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

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

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 199 posts

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

#141

Post by jkhdigital »

bumby wrote: post #23
dasil003 wrote: post #20

The media narrative that social media is the cause of these societal ills, especially environmental problems is laughable. The real danger technology poses is the increased leverage of ever-increasing automation consolidating in the hands of oligarchs who using it to enrich themselves and isolate themselves from the consequences with no regard for broader impact on the planet or future generations. Despite the proble…

Don’t you think social media impacts policy though? Take your example of automation. Wouldn’t the way to counteract this be through smarter policy (like an automation tax as an off-the-cuff example). I think the angle of the paper is that social media makes enacting smart policy that much harder because weaponized misinformation can be used to stymie such policy.

I know how to solve this: no more democracy, just put the “smart policy” wonks in charge. What could possibly go wrong

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

#142

Post by grumblenum »

baldanders wrote: post #123

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…

Gopher and Gemini are attempts at this. There are a few comfortable online communities out there when you get away from the big web properties. Unless you’re into gamification of showing how orthodox and au currant you are. Then there’s Reddit.

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

#143

Post by bumby »

jkhdigital wrote: post #141
bumby wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t you think social media impacts policy though? Take your example of automation. Wouldn’t the way to counteract this be through smarter policy (like an automation tax as an off-the-cuff example). I think the angle of the paper is that social media makes enacting smart policy that much harder because weaponized misinformation can be used to stymie such policy.

I know how to solve this: no more democracy, just put the “smart policy” wonks in charge. What could possibly go wrong

I know you’re being sarcastic, but in a representative democracy the people are largely the ones charged with assigning the “smart policy wonks” to their roles

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

#144

Post by slipframe »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #139
slipframe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think genetics is actually the easy part. A few dozen or so people, selected for strong health, probably contain enough genetic material in their groins to start a colony. More would doubtlessly be better, but I think such things have been done by humans on earth before. Frozen eggs/sperm and women willing to be surrogate mothers help a lot too; you wouldn't need artificial womb technology, necessarily. The hard pa…

I want to see it, but does a Mars colony have any chance before we’ve tested solutions for the major issues that Biosphere 2 quickly ran into?

Maybe not, though a Mars colony might not have to run as a totally isolated system. Perhaps solar power could be used to extract oxygen from the rocks or something. It's definitely a tricky nut to crack though and I'm far from confident that it will happen.

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

#145

Post by grawprog »

cvwright wrote: post #122
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.

It looks interesting, I lack an Apple device though so I'll have to pass for now.

It seems to have that same problem many alternatives have though.

My friends and family aren't on there and there seems to be a lack of a way to at least make some new friends on there.

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

#146

Post by snarf21 »

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…

I think people already could do what you say. You could be on Facebook and only have family and a small group of close friends that you share with. People don't want that. They want to get as many likes as possible. They want to argue with people. They want to be voyeurs. Even something just as simple as group chat is available today. Why aren't people simply creating different group chats (or using GroupMe, e.g.) as their only sharing communication? They can control every level of privacy. I don't think people want that. They want max likes and they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't really care about privacy. If they did, they wouldn't share every meal and activity they do online.

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

#147

Post by akomtu »

underseacables wrote: post #2

I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. We used to spend so much time together, doing things together, I’m talking in the office to the roller rink. Perhaps this just shows how old I am, but I really felt like that was better for humanity. Global communication and interaction is great and all, but I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking

Perhaps social networks need to reinvent clubs? That's what makes HN valuable: it's a club with like-minded members and because their number is small, your voice gets heard. FB, on the other hand, is a club that admits anyone, so it's not really a club, and because it's a stadium packed with random folks, your voice doesn't matter.

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

#148

Post by Qem »

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…

Three-piece suits being the iconic business clothing over most the world, even in hot climates where it's completelly innapropriate and antiergonomic.

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

#149

Post by amanaplanacanal »

thethethethe wrote: post #31
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know that being concerned about the impact of social media was strictly a liberal position.

Im not saying that it is, that is just the perspective that I believe this article is being written from. American conservatives are concerned about censorship, American liberals are concerned about "misinformation and disinformation". This article is firmly on the diss/misinformation side of the debate

I feel certain you could find plenty of people who self identify as liberals and are concerned about free speech issues, just as you can find folks who self identify as conservatives who are concerned about the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Dividing people into groups and setting them against each other like this isn’t helping.

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

#150

Post by lambdaphagy »

horsawlarway wrote: post #135
jack_pp wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat, there's your business idea :)

Hah, it doesn't sell , because we're at a local maxima with electric AC right now. It's so easy to literally build a square box and stick a cooler/heater in it that everyone (including me) chooses to do it. Does that mean it's the right way for us to be handling heating/cooling for our homes? Sure seemed like it 50 years ago. Sure seems less like it today with climate change, but we've already picked, and now general…

Cooling costs 1/3 the energy of heating per degree day, but comes in for more hate because it seems decadent.
Post reply on HN