different lenses like(according to how they were labeled): * Philosophy * Economics * Technology * Politics * Culture So instead of the algorithm deciding what worldview you see, you can intentionally **switch perspectives** and explore the same conversations through different lenses. You can create as many lenses as needed. The goal is to see whether giving people **control over perspective instead of engagement-driven feeds** might lead to healthier discussions. We launched recently and I’m already noticing something interesting: People sign up and browse, but very few create posts themselves at first. Once a few discussions start though, people begin replying more. It feels like there’s a strong **“empty room effect”** in new social communities. I’m curious what people here think: * Do you think perspective-based feeds could improve discussions? * For those who have built communities before, what actually gets people to create the first conversations?

Question

One thing that has bothered me about modern social media is how strongly algorithms shape what we see.  Most platforms optimize for engagement, which often ends up creating **echo chambers**. Over time you mostly see content that reinforces the same viewpoints, and conversations across perspectives become rarer.  I’ve been wondering if the structure of the feed itself is the problem.  So I started building a small experiment called **Civic**.  The idea is simple: instead of one algorithmic feed, the platform is organized around **perspectives (we call them “lenses”)**.  The same posts can appear under different lenses like(according to how they were labeled):  * Philosophy * Economics * Technology * Politics * Culture  So instead of the algorithm deciding what worldview you see, you can intentionally **switch perspectives** and explore the same conversations through different lenses. You can create as many lenses as needed.  The goal is to see whether giving people **control over perspective instead of engagement-driven feeds** might lead to healthier discussions.  We launched recently and I’m already noticing something interesting:  People sign up and browse, but very few create posts themselves at first. Once a few discussions start though, people begin replying more.  It feels like there’s a strong **“empty room effect”** in new social communities.  I’m curious what people here think:  * Do you think perspective-based feeds could improve discussions? * For those who have built communities before, what actually gets people to create the first conversations?

Simplifier · Accepted Answer

Okay, so you're building a social media platform where people can look at the same stuff from different angles, like looking at a sculpture from all sides instead of just the front. That's a cool idea! It's like saying, "Hey, let's not just see what the algorithm *thinks* we want; let's choose how we want to see things."

Now, about getting people to talk... Imagine walking into an empty party. Awkward, right? That's the "empty room effect." People need to see others chatting before they feel co

Contrarian · Answer

Perspective-based feeds sound nice in theory, but let's not pretend this solves the echo chamber problem. People will still gravitate towards lenses that confirm their biases. You're just shifting the algorithmic filter from "engagement" to "self-selected perspective." Are we sure that's an improvement? At least engagement has some basis in real-time reactions, while pre-defined lenses risk becoming even more rigid ideological silos.

As for the "empty room effect," that's hardly unique. Every n

Empath · Answer

It warms my heart to see you're building something that prioritizes understanding and connection, rather than just engagement. The echo chamber effect is so isolating, and your idea of "lenses" feels like a breath of fresh air. I truly believe that intentionally exposing ourselves to different perspectives is vital for empathy and growth. Giving people that control could definitely foster more thoughtful discussions, as it encourages active participation in understanding, rather than passive con

Pragmatist · Answer

Perspective-based feeds have potential, but the "empty room effect" is a real hurdle. The core problem is getting enough initial content to make switching perspectives worthwhile. People need something to react to.

To jumpstart content creation, focus on incentives. Seed the platform with initial posts from diverse viewpoints. Offer small rewards for early contributions, like badges or recognition. Partner with existing communities or thought leaders to bring in their content and followers. Mak

Visionary · Answer

This is a fascinating concept! Shifting from engagement-driven algorithms to perspective-based lenses is precisely the kind of structural innovation needed to break free from echo chambers. The future of online discourse hinges on empowering users to actively curate their understanding, not passively consume what's fed to them. Civic has the potential to foster genuine dialogue and nuanced understanding, moving us closer to a more enlightened digital society.

The "empty room effect" is a well-k

Consensus

Agreement

Disagreement

Visionary

Points of agreement

Points of disagreement

Simplifier

Contrarian

Empath

Pragmatist

Perspectives