Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity • Hacker News Board

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#121

Post by klipt » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #90

docdeek wrote: post #67

There's a quote in a Michael Crichton novel (The Lost World) that seems relevant here. As part of a rant connecting the idea of the internet and evolution, a character opines: "This idea that the whole world is wired together is mass death. Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest. You put a thousand birds on an ocean island and they'll evolve very fast. You put ten thousand on a big contin…

So you're saying a wide varity of echo chambers is a good thing to avoid intellectual monoculture?

I think echo chambers are part of the problem. Previously you'd love in your village and have to get along with other villagers (or move, which took a lot of effort) so people had to learn to compromise more.

Now everyone can live in virtual echo chambers where everyone agrees with them and they never need to compromise. So they start viewing anyone who disagrees with them as pure evil.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#122

Post by cvwright » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #16

I think social media needs to be redefined. What the average person thinks social media is is very different than what it actually is. I think a lot of people think big social media platforms are actually communication platforms, they're not. They're designed intentionally to be difficult to communicate on. That the not the purpose of them, it's in the name 'social media' they are the media, you are the social. They…

Wow, well said. We are trying to build something like this with Circles. https://github.com/KombuchaPrivacy/circles-ios

It’s E2E encrypted, so the server can’t datamine your posts or meddle with your timeline. Built on Matrix underneath, so building federated communities will be straightforward.

Let me know if you’d like to try it out.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#123

Post by baldanders » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

I believe that we are going to start seeing the rise of purposely stripped-down software, ie text-only social media platforms or social media platforms with hard-caps on the number of connections you can add per account. Information technology will begin to be viewed through a more biological lens. The best analogy I can think of is our current relationship with food. We acknowledge that our biological reward systems can be hijacked via junk food and we have erected massive systems to curtail these destructive impulses. Despite this, there are still those who gorge themselves on unhealthy food due to their lack of education and/or an inability to afford healthier food. As soon as the negative effects of social media begin to manifest themselves in the upper classes (students failing classes en masse, severe incompetence in the job market, increased generation of brain-dead media) new platforms will be created to allow people to take advantage of technology without being caught up in the biological loopholes that modern social media create. The majority of the lower classes will continue to use exploitative platforms, which will probably become much worse as it is made more explicit that their user-base is made up of a cattle-caste. Much like food, I predict that the health-conscious platforms will erect paywalls and other barriers to entry that will further cement the class divide. It would take me hours to really flesh out what I'm trying to say here but I think that I was able to squeeze some of it out.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#124

Post by specialist » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

Every new communications media has the same lifecycle.

Initial enthusiasm, lots of disruption & creativity, then captured by reactionaries and traditionalists. Spasms of overreach and overcorrection. Cycles of purges and remything.

Obelisks, cuneiform, drums, papyrus, pigeons, pony express, paper, moveable type, radio waves, light beams.

The disruption to society and culture is always the same. The only variable is impact predetermined by production costs.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The trick for us plebes is finding untapped margins and eddies, do our own thing, maybe find our tribe.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#125

Post by cvwright » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #91

softwaredoug wrote: post #18

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense? IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism…

Umberto Eco said it best: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”

I see no problem with letting idiots say idiotic things. As your quote shows, the world has survived the idiots for a very long time.

The problem with social media is not that there are people saying things that are dumb or wrong.

The problem is that the platforms survive by finding the most virulent idiocy and spreading it as widely as possible.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#126

Post by carapace » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

ppf wrote: post #43

krapp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media is as successful as it is precisely because it works so well as a communications paradigm. No popular social media platform is difficult to communicate on, they draw in so many users because they're easy to use. My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that mone…

>it still works as intended for 99% of people. I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.

> I would argue that it feels like it works

But that's effectively the same thing if you can't get users to change networks/platforms, eh?

> I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.

Sure. It's easy-bake oven internet for non-geeks. But they don't care. The cupcakes taste fine (to them.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy-Bake_Oven

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#127

Post by jack_pp » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #86

jack_pp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pessimistic way of putting it. "In a mass-media world, there's less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas"... but aren't those brought about by evolution as well? And as far as I can see the top ten keeps changing, evolving. My argument is that the internet has enabled hyper-evolution. You get access to the best possible information, you have through torrents and libgen access to all…

But isn't this exactly why you end up slowing down? You get groups trapped in local maxima of behavior. An isolated group is forced to find novel solutions because they don't have a body of evidence to lean back on. In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that. It might be sub-optimal, but the odds you develop something better are low. So it benefits you…

> In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that.

Depends on the problem. If the problem is complex enough, say nutrition, then you see constantly changing narratives and theories and even competing ones in the present. There's no Best Solution™ way to nourish ourselves yet so people experiment and the top competing theories are being actively discussed and debated. Sure there are keto / vegan / paleo nuts out there but they're just test subjects really. Same argument can be said about software dev, there's no best language or best framework; or about ways to earn money, employment vs entrepreneurship is not a settled debate.

Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world?

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#128

Post by horsawlarway » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

jack_pp wrote: post #127

horsawlarway wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't this exactly why you end up slowing down? You get groups trapped in local maxima of behavior. An isolated group is forced to find novel solutions because they don't have a body of evidence to lean back on. In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that. It might be sub-optimal, but the odds you develop something better are low. So it benefits you…

> In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that. Depends on the problem. If the problem is complex enough, say nutrition, then you see constantly changing narratives and theories and even competing ones in the present. There's no Best Solution™ way to nourish ourselves yet so people experiment and the top competing theories are being actively discussed and…

> Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world?

Sure - passive cooling for homes. Architecture used to vary dramatically by climate. In the last 50 years or so new homes are generally only designed for electric cooling.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#129

Post by jack_pp » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #128

jack_pp wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that. Depends on the problem. If the problem is complex enough, say nutrition, then you see constantly changing narratives and theories and even competing ones in the present. There's no Best Solution™ way to nourish ourselves yet so people experiment and the top competing theories are being actively discussed and…

> Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world? Sure - passive cooling for homes. Architecture used to vary dramatically by climate. In the last 50 years or so new homes are generally only designed for electric cooling.

Neat, there's your business idea :)

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#130

Post by tucosan » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #128

jack_pp wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In comparison, if you have an existing, known solution to a problem it usually makes sense to just use that. Depends on the problem. If the problem is complex enough, say nutrition, then you see constantly changing narratives and theories and even competing ones in the present. There's no Best Solution™ way to nourish ourselves yet so people experiment and the top competing theories are being actively discussed and…

> Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world? Sure - passive cooling for homes. Architecture used to vary dramatically by climate. In the last 50 years or so new homes are generally only designed for electric cooling.

Can you back that up somehow? I Germany at least, people still build passive houses.