I resonated with so much of what you wrote. The constant inflow of articles posted by friends in our bubbled networks, with catchy headlines and extreme opinions doesn't make us more informed nor does it make us more open-minded.

I don't agree that 'The internet is destroying our souls and making us stupid.' The internet is a vessel that has catalyzed the democratization of global information and blaming it as the cause of propaganda and weakly head opinions feels like killing the messenger.

I guess that's where I am unsure that really reading articles has the potential to address our closed minded approaches to modern day stimuli. I know from personal experience with the concept that even when I really read something, I often already have an opinion that I'm looking to validate. Really reading it doesn't make me empathize with the writer or catalyze a shift in thinking. That's my fault and I need to be aware and hold myself accountable.

The degree to which I am open to being wrong, misguided, sold by an abundance of well-designed and curated marketing campaigns, humble about how limited my life experience is, how small I am in a world of 7B and how much more there is to read, think about and digest must come from me organically. An algorithm that holds us accountable to really reading the entire opinion of another is not holding us accountable to our own biases.

That said, I do think it's a good start. I'd further push you and Jeff to continue adding in features that encourage and empower users to empathize with counter-opinions. Perhaps before commenting, we should think through the core points of what the writer is saying, who the intended audience is, why zhe wrote it and why that is either consistent or contradictory to the opinion we've accumulated over time? Which points make sense? Which need more substantiation? Which flow logically? Which have holes?

As we can see by Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, etc., we're moving away from a world in which we enter a library and choose what to read. There's too many books written to keep up. We now need algorithmic recommendations and Facebook does that with news. How can they modify their back-end approach to force us to hear from those we disagree with; more importantly, force us to empathize with those we disagree with? On the other end, how can we convince ourselves to give our egos less weight and to feel more comfortable acknowledging the limitations of our opinions?

'one more step to dismantling institutional bias and creating a more inclusive Oregon.'

^^ BIG NEWS

This is an easy yet significant change to make our ID system more inclusive!

I think I feel different about this guy because he's a public figure, a bonafide celebrity nazi. So, he's doesn't need to create an incident to be an incident.

^^ agreed

awesome :), veganism is growing in acceptance quickly and plant-based food innovation is accelerating!

Also, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=vegan

"Taking a page from Orwell, the Big Apple actually requires speakers to use the invented gender-free pronoun “ze,” a word that does not appear in five different dictionaries I checked. A future version of this regime could potentially outlaw gendered pronouns altogether, so as to accommodate gender-fluid individuals. Taken to its natural conclusion, this effort to promote tolerance is frighteningly intolerant."

This is a perfect example of the oppressor complaining that they're the oppressed (kind of like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hHQ7hydsI&feature=youtu.be). Yes, transpeople have been excluded from our vernacular since the beginning of the human race and that is not okay. Altering our exclusive language to include all gender identities is, by definition, inclusive.

Should the government fine anyone using gendered pronouns? Probably not because of how normalized it is. However, anti-inclusive language, e.g. 'she/he', should be negatively stigmatized. We should be more accountable for the way we talk and how it oppresses our friends, families, neighbors, peers.