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

191–199 of 199 posts

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

#191

Post by bumby »

antifa wrote: post #185
bumby wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Feels more like choosing your ISP than it does democracy...

Can you elaborate? Are you alluding to choosing between the lesser of two evils?

Personally, I think this can be managed by bringing back the idea of Cincinnati-style civic duty, rather than relying on a professional political class but that ship may be too far gone

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

#192

Post by bckr »

birdyrooster wrote: post #151
bckr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is probably about 3 or 4 decades too early.

You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened.

> You had to say probably. For me, that's enough. It could have already happened.

This is the inverse of the intended interpretation. By "probably x decades early", I mean "at least x decades early". I did not mean "it has probably not happened".

The singularity is not guaranteed to happen and with a high confidence has not already happened.

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

#193

Post by cvwright »

grawprog wrote: post #145
cvwright wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You hit right on the two biggest challenges.

First, I’m trying really hard to get an Android version ready by the end of the year.

Second, we’re going to be offering some group deals and discounts, so one person can pay to get their whole family / group / crew on the network for an introductory period.

No doubt it will be slow going for a while.

But I think (hope?) that once people get a taste of an easy way to keep in touch, without the platform itself working against you, then it will start to spread organically and pick up steam.

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

#194

Post by errantmind »

wwweston wrote: post #97
errantmind wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth. I sincerely doubt them deciding what is true and what isn't "beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive". It would quickly turn into a dystopian nightmare. Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?

> The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates…

I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings.

Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.

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

#195

Post by lifeplusplus »

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…

In other words, the diversity of ideas reduces as you become super connected the only few popular ideas are entertained and alternatives are censored.

I saw it first hand when I migrated to USA, here people religiously watched news and had very uniform, fixed ideas about policies, whereas where I came from TV was still a luxury back then. I found people more open minded willing to engage in different views.

The more connected we become the less diverse we get in terms of perspectives.

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

#197

Post by wwweston »

errantmind wrote: post #194
wwweston wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The courts are specialists in the law, not the truth You're confusing the fact that courts are legal institutions directed by legal professionals with the conception that's all they are. In fact, a court is a process. That process is guided by law, and results in legal findings, but it is not limited to the legal sphere when it comes to findings of fact and truth. Where a court lacks specialists in truth, advocates…

I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.

> In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output

LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating who has the better case for accurately understanding a given question of truth. Which again, is absolutely necessary -- there will always be questions about what is or is not true at the heart of every court case.

Including already existing content-of-speech related laws like defamation. Creating a class of entities that opt-in to heightened obligations on this front in order to address the problems as the AC was thinking wouldn't change this.

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

#198

Post by meristohm »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #181
meristohm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the cost of freon on earth’s ability to radiate heat? Even if the cooling cost is less power degree than heating, there’s still a cost, scaled by number and size of units. Do enough of us have the discipline to only use the decadent, luxurious things for the outlying cases?

The substance you're talking about is already essentially banned in the developed world.

What is being used instead, and what are its potential impacts? What happens to all the freon (and other chemicals banned in developed countries) after it is banned? Do we sell it like we did with DDT?

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

#199

Post by errantmind »

wwweston wrote: post #197
errantmind wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I confused nothing. In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output, except as it relates to the law and their rulings. Once you have a courtroom deciding 'the truth' without respect to the law, that is my exit signal for that particular society.

> In your examples, the court isn't the arbiter of truth, they examine the truth as an input to interpret and apply the law. They aren't deciding the truth as an output LOL nice semantic game. Nobody thinks "arbiter of truth" means that court could, like, rule on a new gravitational constant or something and it would be so. It means that a court is a socially formalized process of speech & discourse for arbitrating w…

Happy as usual to strike a nerve. Your argument is more dependent on semantics than mine.

It sounds like you want some kind of labeling system, kind of like 'USDA Organic' certification, but for news organizations. Sure, the courts could try to interpret whether or not a news organization satisfies some criteria for this label, but I wouldn't call the result of their ruling 'the truth'.

Assuming consensus could be found among 'experts', consensus isn't a magic bullet. I have no doubt this would turn into a game of cherry-picking sources and feed the litigation culture we have. I personally wouldn't attribute any increased credibility nor usefulness to any such labeling scheme. I would actually trust it less and avoid it entirely.

And yes, if such a system existed people would actually think the output of the process you describe is the absolute truth, much like a gravitational constant. It would further bifurcate our society and in the end, likely be co-opted by some political party to silence the other.

Post reply on HN