Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity(vox.com)
vox.com
Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity
https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/6/26/22550981/carl-bergstrom-joe-bak-coleman-biologists-ecologists-social-media-risk-humanity-research-academics
198 comments
I get the sentiment, and there might be nuggets of truth to the idea, but there are some fundamental aspects of biological evolution that make it different.
Biology evolves through mutation propagation, and larger populations tend to regress mutations to the mean more than smaller populations.
Behavior changes don't require any mutations, and they can be shared in all directions (unlike mutations, which can only be shared with descendants) This already fundamentally changes how societies can evolve.
Second, if this were true, the number of innovations would have decreased after we became globally connected. This hasn't been the case, as we have continued to innovate and create new things even after we have been globally connected.
While our global society does propagate some homogeneity (McDonalds and Starbucks everywhere), it also lets innovations spread very quickly, which gives more chances for amazing new things to propagate.
Biology evolves through mutation propagation, and larger populations tend to regress mutations to the mean more than smaller populations.
Behavior changes don't require any mutations, and they can be shared in all directions (unlike mutations, which can only be shared with descendants) This already fundamentally changes how societies can evolve.
Second, if this were true, the number of innovations would have decreased after we became globally connected. This hasn't been the case, as we have continued to innovate and create new things even after we have been globally connected.
While our global society does propagate some homogeneity (McDonalds and Starbucks everywhere), it also lets innovations spread very quickly, which gives more chances for amazing new things to propagate.
> Second, if this were true, the number of innovations would have decreased after we became globally connected.
It is not only about "innovation" but about cultural diversity. For good or bad, a globalized world is standardizing culture around the world. Hollywood was a very powerful starting point as allowed everyone to see what the USA produces.
> innovations spread very quickly
That is the point. There are less and less pockets of different approaches. In one side of the world someone invents a new app and people is using it in the other side of the world 3 days later. Innovation may be fast, but it is not diverse but there is a convergence of ideas and ways of thinking. If we get it right it is fantastic, if we get it wrong there are no alternatives.
A good example, hot topic, is cryptocurrencies. If it is something good they are everywhere, if it is a mistake then it is consuming an incredible amount of resources for no use. If you had pockets of innovation the impact would be smaller and it will take more time to copy it if it becomes successful.
It is not only about "innovation" but about cultural diversity. For good or bad, a globalized world is standardizing culture around the world. Hollywood was a very powerful starting point as allowed everyone to see what the USA produces.
> innovations spread very quickly
That is the point. There are less and less pockets of different approaches. In one side of the world someone invents a new app and people is using it in the other side of the world 3 days later. Innovation may be fast, but it is not diverse but there is a convergence of ideas and ways of thinking. If we get it right it is fantastic, if we get it wrong there are no alternatives.
A good example, hot topic, is cryptocurrencies. If it is something good they are everywhere, if it is a mistake then it is consuming an incredible amount of resources for no use. If you had pockets of innovation the impact would be smaller and it will take more time to copy it if it becomes successful.
> Second, if this were true, the number of innovations would have decreased after we became globally connected. This hasn't been the case
I read the argument as being about diversity. There are innovations, but as you point out in the next paragraph, they spread quickly, which could be good, but also destroys a lot of diversity. Look at how different UI design trends spread e.g. I don't consider that a clear win. Having many less connected groups could potentially lead to more, and more diverse innovations, vs. everyone jumping on the same bandwagon
The other thing that spreads more quickly is disease (here I mean metaphorically). If everything is the same, it gets infected the same way, and I believe there is an element of that when you look at online discourse, at dark patterns and other user hostile business practices, etc.
There are some reasons homogeneity is good, especially locally in time, but it presents an evolutionarily disadvantage over longer scales, which is what I took to be the point of the MC quote
I read the argument as being about diversity. There are innovations, but as you point out in the next paragraph, they spread quickly, which could be good, but also destroys a lot of diversity. Look at how different UI design trends spread e.g. I don't consider that a clear win. Having many less connected groups could potentially lead to more, and more diverse innovations, vs. everyone jumping on the same bandwagon
The other thing that spreads more quickly is disease (here I mean metaphorically). If everything is the same, it gets infected the same way, and I believe there is an element of that when you look at online discourse, at dark patterns and other user hostile business practices, etc.
There are some reasons homogeneity is good, especially locally in time, but it presents an evolutionarily disadvantage over longer scales, which is what I took to be the point of the MC quote
Agree 100% with everything you said here. Continuing with the example of food, the ability to watch a Youtube video about an emerging food trend on Saturday, try making it on Sunday because they taught me how to do it, then watch 5 more channels doing the same idea in different ways, and eventually understand the idea enough to use the techniques does not seem to be restricting the evolution of ideas in any way and seems to actually rapidly accelerate it.
> unlike mutations, which can only be shared with descendants
Actually, transgenesis happens. E.g. bacteria can share genes horizontally with plasmids. And viruses may bring genes from unrelated species.
Actually, transgenesis happens. E.g. bacteria can share genes horizontally with plasmids. And viruses may bring genes from unrelated species.
Culture isn't reproduction, culture is horizontal gene transfer.
They don’t require a biological mutation but they do require a change in agency, social state.
Take society as an organism in the abstract and it definitely needs to mutate.
Crichton was a pop science author, right-wing believer in America. His idea small groups get things done was lost on this guy who watched entire corporations publish his books and movies. I’d take his philosophy and science creds with a grain of salt.
The masses were too busy collectively validating his banal artistic efforts, so of course he would balk at collectivism philosophically while ignoring it took a village to lift him up.
Those folks are scared that if everyone can have time to write mediocre sci fi they’d have to get real jobs.
Take society as an organism in the abstract and it definitely needs to mutate.
Crichton was a pop science author, right-wing believer in America. His idea small groups get things done was lost on this guy who watched entire corporations publish his books and movies. I’d take his philosophy and science creds with a grain of salt.
The masses were too busy collectively validating his banal artistic efforts, so of course he would balk at collectivism philosophically while ignoring it took a village to lift him up.
Those folks are scared that if everyone can have time to write mediocre sci fi they’d have to get real jobs.
That's a pessimistic way of putting it.
"In a mass-media world, there's less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas"... but aren't those brought about by evolution as well? And as far as I can see the top ten keeps changing, evolving.
My argument is that the internet has enabled hyper-evolution. You get access to the best possible information, you have through torrents and libgen access to all the media and books ever produced at your fingertips, free of charge. What you might've figured out in 30 years of your own trials and tribulations can now be learned in a couple of years reading books. Of course pride and arrogance keeps us from learning but that's a different story and will probably be weeded out by evolution much faster now than ever before thanks to free access to information.
"In a mass-media world, there's less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas"... but aren't those brought about by evolution as well? And as far as I can see the top ten keeps changing, evolving.
My argument is that the internet has enabled hyper-evolution. You get access to the best possible information, you have through torrents and libgen access to all the media and books ever produced at your fingertips, free of charge. What you might've figured out in 30 years of your own trials and tribulations can now be learned in a couple of years reading books. Of course pride and arrogance keeps us from learning but that's a different story and will probably be weeded out by evolution much faster now than ever before thanks to free access to information.
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 to use the established method.
But the group at large would benefit more from having lots of people try novel things, because otherwise innovation stagnates as the "known" solution takes precedence everywhere.
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 to use the established method.
But the group at large would benefit more from having lots of people try novel things, because otherwise innovation stagnates as the "known" solution takes precedence everywhere.
>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.
There’s ways around this, though. For example, occasionally accepting a method that’s worse in the short term can eventually lead to a better long term solution. The likelihood of accepting a worse solution can be inversely proportional to how much worse it is to the current solution. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm does exactly this to avoid local maxima.
Meaning you just need some people to take a seemingly worse idea and run with it occasionally. I think there will always be a few brave or naive souls willing to do that.
There’s ways around this, though. For example, occasionally accepting a method that’s worse in the short term can eventually lead to a better long term solution. The likelihood of accepting a worse solution can be inversely proportional to how much worse it is to the current solution. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm does exactly this to avoid local maxima.
Meaning you just need some people to take a seemingly worse idea and run with it occasionally. I think there will always be a few brave or naive souls willing to do that.
> 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 debated. Sure there are keto / vegan / paleo nuts out there but they're just test subjects really. Same argument can be said about software dev, there's no best language or best framework; or about ways to earn money, employment vs entrepreneurship is not a settled debate.
Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world?
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 debated. Sure there are keto / vegan / paleo nuts out there but they're just test subjects really. Same argument can be said about software dev, there's no best language or best framework; or about ways to earn money, employment vs entrepreneurship is not a settled debate.
Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world?
Three-piece suits being the iconic business clothing over most the world, even in hot climates where it's completelly innapropriate and antiergonomic.
> Can you name some problem that you feel has stagnated in the modern world?
Sure - passive cooling for homes. Architecture used to vary dramatically by climate. In the last 50 years or so new homes are generally only designed for electric cooling.
Sure - passive cooling for homes. Architecture used to vary dramatically by climate. In the last 50 years or so new homes are generally only designed for electric cooling.
Can you back that up somehow?
I Germany at least, people still build passive houses.
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 cultural preferences make it hard to undo (not even mentioning sunk costs on buildings that are hard to modify)
Basically - the point they're making is that as we homogenize, we put all the eggs in one basket. And we have a long history of making decisions that seem GREAT! today, but actually have some downsides at scale (like electric AC contributing to climate change, requiring more electric AC, making climate change worse, etc)
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 cultural preferences make it hard to undo (not even mentioning sunk costs on buildings that are hard to modify)
Basically - the point they're making is that as we homogenize, we put all the eggs in one basket. And we have a long history of making decisions that seem GREAT! today, but actually have some downsides at scale (like electric AC contributing to climate change, requiring more electric AC, making climate change worse, etc)
Cooling costs 1/3 the energy of heating per degree day, but comes in for more hate because it seems decadent.
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?
I am a big Crichton fan and wish he was around to skewer Fuckerberg & Co.
Truth is we haven't got to 5 billion online. Just getting 3 billion online has run into massive issues that has split the net in many ways no one imagined. It doesn't look like we will ever get to 5 billion.
So there is some baked in natural resistance. Andrew Odlyzko is looking like he was onto something when he said Metcalfe and Reeds Law of network growth would not hold.
Primarily the limitation is the 6 inch chimp brain and the Dunbar number. If the avg chimp has the channel capacity for a 100 ppl max what's the point of all this connectivity?
We are taking our sweet time to realise it.
Truth is we haven't got to 5 billion online. Just getting 3 billion online has run into massive issues that has split the net in many ways no one imagined. It doesn't look like we will ever get to 5 billion.
So there is some baked in natural resistance. Andrew Odlyzko is looking like he was onto something when he said Metcalfe and Reeds Law of network growth would not hold.
Primarily the limitation is the 6 inch chimp brain and the Dunbar number. If the avg chimp has the channel capacity for a 100 ppl max what's the point of all this connectivity?
We are taking our sweet time to realise it.
Recommend a book by him besides Jurassic park (which I read already)?
Airframe (explains quite well how the corporate world deals with crisis or failures)
Micro (is a Honey I shrunk the kids story but with a much more jurassic park science vibe. Have no idea why its hasn't been made into a movie)
Timeline (has been made into a movie and is a cool time travel story)
Micro (is a Honey I shrunk the kids story but with a much more jurassic park science vibe. Have no idea why its hasn't been made into a movie)
Timeline (has been made into a movie and is a cool time travel story)
The Andromeda Strain
I dunno. Every time species from that big Eurasian land mass -- say, house cats -- showed up on an island, there was an extinction event. Every time an isolated tribe meets "civilization", 90% of the tribe drops dead from unfamiliar pathogens. Being wired in to the big Evolution Chamber seems to forge a kind of strength (not that it's peaceful). Evolution has more dice to roll.
On the other hand if "global uniformity" stops us from nuking each other to smithereens than maybe it's not a bad thing.
Sure... we might not innovate enough, hopefully we don't decline to the point of pre-industrial levels but at least we might have a chance to make it out alive; instead of being in a creative destruction process akin to evolution.
On the other hand, are tribes or nations which are not intimately connected to the western world that much better off?
And science evolved greatly in the highly interconnected parts of the world.
And science evolved greatly in the highly interconnected parts of the world.
They aren’t better off. That’s what makes this whole thing so dire — there’s value in being different, just for the sake of being different, but nobody is going to willingly choose to do something materially worse just on the off-chance that the Current Best Practice happens to have some horrible, unseen downside 50 years later.
> Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest.
This is more than backwards. Evolution does not only accelerate when you connect small populations into a larger one, it also starts happening on a higher level, selecting over collections of traits larger than what was possible before.
Group diversity (like speciation) of course depends on isolation, but individual diversity does not. It depends on a series of factors that are completely different for memetic and biologic evolution. (Personally, I don't know how either react to isolation, but since the author got wrong every single fact that I know, I don't imagine he has any idea either.)
This is more than backwards. Evolution does not only accelerate when you connect small populations into a larger one, it also starts happening on a higher level, selecting over collections of traits larger than what was possible before.
Group diversity (like speciation) of course depends on isolation, but individual diversity does not. It depends on a series of factors that are completely different for memetic and biologic evolution. (Personally, I don't know how either react to isolation, but since the author got wrong every single fact that I know, I don't imagine he has any idea either.)
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.
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.
Nicholas Taleb puts forth the same ideas, where he believes in fractalistic localities, in order to improve anti fragility.
It is a nice new thinking direction. But this is posted on the wrong place. This is HN where tons of people who make their living off the connected web congregate. Hence you won't get very objective opinions here.
So you're saying a wide varity of echo chambers is a good thing to avoid intellectual monoculture?
I think echo chambers are part of the problem. Previously you'd love in your village and have to get along with other villagers (or move, which took a lot of effort) so people had to learn to compromise more.
Now everyone can live in virtual echo chambers where everyone agrees with them and they never need to compromise. So they start viewing anyone who disagrees with them as pure evil.
Now everyone can live in virtual echo chambers where everyone agrees with them and they never need to compromise. So they start viewing anyone who disagrees with them as pure evil.
"Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest."
Small groups that are isolated aren’t necessarily echo chambers devoid of diversity. The point is the existence of disconnect between small groups, not the homogeneity within groups.
Can any biologist reading this confirm or deny this statement?
Broadly true. It's standard stuff. Think about Charles Darwin and his writing about the unusual diversity of the species on the Galapagos islands, which are small and isolated. There are numerous other examples, e.g. pygmy species on Mediterranean islands (now extinct).
When population numbers within a species are large, interbreeding will tend to dilute genetic mutations within the total population. When populations are small, e.g. due to physical isolation or temporal isolation, mutations are more likely to spread and become established. This is increased further when selective pressure is applied.
When population numbers within a species are large, interbreeding will tend to dilute genetic mutations within the total population. When populations are small, e.g. due to physical isolation or temporal isolation, mutations are more likely to spread and become established. This is increased further when selective pressure is applied.
[deleted]
See: Edison bulbs in every dark bar worldwide. This phenomenon is real.
The Last Archive's It Came From Outer Space [S01E06] helped me better understand Crichton.
https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-fr...
My own TLDR: Explains how the trauma and betrayal experienced by Boomers impacted that generation, and how it may have forged Crichton's personal philosophy.
https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-fr...
My own TLDR: Explains how the trauma and betrayal experienced by Boomers impacted that generation, and how it may have forged Crichton's personal philosophy.
Yeah but, life finds a way.
Diversity: bottom-up
Uniformity: top-down
Uniformity: top-down
Globalism is the great filter. Social media is the first taste.
COVID as an example, would have previously been a contained regional outbreak. Globalism made it an instant problem for every continent. Social media exacerbated responses in most every country.
Interconnectivity is fragility.
COVID as an example, would have previously been a contained regional outbreak. Globalism made it an instant problem for every continent. Social media exacerbated responses in most every country.
Interconnectivity is fragility.
Plenty of global pandemics before COVID. Globalisation is how we got so many viable vaccinations so quickly.
Monocultures are fragile. The only part of globalisation that gives me cause for concern is that it can make bigger monopolies that would otherwise be possible.
Monocultures are fragile. The only part of globalisation that gives me cause for concern is that it can make bigger monopolies that would otherwise be possible.
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 are creating media based on the things users post. They're not made to facilitate communication between friends, family, coworkers, etc...
They are designed specifically for users to generate monetizable content and data. They use a veneer of 'connecting the world together' so users will generate content that drives clicks and makes them money.
A true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today. It would be designed around allowing people to communicate easily and freely, it would give you control over who and what you interact with and it would allow you to maintain granular levels of privacy.
Ya know...like other systems designed to facilitate communications...like say the telephone system...
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 are creating media based on the things users post. They're not made to facilitate communication between friends, family, coworkers, etc...
They are designed specifically for users to generate monetizable content and data. They use a veneer of 'connecting the world together' so users will generate content that drives clicks and makes them money.
A true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today. It would be designed around allowing people to communicate easily and freely, it would give you control over who and what you interact with and it would allow you to maintain granular levels of privacy.
Ya know...like other systems designed to facilitate communications...like say the telephone system...
> true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today.
Perhaps it would look like that brief golden age when everyone had a self hosted blog and we subscribed to each other with RSS readers.
Perhaps it would look like that brief golden age when everyone had a self hosted blog and we subscribed to each other with RSS readers.
Not everyone chose to do that then. and I don't think of it as a golden age.
I wouldn't know how many deliberately chose not to self-promote in that way, but it is probably far more than those who chose to blog.
I think system architecture is part of the present problem, but it is not at the root. Even during your so-called Golden Age the deeper issue was already manifest, though not yet scaled.
I wouldn't know how many deliberately chose not to self-promote in that way, but it is probably far more than those who chose to blog.
I think system architecture is part of the present problem, but it is not at the root. Even during your so-called Golden Age the deeper issue was already manifest, though not yet scaled.
These are some very good points. For me the biggest problem with existing social networks is how difficult it is to get to know new people through the applications. Despite us spending more time online than being present on the physical world (this is probably also a problem, but one for another time), we get remarkably little real social interaction out of these hours spent.
Good news is that the seeds of better social do exist. I'm trying to set up one of them, http://www.reason.so/ which will match people with similar interests into small (3-10 people) group chats with the intention of creating small communities where it's easy to discuss things you find interesting semi-privately (i.e. somewhere between a public Twitter thread and a private group message). By keeping the chats small you also get rid of clickbait, astroturfers and "thought leaders" who only want to build an audience instead of actually interacting with other people.
The biggest problem with setting up a social network like Reason is probably monetarisation. People just aren't ready to pay for social media when Facebook, Clubhouse and co are free.
Good news is that the seeds of better social do exist. I'm trying to set up one of them, http://www.reason.so/ which will match people with similar interests into small (3-10 people) group chats with the intention of creating small communities where it's easy to discuss things you find interesting semi-privately (i.e. somewhere between a public Twitter thread and a private group message). By keeping the chats small you also get rid of clickbait, astroturfers and "thought leaders" who only want to build an audience instead of actually interacting with other people.
The biggest problem with setting up a social network like Reason is probably monetarisation. People just aren't ready to pay for social media when Facebook, Clubhouse and co are free.
Monitorisation isn't necessarily going to be that big an issue. If you have a common theme for the group, you can serve ads around that theme and you don't need to track anything.
In addition to that, meetup.com makes its money by charging people who want to setup a group.
In addition to that, meetup.com makes its money by charging people who want to setup a group.
That looks interesting. How do you plan on moderating the platform?
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’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.
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.
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.
A first step should be renaming "social media" to "personal feed".
I think the very name "social media" is catching people off guard. It implies something social, which for most people is good and aspirational.
I think the very name "social media" is catching people off guard. It implies something social, which for most people is good and aspirational.
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.
Social media is as successful as it is precisely because it works so well as a communications paradigm. No popular social media platform is difficult to communicate on, they draw in so many users because they're easy to use.
My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that monetizable data gets generated.
Yes, the purpose of social media is to profit from user-generated content and data, but it still works as intended for 99% of people.
My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that monetizable data gets generated.
Yes, the purpose of social media is to profit from user-generated content and data, but it still works as intended for 99% of people.
That's not quite what I meant. Sure you can chat directly fairly easy through Facebook, but communicate is more than just that. Keeping to the Facebook example, much of the 'communication' is done through user or group wall posts.
It is notoriously difficult to browse through, responses are sorted in non-intuitive ways, sometimes responses are hidden for no apparent reason, yet people regularly use it to communicate.
When people post status updates or pictures or whatever, they're trying to communicate, how many times have you gotten status or upload notifications from people you haven't talked to in years, but it never showed you your best friend's new baby pictures or something like that?
Twitter, It's designed around a character limit that strictly discourages longform communication. Yet, you get people trying to write blog posts using it, much to the chagrin of many HN commenters, and generally, the quality of most communication suffers greatly on twitter because of the inherent design.
It is notoriously difficult to browse through, responses are sorted in non-intuitive ways, sometimes responses are hidden for no apparent reason, yet people regularly use it to communicate.
When people post status updates or pictures or whatever, they're trying to communicate, how many times have you gotten status or upload notifications from people you haven't talked to in years, but it never showed you your best friend's new baby pictures or something like that?
Twitter, It's designed around a character limit that strictly discourages longform communication. Yet, you get people trying to write blog posts using it, much to the chagrin of many HN commenters, and generally, the quality of most communication suffers greatly on twitter because of the inherent design.
>it still works as intended for 99% of people.
I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
Social media was never intended to be a replacement for meaningful social interaction or bonding, any more than telephones or letter writing, or the generation of forums and personal websites it more or less replaced.
>"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."
Facebook's mission statement.
Facebook's mission statement.
[deleted]
I dunno, replacing it was exactly the vibe I got from the Facebook people when my employers sent us to a Facebook dev conference in London.
Whole thing creeped me out.
Whole thing creeped me out.
> I would argue that it feels like it works
But that's effectively the same thing if you can't get users to change networks/platforms, eh?
> I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
Sure. It's easy-bake oven internet for non-geeks. But they don't care. The cupcakes taste fine (to them.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy-Bake_Oven
But that's effectively the same thing if you can't get users to change networks/platforms, eh?
> I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
Sure. It's easy-bake oven internet for non-geeks. But they don't care. The cupcakes taste fine (to them.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy-Bake_Oven
> they draw in so many users because they're easy to use
They're easy to use because the major social media platforms know that reducing friction to use draws people in and keeps them there, while the platform serves their attention up to advertisers. There's even ways that they make it harder to stop using them than to just keep scrolling/refreshing. Dark Patterns abound.
People on social media are generally not communicating with each other, at least not in a meaningful sense. Social media users are sharing things that other people have created to draw attention, and whatever gets the most attention and shares, aka "engagement" sells the most ads, and makes the most money.
They're easy to use because the major social media platforms know that reducing friction to use draws people in and keeps them there, while the platform serves their attention up to advertisers. There's even ways that they make it harder to stop using them than to just keep scrolling/refreshing. Dark Patterns abound.
People on social media are generally not communicating with each other, at least not in a meaningful sense. Social media users are sharing things that other people have created to draw attention, and whatever gets the most attention and shares, aka "engagement" sells the most ads, and makes the most money.
I think science fiction author Charles Stores put it best in this 2016 blog post[1]:
> 2007 is when the human species accidentally invented telepathy (via the fusion of twitter, facebook, and other disclosure-induction social media with always-connected handheld internet devices). Telepathy, unfortunately, turns out to not be all about elevated Apollonian abstract intellectualism: it's an emotion amplifier and taps into the most toxic wellsprings of the subconscious. As implemented, it brings out the worst in us. Twitter and Facebook et al are fine-tuned to turn us all into car-crash rubberneckers and public execution spectators. It can be used for good, but more often it drags us down into the dim-witted, outraged weltanschauung of the mob.
[1] https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/01/some-am...
> 2007 is when the human species accidentally invented telepathy (via the fusion of twitter, facebook, and other disclosure-induction social media with always-connected handheld internet devices). Telepathy, unfortunately, turns out to not be all about elevated Apollonian abstract intellectualism: it's an emotion amplifier and taps into the most toxic wellsprings of the subconscious. As implemented, it brings out the worst in us. Twitter and Facebook et al are fine-tuned to turn us all into car-crash rubberneckers and public execution spectators. It can be used for good, but more often it drags us down into the dim-witted, outraged weltanschauung of the mob.
[1] https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/01/some-am...
I 100% think that social media is shrinking our collective attention spans, and the cumulative effects of this are unpredictable.
Infinitely scrolling through flashy, zero-effort "snackable" content is the equivalent of mental junk food.
Infinitely scrolling through flashy, zero-effort "snackable" content is the equivalent of mental junk food.
Like HN.
Definitely true to some extent. I think the degree to which it applies corresponds to how deeply a person engages with an individual post/thread. Having long conversations in the comments of a post is probably not conductive to shortening attention spans. Ideally we could mimic the sorts of deep conversations that can be had with small groups of people/friends in-person. Maybe Hacker News would benefit from live updating comment threads so that people wouldn't have to refresh the page frequently to have a back-and-forth conversation.
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 that ubiquitous global communication is the "Great Filter" that prevents intelligent civilizations from colonizing the universe. Before any intelligent species can hope to tackle a problem like that, they invent something like the internet. And once they've invented an internet, they become addicted to low latency communication and will never stray far from it, at least not in significant numbers. Even one year of latency becomes utterly intolerable once an intelligent species has been using an internet for a few generations.
> at least not in significant numbers
That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales.
The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.
That's ok. Insignificant numbers are more than enough to colonize an entire galaxy on geologic timescales.
The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.
I'm thinking that if you sent a dozen people to Alpha Centari, it wouldn't make any difference because that is under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony that, in turn, sends out similar expeditions in the future.
Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
Do that sort of stunt as much as you like, it won't become something more. It's like trying to jump over a building by hopping a bunch. You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
under the threshold of people that would be required to establish a self-sustaining colony
Such a small group of people, armed with current genetic engineering and future artificial means of reproduction, could bring with them enough genetic diversity and reproductive capacity to reach colonizing scale.
You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
Despite the first part of my reply, this point about minimum activation energy is relevant to a lot of contexts, from escaping poverty to switching careers, from getting fit to overcoming medical conditions. This is a pretty good analogy that I might use in the future.
Such a small group of people, armed with current genetic engineering and future artificial means of reproduction, could bring with them enough genetic diversity and reproductive capacity to reach colonizing scale.
You can hop one time or one billion times, you won't clear the building because after each failed hop you're back to square one.
Despite the first part of my reply, this point about minimum activation energy is relevant to a lot of contexts, from escaping poverty to switching careers, from getting fit to overcoming medical conditions. This is a pretty good analogy that I might use in the future.
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 part I think is "playing factorio IRL" on a planet we weren't evolved to cope with. Bootstrapping industry sufficient even to create additional shelters would be very challenging. Maybe we could practice this on Mars.
The hard part I think is "playing factorio IRL" on a planet we weren't evolved to cope with. Bootstrapping industry sufficient even to create additional shelters would be very challenging. Maybe we could practice this on Mars.
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.
NASA has already extracted enough oxygen (out of the atmosphere) for about 5 minutes of breathing, on Mars. The nut is already cracked. 8)
>The thing about the "Great Filter" is that it is great. If you can even imagine an exception for your candidate filter, then it's not great enough.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that gets the idea dangerously close to the theory of unfalsifiability.
Personally I am more inclined to the believe that we haven't heard any radio signals from space because you don't run a multi-galaxy civilisation on light-limited transmissions.
Invent the ansible and then maybe we will find the galaxy theming with life.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that gets the idea dangerously close to the theory of unfalsifiability.
Personally I am more inclined to the believe that we haven't heard any radio signals from space because you don't run a multi-galaxy civilisation on light-limited transmissions.
Invent the ansible and then maybe we will find the galaxy theming with life.
I suspect the Great Filter is that sufficiently intelligent life has no interest in expansion, and doesn't communicate at all.
Only stable if the whole society can force itself to not even want to expand.
If 1 per billion wants to expand, out of a population of 8 billion, you have 8 expansionists. If each of them breaks the social conventions and have twice as many offspring as the sustainers (and if the desire is heritable), after 30 generations they’re now equal in number to the sustainers. Cambridge University is in the order of 30 generations old.
https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_p...
If 1 per billion wants to expand, out of a population of 8 billion, you have 8 expansionists. If each of them breaks the social conventions and have twice as many offspring as the sustainers (and if the desire is heritable), after 30 generations they’re now equal in number to the sustainers. Cambridge University is in the order of 30 generations old.
https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_p...
Humans will never make it, but our computers will. The internet is the singularity now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are, to put it simply, too entertained with our technologies to expend the initial effort to "touch some grass", meet people in real life. But we still need connection with people, so we invented technological tools that allow us to quickly and easily get in touch with others. Although the quality and satisfaction we get from this form of communication are much lower, it requires much less initial effort and hassle, so we accept it.
>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.
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.
> I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity.
I'm not sure I agree. For the most part of humanity, we have been at war, murdering each other, enslaving each other, and numerous other atrocities... Including nearly a nuclear war.
The reduction in in person communication is due to the increase in global communication... Which I think is a net benefit. Social media is a bump in the road, and my hope is that we'll overcome the likes of Twitter soon.
I'm not sure I agree. For the most part of humanity, we have been at war, murdering each other, enslaving each other, and numerous other atrocities... Including nearly a nuclear war.
The reduction in in person communication is due to the increase in global communication... Which I think is a net benefit. Social media is a bump in the road, and my hope is that we'll overcome the likes of Twitter soon.
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.
There's no reason to not do that; in fact its easier than ever to invite and plan things.
yeah I don't get that point, its not like people are deciding to scroll facebook instead of going to their friends bbq. maybe you could make the point that people pick activites for how good of a social media post it would make.
But that's not even what this article is about, its discussing the spread of misinformation and social media being full of low information content.
But that's not even what this article is about, its discussing the spread of misinformation and social media being full of low information content.
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 problems with social media, removing it would have no beneficial effect on this trajectory towards environmental catastrophe. To the contrary, I still believe that lowered barriers to global communication and information access are generally good for society. Sure it hasn't resulted in becoming a nation of philosopher kings in the utopian ideal envisioned by those early Berkeley engineers, but the problems we are seeing are just the same old dance of populism and propaganda that have always been at the heart of large scale politics.
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 problems with social media, removing it would have no beneficial effect on this trajectory towards environmental catastrophe. To the contrary, I still believe that lowered barriers to global communication and information access are generally good for society. Sure it hasn't resulted in becoming a nation of philosopher kings in the utopian ideal envisioned by those early Berkeley engineers, but the problems we are seeing are just the same old dance of populism and propaganda that have always been at the heart of large scale politics.
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.
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
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
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
I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense?
IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism that distrusts an educated, cosmopolitan elite.
Just because we see this on social media, doesn’t make social media the cause.
IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism that distrusts an educated, cosmopolitan elite.
Just because we see this on social media, doesn’t make social media the cause.
Umberto Eco said it best:
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”
I see no problem with letting idiots say idiotic things. As your quote shows, the world has survived the idiots for a very long time.
The problem with social media is not that there are people saying things that are dumb or wrong.
The problem is that the platforms survive by finding the most virulent idiocy and spreading it as widely as possible.
The problem with social media is not that there are people saying things that are dumb or wrong.
The problem is that the platforms survive by finding the most virulent idiocy and spreading it as widely as possible.
On the other hand… have you considered that your doctor, politicians and scientists may also effected by social media in their professional advice you are supposed to take because they are an authority?
We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit.
Maybe you are right, maybe it’s not social media but an extreme polarization for another reason and social media is speeding it along? Maybe that’s just what we do over time?
Either way, I can’t accept the appeal to authority you started with. I have personally be on the wrong side of a diagnosis and it’s a good thing I didn’t listen to my doctor in favor of information I discovered first on social media.
We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit.
Maybe you are right, maybe it’s not social media but an extreme polarization for another reason and social media is speeding it along? Maybe that’s just what we do over time?
Either way, I can’t accept the appeal to authority you started with. I have personally be on the wrong side of a diagnosis and it’s a good thing I didn’t listen to my doctor in favor of information I discovered first on social media.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's deferral to expertise.
This is a very crucial concept: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...
This is a very crucial concept: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...
I agree with your point, but social media certainly appears to amplify the effect, regardless of what the root cause may be.
I wonder if perhaps the main problem is that social media changes the structure of human interaction by allowing those with similar ideas to congregate instead of being spread across the network in a diffuse manner.
Like in the 1970s if you believed that Aliens were here on Earth and abducting people, the vast majority of people you interacted with would think you’re a crackpot. It would be very difficult to find validation that your ideas are good.
Today you simply need to open a Facebook group for UFO conspiracy theorists and you’ve got all of the confirmation bias you need. It has never been easier to find people who agree with you.
I wonder if perhaps the main problem is that social media changes the structure of human interaction by allowing those with similar ideas to congregate instead of being spread across the network in a diffuse manner.
Like in the 1970s if you believed that Aliens were here on Earth and abducting people, the vast majority of people you interacted with would think you’re a crackpot. It would be very difficult to find validation that your ideas are good.
Today you simply need to open a Facebook group for UFO conspiracy theorists and you’ve got all of the confirmation bias you need. It has never been easier to find people who agree with you.
> what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines.
Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation.
Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage:
Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation.
Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage:
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I roll my eyes at every utterance of this type of "elite" mantra.
It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness.
The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.
It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness.
The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.
You're right... I was just using the same term as the parent comment.
It would be more precise to talk about it in terms of extracting wealth from society without comparable investment of work. Those that game the system, such as the duopoly that infests US Government.
It would be more precise to talk about it in terms of extracting wealth from society without comparable investment of work. Those that game the system, such as the duopoly that infests US Government.
Long before social media, most movies, TV shows and the like in the US came out of California and New York. These are very urban places and I spent a lot of my life feeling kind of like "I must be doing it wrong" because my life didn't seem to match up with what I was seeing in popular media.
I eventually concluded that for most of America, what we see on TV and in movies doesn't match our lives.
I think the internet is actually an opportunity to give push back against that and better develop local or regional identifies elsewhere and give them a voice.
I eventually concluded that for most of America, what we see on TV and in movies doesn't match our lives.
I think the internet is actually an opportunity to give push back against that and better develop local or regional identifies elsewhere and give them a voice.
You are expected to believe that what a movie offers is an idealized, exaggerated or just plain fantastic take on real life. Examples exist that cannot tell reality from fiction, but that's generally the gist of it.
However, much more people are willing to believe that what they see in social media is real. Now think of how many people are feeling "they must be doing it wrong", with that in mind.
However, much more people are willing to believe that what they see in social media is real. Now think of how many people are feeling "they must be doing it wrong", with that in mind.
Misinformation and scarcity of quality information on social media platforms was bound to happen when these platforms hit critical mass. Moderating SM is damn near impossible to do effectively. It is also easy to game SM. From fake clicks/views (bots) to old accounts used for astroturfing etc, the information market is not at a level playing field.
And since they are all run on some form of hyper-intelligent ML algorithm, none of it from a user perspective is intuitive anymore.
The bigger risk in my opinion is how SM and use of it on digital devices has impacted human behavior. More specifically, psychologically. Dopamine hits and instant gratification must have rewired our brains in the past ~2 decades.
And since they are all run on some form of hyper-intelligent ML algorithm, none of it from a user perspective is intuitive anymore.
The bigger risk in my opinion is how SM and use of it on digital devices has impacted human behavior. More specifically, psychologically. Dopamine hits and instant gratification must have rewired our brains in the past ~2 decades.
I totally agree that "moderating SM is damn near impossible to do effectively", but at the same time, viral misinformation is often super easy to identify and yet is allowed to spread for weeks or months or years.
We could do a much better job at moderating the obviously wrong stuff. And no, I'm not talking about censoring unpopular or contrary opinions. I'm just talking about extinguishing obvious and clear mis/dis-information.
We could do a much better job at moderating the obviously wrong stuff. And no, I'm not talking about censoring unpopular or contrary opinions. I'm just talking about extinguishing obvious and clear mis/dis-information.
It sure feels thought provoking to read an article or a paper that essentially predict how the future will unfold, or what we need to do to prevent something from developing in the future. And yet, the future is inherently unpredictable, and these exercises in predicting fail more often than not. Even if there is something that could be predicted becomes the reality, the degree of expression of that reality could not have been predicted.
"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 left of social cohesion is an even stricter attempt at controlling information.
Sure, some information shared on social media is misinformation. Some information coming from mainstream media is misinformation, too. In some cases, the authorities will spread misinformation. After all, some of the "evidence" used to argue that masks are ineffective came from the CDC itself.
With the politicization of everything, even facts can not be considered neutral anymore. For every verifiable fact, there's a set of other verifiable facts that may be omitted to achieve the desired effect. Fact-checks are used for propaganda. When consuming information, always keep your salt dispenser at hand.
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 left of social cohesion is an even stricter attempt at controlling information.
Sure, some information shared on social media is misinformation. Some information coming from mainstream media is misinformation, too. In some cases, the authorities will spread misinformation. After all, some of the "evidence" used to argue that masks are ineffective came from the CDC itself.
With the politicization of everything, even facts can not be considered neutral anymore. For every verifiable fact, there's a set of other verifiable facts that may be omitted to achieve the desired effect. Fact-checks are used for propaganda. When consuming information, always keep your salt dispenser at hand.
Yes, and as much as I dislike political correctness, I sometimes wonder if it's a response, perhaps even a necessary response, to the accelerating politicisation and polarisation brought on by the web. If all events and even facts must be framed according to a simplifying narrative then I wonder if the human mind/brain is doing something similar in order to operate stably? This could be the origin of the ego -- a set of unacknowledged fears and desires which shape a personal story or set of goals through which we attempt to organise our lives.
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".
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.
Do you believe this is an appropriate analogy, given our very limited understanding of the COVID situation?
If so, I would implore you to ponder the shape of the surface that we inhabit without the hindsight of 1000 years of R&D.
If so, I would implore you to ponder the shape of the surface that we inhabit without the hindsight of 1000 years of R&D.
[deleted]
I'm responding to a general point of the grandparent post; we are not talking about the specifics of one area of scientific inquiry.
Allow me to direct your attention to the works of Tristan Harris, B. J. Fogg, and Herbert A. Simon. Simon coined the term "attention economy" in 1992 with
"The Bottleneck of Attention: Connecting Thought with Motivation".
"Stewardship of global collective behavior."
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118
Abstract
> Collective behavior provides a framework for understanding how the actions and properties of groups emerge from the way individuals generate and share information. In humans, information flows were initially shaped by natural selection yet are increasingly structured by emerging communication technologies. Our larger, more complex social networks now transfer high-fidelity information over vast distances at low cost. The digital age and the rise of social media have accelerated changes to our social systems, with poorly understood functional consequences. This gap in our knowledge represents a principal challenge to scientific progress, democracy, and actions to address global crises. We argue that the study of collective behavior must rise to a “crisis discipline” just as medicine, conservation, and climate science have, with a focus on providing actionable insight to policymakers and regulators for the stewardship of social systems.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118
Abstract
> Collective behavior provides a framework for understanding how the actions and properties of groups emerge from the way individuals generate and share information. In humans, information flows were initially shaped by natural selection yet are increasingly structured by emerging communication technologies. Our larger, more complex social networks now transfer high-fidelity information over vast distances at low cost. The digital age and the rise of social media have accelerated changes to our social systems, with poorly understood functional consequences. This gap in our knowledge represents a principal challenge to scientific progress, democracy, and actions to address global crises. We argue that the study of collective behavior must rise to a “crisis discipline” just as medicine, conservation, and climate science have, with a focus on providing actionable insight to policymakers and regulators for the stewardship of social systems.
If the threat is misinformation and use of social media is the risk, then I'd expect a comparison to baseline mass media misinformation. And everyone seems to agree that there is a frightening amount of that.
No comparison against control and this is only evidence that scientists publish clickbait.
No comparison against control and this is only evidence that scientists publish clickbait.
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.
It's an aging salon, and reflects the product of the current mood and amount of attention given by its host.
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 why I mention intention of the creators. Reddit is meant to be "the front page of the Internet", which means it needs to be enormous and serve many different communities.
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/
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.
I don't consider HN to be social media. It's a forum isn't it? Mostly anonymous and no "pushing" of feeds or content.
From Wikipedia:
> Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks
Sounds like social media to me
> Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks
Sounds like social media to me
Please read properly what you copy-pasted.
“[…] via virtual communities and networks”
(Friend and follower (and so on) relations create these virtual communities and networks, these don't exist on HN.)
Ergo, HN is not social media.
Facebook is social media, Twitter is social media. IRC is not, HN is not. Tiktok is, SnapChat is. Reddit isn't, Slashdot isn't. Google+ was, Orkut was. LWN isn't, Ars Technica isn't.
Social media implies a massive global social graph which under-girds the communication flows – not rooms, forums, articles, channels, "subreddits", spaces, etc.
“[…] via virtual communities and networks”
(Friend and follower (and so on) relations create these virtual communities and networks, these don't exist on HN.)
Ergo, HN is not social media.
Facebook is social media, Twitter is social media. IRC is not, HN is not. Tiktok is, SnapChat is. Reddit isn't, Slashdot isn't. Google+ was, Orkut was. LWN isn't, Ars Technica isn't.
Social media implies a massive global social graph which under-girds the communication flows – not rooms, forums, articles, channels, "subreddits", spaces, etc.
> Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks
This description would include email and SMS - and no one describes those as social networks.
HN is a forum.
This description would include email and SMS - and no one describes those as social networks.
HN is a forum.
To start, social media != social network. I am saying that HN and other forums are a form of social media, albeit a very primitive form. Forums enable individuals to interact to create and exchange information, as opposed to mass media where things are centrally distributed and consumed with no input.
> This description would include email and SMS
I would absolutely consider SMS and email to be a social network, they are just limited and have fewer features.
Definition of social network from wikipedia:
> A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors
> no one describes those as social networks
I do acknowledge that there is a more nebulous popular definition of social media which refers to the major platforms. However, when you try to define what makes them different than email and SMS, things get challenging. If email, an network of independent actors exchanging information isn't a social network, then what set of features would make it a social network and why? All of the major platforms have different sets of features, some of them overlapping. What set of common features makes them a social network and why?
> This description would include email and SMS
I would absolutely consider SMS and email to be a social network, they are just limited and have fewer features.
Definition of social network from wikipedia:
> A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors
> no one describes those as social networks
I do acknowledge that there is a more nebulous popular definition of social media which refers to the major platforms. However, when you try to define what makes them different than email and SMS, things get challenging. If email, an network of independent actors exchanging information isn't a social network, then what set of features would make it a social network and why? All of the major platforms have different sets of features, some of them overlapping. What set of common features makes them a social network and why?
Social media is part of human evolution. Removing it is unproductive. It's another way of communicating that we haven't yet figured out how to do properly. It seems like it started off on a good path, but quickly turned into hate, violence and just constant spewing of garbage. The reason it doesn't work is because it literally lacks just about everything that is present in real face-to-face interactions such as accountability, responsibility and (most importantly) exchange of social ques either verbally or via body language. The next challenge in social media is how to revolutionize mass communication beyond a blob of text.
So the issue with social media is that it allows mass dissent from the officially-promoted opinions on various subjects? I think social media is a mass contagion that will doom us to ineffectual and isolated failure, but for that first reason, it has been essential.
Or maybe, without social media to promote those very officially-approved opinions, we would have used our vast and deep social IRL network to discuss and reason, and would have come to that conclusion anyway.
I strongly believe that the various world governments' policies of lockdown, social isolation, and mask wearing would not have worked 50 years ago, because we were too connected.
Or maybe, without social media to promote those very officially-approved opinions, we would have used our vast and deep social IRL network to discuss and reason, and would have come to that conclusion anyway.
I strongly believe that the various world governments' policies of lockdown, social isolation, and mask wearing would not have worked 50 years ago, because we were too connected.
Every new communications media has the same lifecycle.
Initial enthusiasm, lots of disruption & creativity, then captured by reactionaries and traditionalists. Spasms of overreach and overcorrection. Cycles of purges and remything.
Obelisks, cuneiform, drums, papyrus, pigeons, pony express, paper, moveable type, radio waves, light beams.
The disruption to society and culture is always the same. The only variable is impact predetermined by production costs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The trick for us plebes is finding untapped margins and eddies, do our own thing, maybe find our tribe.
Initial enthusiasm, lots of disruption & creativity, then captured by reactionaries and traditionalists. Spasms of overreach and overcorrection. Cycles of purges and remything.
Obelisks, cuneiform, drums, papyrus, pigeons, pony express, paper, moveable type, radio waves, light beams.
The disruption to society and culture is always the same. The only variable is impact predetermined by production costs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The trick for us plebes is finding untapped margins and eddies, do our own thing, maybe find our tribe.
What a relief it was to read that these particular people were so concerned about misinformation prevailing, as most of what they consider misinformation is many of us call freedom, leadership, faith, and courage.
Social media is horrible for lots of reasons, mainly because it throws everyone who would never normally encounter each other into the same bucket of crabs, but their framing of the problem essentially reduces to being concerned the wrong kind of crabs are climbing too far.
Social media is horrible for lots of reasons, mainly because it throws everyone who would never normally encounter each other into the same bucket of crabs, but their framing of the problem essentially reduces to being concerned the wrong kind of crabs are climbing too far.
Wasn't early Facebook all about connecting with friends and family and looking for boyfriend/girlfriend? Today I only hear something like "fake news, hate, racism, violence" etc.
I wonder what has changed? I think that it is not Facebook's management fault but the reality kicked in. Medium like Facebook is convenient for all type of content and interaction unlike Instagram for example which is more for showing off with photos and following other people's lives.
I wonder what has changed? I think that it is not Facebook's management fault but the reality kicked in. Medium like Facebook is convenient for all type of content and interaction unlike Instagram for example which is more for showing off with photos and following other people's lives.
Well, I don't know how your friends and families are, but mine are quite racist and quite hateful of minorities and they were that way long before the internet.
Facebook just shows that, it doesn't change it. I think that most people (specially white, heterosexual and not poor) were simply living in a bubble of ignorance thinking the world was a much better place that it actually is and social media simply popped that bubble and showed reality for everybody to see. And now they are angry at Social media in a classical shoot the messenger reaction.
Facebook just shows that, it doesn't change it. I think that most people (specially white, heterosexual and not poor) were simply living in a bubble of ignorance thinking the world was a much better place that it actually is and social media simply popped that bubble and showed reality for everybody to see. And now they are angry at Social media in a classical shoot the messenger reaction.
I'm 90% sure it's when they started personalizing the feeds. You only see things the algorithm thinks you're going to like, but it has a very shallow idea of you as a human being limited to your outward expression.
Then It pushes you further and further to the extremes of what it thinks you like.
People were warning about filter bubbles even before Facebook did it.
Then It pushes you further and further to the extremes of what it thinks you like.
People were warning about filter bubbles even before Facebook did it.
> People were warning about filter bubbles even before Facebook did it.
Makes me think of "reality tunnels"[] written of long before Zuck made his website.
[] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Reality_tunnel
Makes me think of "reality tunnels"[] written of long before Zuck made his website.
[] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Reality_tunnel
They didn’t get enough engagement with positive social interactions so they had to harness the worst parts of our psyche.
Sounds eerily similar to this:
> Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering.
Sounds eerily similar to this:
> Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering.
There's a lot of 'political' content on instagram. do a quick google search for 'politigram' and you'll see what I'm talking about. That being said, there are definitely per-platform affordances that may change the degree and extent to which its expressed (and, crucially, to whom).
The problem is, that social media and the hate waves it generates, can be used to hack the elite - the decision makers. It convinces them, that more social media, more china style social media control is necessary. Fear is a strong vector. And if you can create the proof that you are needed, you control the market.
[deleted]
Humans simply didn't evolve to live in communities as large as the ones which enabled us to really push our foot on the gas in terms of technological and civilization progress.
People look at social media but it started waaay earlier, back in old Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamic Urbanization>Ability to write>Journals>Newspapers>Radio>TV>Internet>Social Media
Social media is just the last step in the process. Each and every step of the process contributed to make humans learn about how many humans are there in the world and this somehow makes us feel less special.
When we wrap our minds around how many humans are there in the world, we feel insignificant and we feel like we don't matter at all. In a sense our sense of worth feels diluted by the immense quanity of people who are just like us.
This creates anxiety and resentment. Our brain is still the same as we had back in pre-Mesopotamic eras.
People look at social media but it started waaay earlier, back in old Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamic Urbanization>Ability to write>Journals>Newspapers>Radio>TV>Internet>Social Media
Social media is just the last step in the process. Each and every step of the process contributed to make humans learn about how many humans are there in the world and this somehow makes us feel less special.
When we wrap our minds around how many humans are there in the world, we feel insignificant and we feel like we don't matter at all. In a sense our sense of worth feels diluted by the immense quanity of people who are just like us.
This creates anxiety and resentment. Our brain is still the same as we had back in pre-Mesopotamic eras.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline and journalists somehow think it is worthy of writing an article about. This scientist isn't bringing any interesting, new ideas to the table, they are just repeating the same talking points pushed by mainstream "liberal" politicians.
> My sense is that social media in particular — as well as a broader range of internet technologies, including algorithmically driven search and click-based advertising — have changed the way that people get information and form opinions about the world. And they seem to have done so in a manner that makes people particularly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.
This is such an unbelievably shallow take. Much of the "truth" mainstream liberals have been pushing in the past year has turned out to be false. In the past, before the internet and social media, the media lied to the public all the time. It was probably easier because regular people didn't have a good way to spread primary information quickly. The media got most of their information from government press conferences and, if the government didn't like what an organization was saying, the government would stop inviting those journalists to those press conferences. There's a whole book about it, it's called Manufacturing Consent. That type of information control is no longer possible now that everyone can livestream from their phones to millions of people and the establishment is mad about it. Now they are trying to wrestle back control of information by writing think pieces about the dangers of "algorithms" and threatening tech giants with anti-trust action.
Its ironic because I feel like these people are the reason social media is a threat to society. They want to use it to manipulate the public like they always have and are willing to go to great lengths to do so.
> My sense is that social media in particular — as well as a broader range of internet technologies, including algorithmically driven search and click-based advertising — have changed the way that people get information and form opinions about the world. And they seem to have done so in a manner that makes people particularly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.
This is such an unbelievably shallow take. Much of the "truth" mainstream liberals have been pushing in the past year has turned out to be false. In the past, before the internet and social media, the media lied to the public all the time. It was probably easier because regular people didn't have a good way to spread primary information quickly. The media got most of their information from government press conferences and, if the government didn't like what an organization was saying, the government would stop inviting those journalists to those press conferences. There's a whole book about it, it's called Manufacturing Consent. That type of information control is no longer possible now that everyone can livestream from their phones to millions of people and the establishment is mad about it. Now they are trying to wrestle back control of information by writing think pieces about the dangers of "algorithms" and threatening tech giants with anti-trust action.
Its ironic because I feel like these people are the reason social media is a threat to society. They want to use it to manipulate the public like they always have and are willing to go to great lengths to do so.
> This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline
If academics can't comment cross discipline, no one else can comment at all.
If academics can't comment cross discipline, no one else can comment at all.
I never said that they cant, it's more that people are writing articles about their opinions when they are bringing nothing new to the table. Why doesn't vox write articles about a grocery store clerk or trucker's opinion on social media and society? Why does some biologist somehow know more about this stuff than other people who aren't sociologists? This is why conservatives think academics are snooty and elitist
I am absolutely interested in the opinions of biologists and ecologists on this topic because they are in the business of studying complex systems, competing populations etc.
I'd be interested too if they wrote a paper about it instead of repeating mainstream talking points in a Vox article
Good news! Bergstrom wrote a paper, titled "Stewardship of global collective behavior"[1], see also https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1408262388533456904
1 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118
1 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118
Thanks. I read it this morning, as I am interested, and my opinion hasn't really changed to be honest. It appears to be a reaction to covid response/the capitol riot and they have identified the dissemination of information online as the problem and some form of "stewardship" is the solution. I disagree with this assessment as I believe the actual problem is people's material conditions and information flow online is just a conduit, not a cause. The whole thing strikes me as good-intentioned authoritarianism
If you had read the article you'd have noticed it's citing a paper publisher in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
I didn't notice, thanks for pointing this out
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.
Yeah it's a spectrum and there will be many exceptions but I still think it is useful categorize political groups by their political beliefs in a discussion
We don't need to bring anything new to the table, because nobody read their Marshall McLuhan, who made a career warning us about the effects of electronic media through the 60s and 70s.
He's still the only guy worth anything in the field of media theory:
https://youtu.be/8EwkTrmAY8c
He's still the only guy worth anything in the field of media theory:
https://youtu.be/8EwkTrmAY8c
I like the irony of a story about the danger of social media here on HN. You know. Social media.
> Much of the "truth" mainstream liberals have been pushing in the past year has turned out to be false
For example?
For example?
[deleted]
Ive often joked about this being the great filter. (Fermi paradox)
[deleted]
"Focus on the downsides of democratized information; here are some cherry-picked experts." - Vox the entertainment website
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 can be hijacked via junk food and we have erected massive systems to curtail these destructive impulses. Despite this, there are still those who gorge themselves on unhealthy food due to their lack of education and/or an inability to afford healthier food. As soon as the negative effects of social media begin to manifest themselves in the upper classes (students failing classes en masse, severe incompetence in the job market, increased generation of brain-dead media) new platforms will be created to allow people to take advantage of technology without being caught up in the biological loopholes that modern social media create. The majority of the lower classes will continue to use exploitative platforms, which will probably become much worse as it is made more explicit that their user-base is made up of a cattle-caste. Much like food, I predict that the health-conscious platforms will erect paywalls and other barriers to entry that will further cement the class divide. It would take me hours to really flesh out what I'm trying to say here but I think that I was able to squeeze some of it out.
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.
As connectedness increases, the diversity of perspectives decreases.
For what it's worth, you can add this lowly biochemist to the list.
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.
I don't think that would work. Whether or not something is a lie might only ever be known to the person who says/writes it. It could just be a mistake. Or part of the truth so incomplete as to make someone believe something that isn't true.
Human speech just doesn't lend itself to the type of formalism required for this to be possible. If you want the closest approximation, look at legal jargon, specifically for contracts: It is a set of speech standards that evolved over centuries in an effort to reduced ambiguity in transactions. As a result, it is extremely verbose to the point of incomprehensibility by outsiders, and it's still possible to deliberately misuse it without easy detection.
Human speech just doesn't lend itself to the type of formalism required for this to be possible. If you want the closest approximation, look at legal jargon, specifically for contracts: It is a set of speech standards that evolved over centuries in an effort to reduced ambiguity in transactions. As a result, it is extremely verbose to the point of incomprehensibility by outsiders, and it's still possible to deliberately misuse it without easy detection.
I understand the appeal but I don't want the government deciding what can and can't be said.
Free speech is important for a free society, although we are moving away in recent years with all of the platform censorship and truth labeling. While this censorship is technically legal, these platforms are used like public land and are training generations of people to undervalue freedom of expression.
Free speech is important for a free society, although we are moving away in recent years with all of the platform censorship and truth labeling. While this censorship is technically legal, these platforms are used like public land and are training generations of people to undervalue freedom of expression.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any society that is premised on the rule of law already has to solve that problem in the enforcement; there is no rule of law without arbitration of facts relating to whether the law is upheld or not.
So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive.
On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.
So, probably the courts. That's an imperfect solution, but it beats the hell out of the position that any attempt to arbitrate the truth is unacceptably oppressive.
On another level: everyone has an obligation to arbitrate the truth as honestly and ably as they're capable, in every domain they have responsibility for, first and foremost in training themselves to be more careful about their own blind spots, tendencies, incentives, and limits, and then in exercising whatever influence and authority they have.
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?
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 on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion.
And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law.
> Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
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 on both sides will find whatever ways they can to bring them to the discussion.
And again, there is no such thing as rule of law without examining questions truth. You want liability for poor engineering standards? Courts must ascertain what good engineering standards are. You want murder to be illegal, and people to be tried for violating murder laws? Courts must ascertain evidence, often scientific evidence relating to whether or not someone is guilty. A court without capacity or authority to weigh in on truth cannot apply the law.
> Have you never thought about why freedom of speech is an important and worthy fundamental right?
Enough to know that speech and robust discourse are in fact a significant part of courtroom proceedings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.
Courts currently do a decent job at determining some truth (whodunnit) – while a lot of innocents get convicted (and sometimes death row'd, in the more backwards corners of the world), it's pretty good within its limited domain of truthseeking.
Web of Trust
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.)
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.)
Quixotic devotion to the ideal of free speech is messing up the world since wealthy interests have many ways to sway public opinion as desired. Free speech only works with an educated population - and most countries do not have one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
History repeats itself. The same thing happened when the phone was invented, and radio, and tv, and the mail, and newspapers, etc.
I thought this xkcd had a humorous take on this idea https://xkcd.com/2481/
> contributing to phenomena such as “election tampering, disease, violent extremism, famine, racism, and war.”
Sorry, but what are you talking about? The holocaust happened before social media, segregation and slavery happened before social media, religious extremism has been going on for at least 2000 years and its latest incarnation like in the middle east happened before social media. We had 2 world wars before social media, election tampering? Did you forgot about the Gore vs Bush fiasco before social media? I could go on all day, what are you talking about?
This is the best we had had it on all those fronts today after social media. You are making no sense. The first "cross-disciplinary" change we need is more historians combating this type of unbelievable childish ignorance and lack of perspective of reality.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? The holocaust happened before social media, segregation and slavery happened before social media, religious extremism has been going on for at least 2000 years and its latest incarnation like in the middle east happened before social media. We had 2 world wars before social media, election tampering? Did you forgot about the Gore vs Bush fiasco before social media? I could go on all day, what are you talking about?
This is the best we had had it on all those fronts today after social media. You are making no sense. The first "cross-disciplinary" change we need is more historians combating this type of unbelievable childish ignorance and lack of perspective of reality.
"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."