Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need to reclaim our attention

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 458 posts

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#311

Post by thegrimmest »

Apocryphon wrote: post #308
thegrimmest wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What ensures the parties involved are free? The prohibition by the government of the physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. > the legal framework should permit nullification and redress It does already. Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time.

Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time. To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA? The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utiliz…

> negative effects

What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held?

I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#312

Post by vaylian »

woolion wrote: post #249
bnralt wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of your examples are of times we failed to counter problematic tendencies as a society, gave up, and then even worse (in this case, more addictive time consuming activities) things come along. It's basically the realization of a slippery slope, where failure to stop one problematic trend is used to justify an even worse trend. Society can survive with bad tendencies. Think about 50 years ago when America…

Technology does not respect biology. There is a mechanical view of man, that is similar to what hydroponics is to gardening. You look what are the required nutrients etc, and provide just that in a very sterile environment. Of course, the results are quite garbage. The fruits are tasteless, and the problems it brings (e.g. insect infestations) require a lot of pesticides. The technological vision is to solve these pr…

Well put. In addition, biology can't really be patched. CRIPSR nonwithstanding. We are stuck with the bugs that developed many thousands of years ago. Our bugs will continue to be exploited.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#313

Post by tux3 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #223
bnralt wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of your examples are of times we failed to counter problematic tendencies as a society, gave up, and then even worse (in this case, more addictive time consuming activities) things come along. It's basically the realization of a slippery slope, where failure to stop one problematic trend is used to justify an even worse trend. Society can survive with bad tendencies. Think about 50 years ago when America…

Totally agree. When I hear the argument "People always say this, they said this before with TV and videogames", it just makes me think that people are discounting some of the huge negative impacts these technologies have had (or at least contributed to). Just look at the overall physical fitness of, say, an average 18 year old in 1950 vs today in the US. By loads of measures (obesity, muscle strength, cardiovascular…

Developped countries share the same technologies, but this obesity and diabetes problem you're talking about seems largely rooted in North America.

You're a little quick to correlate screens and health metrics. I don't think that explanation holds up at all if you consider data in other countries.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#314

Post by Apocryphon »

thegrimmest wrote: post #296
Apocryphon wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?

It absolutely is! In the context of raising a child, it may be appropriate. When interacting with an equal it is not.

What determines equality?

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#315

Post by thegrimmest »

Apocryphon wrote: post #314
thegrimmest wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is! In the context of raising a child, it may be appropriate. When interacting with an equal it is not.

What determines equality?

It is a moral axiom:

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#316

Post by Barrin92 »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #220
fullshark wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expound in a conversation with Apocryphon attached to that post

> more a destruction of shared cultural values, in particular those that are good for "society" like a belief in the value of work, family unit, deeper concerns than material wealth (e.g. god/spirituality) etc at least in the west / America. This is what conservatives have been crowing about since the 40/50's when black music started dominating the airwaves. It's a really old argument that is literally moral panic wi…

If you think only 50s Conservatives find some parts of rap questionable I propose an experiment. Show some NWA lyrics without attribution to a young, progressive audience, there's some interesting takes in there about homosexuals, jews and women.

Of course we don't even play 90% of that stuff any more because any radio station would be cancelled within five minutes and not by conservatives.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#317

Post by hoseja »

woolion wrote: post #249
bnralt wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of your examples are of times we failed to counter problematic tendencies as a society, gave up, and then even worse (in this case, more addictive time consuming activities) things come along. It's basically the realization of a slippery slope, where failure to stop one problematic trend is used to justify an even worse trend. Society can survive with bad tendencies. Think about 50 years ago when America…

Technology does not respect biology. There is a mechanical view of man, that is similar to what hydroponics is to gardening. You look what are the required nutrients etc, and provide just that in a very sterile environment. Of course, the results are quite garbage. The fruits are tasteless, and the problems it brings (e.g. insect infestations) require a lot of pesticides. The technological vision is to solve these pr…

There is no path but mastering ourselves eventually, idiosyncracies included.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#318

Post by wott »

tux3 wrote: post #313
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. When I hear the argument "People always say this, they said this before with TV and videogames", it just makes me think that people are discounting some of the huge negative impacts these technologies have had (or at least contributed to). Just look at the overall physical fitness of, say, an average 18 year old in 1950 vs today in the US. By loads of measures (obesity, muscle strength, cardiovascular…

Developped countries share the same technologies, but this obesity and diabetes problem you're talking about seems largely rooted in North America. You're a little quick to correlate screens and health metrics. I don't think that explanation holds up at all if you consider data in other countries.

> Developped countries share the same technologies, but this obesity and diabetes problem you're talking about seems largely rooted in North America.

In France ("the land of delicate and healthy food", as it is sold to you), obesity rate was multiplied by 3 since the 80s. Overweight rate raised by 50%.

Diabetes has also been on the raise: double or tripled since the 90s.

You know, in general all the crap that develops in the USA reaches other countries after a while. Depending on which specific 'crap', it is just a matter of variables delays and variable intensity, but it surely comes one day.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#319

Post by Apocryphon »

thegrimmest wrote: post #311
Apocryphon wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts have disclosure clauses all the time. To bring it back to the article at hand, did social media and other tech companies disclose the negative effects of the use of their products in their EULA? The prohibition by the government of the use of physical force requisite to deprive people of their freedom. If a distributor of an addiction-forming substance engenders an addiction in customers, is that not utiliz…

> negative effects What do you mean "negative"? Why do you consider captivating people negative? Do you think this view is universally held? I think people should be able to distribute any substances or provide any services "as is", without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.

Negative, in this context, can constitute enough for whatever grievance that enough users are unhappy with their customer experience. To take this discussion from the normative to the practical, I do not believe the appropriate government role here would be to act as sole regulator but rather aid those users who are aggrieved by these businesses in more precise actions, such as filing amicus briefs in class action suits by users who feel that their captivation has proven to be personally detrimental. Or perhaps for the FTC to provide guidance and support to consumer watchdog groups to form and issue PSAs on said detrimental effects. Empowering individuals and independent groups to come together. These supportive, assistive, incentive-based actions would not be utilizing the state’s monopoly on violence, and thus does not violate your views on the proper place of the government.

without implied warranties of any kind. Offering such goods and service does not constitute physical force.

Then there simply should be more powerful NGOs rooted in civil society that can advise consumers on potential negative effects, to protect against information asymmetry, and so users will understand the full freedoms they have at their disposal for redress if a business happens to provide poor, injurious service.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#320

Post by Apocryphon »

thegrimmest wrote: post #315
Apocryphon wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What determines equality?

It is a moral axiom: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

And how are children, as men, not also created equal, yet still subject to paternalism?
Post reply on HN