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

61–70 of 199 posts

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

#61

Post by gnull »

JoshTko wrote: post #46

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

One crucial difference that seems to break the analogy is that money is a utilitarian tool. It doesn't have an absolute, “true” price or way of managing it. Anything that makes people feel happy and economy grow is good, and is “true” way to run money.

Truth is not like that. It's must be absolute, and it should not be defined arbitrarily based on what improves people's well-being. (Or maybe it should, but that's going to be a different kind of truth.)

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

#62

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

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

Text based communication is the cause. Not social media. Anytime I go to a bar, people are paying attention their friends if something is going on, watching a band, or on their phone. Stranger interaction declines heavily the more people that are there.

I've noticed this since the advent of texting. Not since the advent of social media. It's absurd to me honestly that someone would prioritize someone on their phone over the person who took the time and effort to physically be present and engage with them that day.

>I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking

I do as well. But it makes me wonder now, if people always have been flakey and unwilling to hang out with new people. I swear when I was a kid, asking someone to hang out or do something was easy, even if you met them one time. It's almost as if unlimited media and instant communication halts people from pursuing anything with other people unless they have something they dont.

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

#63

Post by kingsuper20 »

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

>I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity.

You know, that could be.

I'll present a meta-hypothesis. Diversity is generally dangerous and global communications/global movement drives everyone closer to hazardous behavior. Without the filtering of slow tempos, things get sporty.

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

#64

Post by anigbrowl »

whatever1 wrote: post #53
thethethethe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This begs the question that truth can be formalized. Who gets to decide what is truth? That's incredible power and it's unlikely that people will agree on who gets to wield it. If some does have that power, how do we know that they won't control the "truth" to build an autocracy?

And don't forget that truth also depends on the observer. If for some reason my sensor is not calibrated properly, my "truth" will be different compared to your truth. It does not mean I necessarily lie, or that I do it intentionally. Academia has been trying for centuries to crack this nut, and it is not easy.

That's why it's useful to distinguish between misinformation (false statements made by people who sincerely believe them) and disinformation (false statements by people who know them to be false). Philosopher Harry Frankfurter also argues persuasively for a category of bullshit statements, which are made by people who don't care about their truth or falsehood.

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

#65

Post by pessimizer »

polalavik wrote: post #48
JoshTko wrote: post #46

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

We'll end up with licensing of journalists, just like every fascist state. People without a license will not be limited in what they can say, but they will be limited in what they can record or distribute, especially if it crosses state lines or borders. It'll be like what authoritarians say about driving: speaking may be a right, but being heard is a privilege. Free speech will be defined down to making noise with your mouth when outside of the company of anyone who might be offended or exposed to disloyalty.

We'll be prosecuted for sending communications across state lines to mislead a child under Texas's Anti-Critical Race Theory statute.

We're nearly there already, happy to ban clearly-marked Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media. Those actions have already been used by private media to ban US journalists by associations as weak as sharing the same opinions as enemy media outlets.

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

#66

Post by anigbrowl »

pelasaco wrote: post #39
bckr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intention of the creators and, yes, moderation. The exact same HTML/CSS/JS could power a community devoted to fighting a holy war against Lizard people.

but not all moderation are the same too, right? I mean reddit has moderation, but IMO, there, it doesn't work as good as here.

That's because Reddit has a million subreddits and to some extent they compete with each other. You may find this study of virtual conflict dynamics interesting: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/

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

#67

Post by docdeek »

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 continent, and their evolution slows down. Now, for our own species, evolution occurs mostly through our behaviour. We innovate new behaviour to adapt. And everybody on earth knows that innovation only occurs in small groups. Put three people on a committee and they may get something done. Ten people, and it gets harder. Thirty people, and nothing happens. Thirty million, it becomes impossible. That's the effect of mass media - it keeps anything from happening. Mass media swamps diversity. It makes every place the same. Bangkok or Tokyo or London: there's a McDonald's on one corner, a Benetton on another, a Gap across the street. Regional differences vanish. All differences vanish. In a mass-media world, there's less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas. People worry about losing species diversity in the rain forest. But what about intellectual diversity - our most necessary resource? That's disappearing faster than trees. But we haven't figured that out, so now we're planning to put five billion people together in cyberspace. And it'll freeze the entire species. Everything will stop dead in its tracks. Everyone will think the same thing at the same time. Global uniformity."

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

#68

Post by pessimizer »

pelasaco wrote: post #33

But not all social media are the same. HN for example, is the only social media that I consume completely (news feeds + comment section). Everything else I limit as much as I can.. what makes HN so much better than the others? Lack of ads? Moderation?

It's an ego-vehicle for billionaires; a bauble to show off. HN isn't really a business or a public service. It's a rich man's hobby spun-off, and its only purpose and governance is to make him happy enough to continue to bother.

It's an aging salon, and reflects the product of the current mood and amount of attention given by its host.

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

#69

Post by pessimizer »

pelasaco wrote: post #39
bckr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intention of the creators and, yes, moderation. The exact same HTML/CSS/JS could power a community devoted to fighting a holy war against Lizard people.

but not all moderation are the same too, right? I mean reddit has moderation, but IMO, there, it doesn't work as good as here.

I think a big part of it was that it was seeded (and continues to be watered with) people who are looking for funding and/or people whose hopes are already dependent on YC and other sources of financing. People have to behave well, or there are consequences far beyond the forum.

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

#70

Post by anigbrowl »

LarryEt wrote: post #12
incrudible wrote: post #8

"For example, the paper says that tech companies have “fumbled their way through the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, unable to stem the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation” that has hindered widespread acceptance of masks and vaccines" The numbers on masks and vaccines show that acceptance is widespread. What are we looking for here, approval rates to rival Kim Jong Un? The worst thing that could happen to what little is lef…

It seems many people have a completely unscientific view of reality in that they have absolute certainty in what they believe to be true. I think there are people who are looking for North Korea level approval ratings on things. If you have zero uncertainty in what you think is true then anything contradictory is naturally "misinformation".

If you wanna go around arguing the Earth is flat, you need to have something more persuasive than 'do the research.' Not that you personally believe in a flat earth, but it's a good example of why we shouldn't treat epistemological uncertainty as the starting point; there is so much evidence for Earth being round and so little offered in favor of it being flat that its roundness should be treated as a fact unless extraordinary new evidence to the contrary is produced. If someone comes along insisting on its flatness without overcoming that bar, then it's OK to treat them as either a fool or a troll and reject their opinions.
Post reply on HN