21–30 of 65 posts
Hypocrisy and PR spin aside, he’s not wrong. I think, on the balance, that social networks are a net negative development for humanity and should be destroyed.
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
>Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here. How can the issue of trust be fixed when most of these institution's goals are not really aligned with the general public? A company with the goal of profitting as much as possible from consumers and a government with the goal of helping those companies line their pockets as much as possible isn't really inline with what the average person wants. Beca…
This is an excellent feature of capitalism. Incentives are front and centre, people don't (usually) try to deny them. Everyone understands them and is taught about them as children. People constantly recalibrate their levels of trust in corporations and distinguish between them based on clearly marked and well protected brands. Firms seek out and inform consumers about reasons to distrust their competitors as well. There are systems like bankruptcy, the stock market, and CEO bonuses that at least try to align company behaviours with what people want them to do, as expressed through purchases in the markets. Of course they aren't perfect but they do at least exist.
Non-corporate institutions are a much murkier affair. NGOs, charities, governments and universities tend to make a lot of very dubious claims about their own trustworthiness and incentives. Many people have an utterly blind faith or even ideological loyalty to them. They often blur the boundaries between themselves, make unfounded claims of political neutrality, claim higher moral purposes, may claim they are indispensable or can't be shut down or allowed to fail, and invariably say they aren't "corrupted" by profit.
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that…
Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.) As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.
Democracy to me means giving the people participation in government. It doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that's why we have representative government and not (except in Switzerland) a system that works purely by plebiscites. Switzerland is a special case because the country is small and wealthy with a mostly well educated population and their democratic tradition is a very old one, but in many o…
The Brexit vote is an excellent example of giving people participation in government. By the way, as you seem to be under the charming impression that members of Parliament are intellectually superior to the people who vote them in, you'll be pleased to know the UK now has a massive majority of MPs in favour of implementing Brexit properly. As their opinions are more valid than everyone else's, including yours, you presumably must now concede that Brexit is a superb idea.
Hypocrisy and PR spin aside, he’s not wrong. I think, on the balance, that social networks are a net negative development for humanity and should be destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that…
The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
There seems to be more than a bit of a logical misstep here.
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
[citation needed]
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
Today's institutions are relatively stable, as is the world situation overall, yet polarisation is significantly more extreme than during past times in history.
Institutions in the US aren't much more partisan then they were at any other point, because institutions in the US in particular are very independent and hard to take over. This has nothing to do with the state of the real world and everything to do with the uncontrolled flow of information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy to me means giving the people participation in government. It doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that's why we have representative government and not (except in Switzerland) a system that works purely by plebiscites. Switzerland is a special case because the country is small and wealthy with a mostly well educated population and their democratic tradition is a very old one, but in many o…
Switzerland doesn't "work purely by plebiscites". It's also a representative government. But it is true that there is more direct democracy , through so-called "initiatives" and "referendums". Those involve the population a few times a year. Note that California does something very similar, although the votes are less frequent.