191–200 of 304 posts
These question-begging, click-bait something-is-something-other-than-you-think posts are something less entertaining than the poster thinks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. It's litigated all over and has been for a decade. Australia for example has set an age limit of 16 to have social media. France 15. Schools or countries are trying various phone bans. There's research into it. There are whistleblowers telling about Facebook's own research they've suppressed as it woul…
You’re strengthening OP’s point instead of undermining it. The “some governments banned it for kids” argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The actions of tech-reactionist leftist governments absolutely do not constitute sound science or evidence in this matter. And if you’re claiming the French government only makes government policy based on sound data, I will point you to their currently unraveling…
The actions of several democratic governments is evidence that there is enough popular support for these actions to argue for a broader trend. And before you try for a gotcha, I am well aware that a democratic government can enact regulations without a direct vote proving that a majority of people support such an action. But inasmuch as a government reflects the will of the governed, etc etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. It's litigated all over and has been for a decade. Australia for example has set an age limit of 16 to have social media. France 15. Schools or countries are trying various phone bans. There's research into it. There are whistleblowers telling about Facebook's own research they've suppressed as it woul…
You’re strengthening OP’s point instead of undermining it. The “some governments banned it for kids” argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The actions of tech-reactionist leftist governments absolutely do not constitute sound science or evidence in this matter. And if you’re claiming the French government only makes government policy based on sound data, I will point you to their currently unraveling…
The bans might be unfounded or well founded, you might agree with them or not, but clearly the idea that social media might be bad has spread beyond substack
In any case, there's nothing wrong with trying it out and seeing what other benefits it brings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like regardless of all else, the fact of algorithmic curation is going to be bad, especially when it's contaminated by corporate and/or political interests. We have evolved to parse information as if its prevalence is controlled by how much people talk about it, how acceptable opinions are to voice, how others react to them. Algorithmic social media intrinsically destroy that. They change how information sprea…
No doubt the specific algorithms used by social media companies are bad. But what is "non-algorithmic" curation? Chronological order: promotes spam, which will be mostly paid actors. Manual curation by "high-quality, trusted" curators: who are they, and how will they find content? Curation by friends and locals: this is probably an improvement over what we have now, but it's still dominated by friends and locals who…
Message boards have existed for a very long time, maybe you're too young to remember, but the questions you're raising have very obvious answers.
They're not without issues, but they have a strong benefit: everyone sees the same thing.
1. people having real problems, like employment, housing, health, or education access
2. they go online (or watch TV) finding all sorts of extreme takes and biases; these theories provide simple explanations and ways to pin the blame on others
3. they converge on identity based reasoning, where dialogue becomes impossible, tribal; their posts signal adherence to in-group and rejection of the out-group, no longer tied to reason
4. they vote against their own best interests, such as recent elections (Trump) and referendums (Brexit) or refuse the vaccine (10x higher death rate, observed in hindsight)
The thing that is different now is that we have social networks, and that the outcomes are so drastic they are surprising everyone. Could be a coincidence, but I don't think it is.
So it's: real problems -> toxic social media & tv takes -> identity politics
The last week has taken me from “I believe in the freedom of online anonymity” to “Online anonymity possess a weight that a moral, civil society cannot bear.” I do not believe humans are capable of responsibly wielding the power to anonymously connect with millions of people without the real weight of social consequence.
"I was totally in favor of freedom, until one bad thing happened, and now I think freedom should never have existed in the first place!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect. >Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly agains…
I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. A…
The last week has taken me from “I believe in the freedom of online anonymity” to “Online anonymity possess a weight that a moral, civil society cannot bear.” I do not believe humans are capable of responsibly wielding the power to anonymously connect with millions of people without the real weight of social consequence.
Anonymity can be very powerful for marginalised groups and it can be abused by trolls. Its value is contextual and not some simple good/bad dichotomy.
Successfully integrating technology into society is, like most political topics, complicated, requires a nuanced understanding of issues and a willingness to find compromise and less than perfect solutions. Sadly the political system (and the side in power now particularly) is increasingly offering moral absolutes and simplifications.
Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. A lot of things suck right now. Social media definitely give us the ability to see that. Using your personal ideology to link correlations is not the same thing as finding causation. There will be undoubtedly be some damaging aspects of social media, simply because it is large and complex. It would be hi…
That has been done over and over again, but as long as law makers and regulators remain passive, nothing will improve.