I'd argue the technology that did most of the heavy-lifting for disinformation, polarization, and conspiracy was AM radio, followed by cable TV. Smartphones, the web and social media were not the cause, but a natural progression of, and an amplifier of a pre-existing trend.
There are no technological solutions to the human condition, but technology amplifies aspects of it.
I have available weapons and drugs. zmI do not use either. I am convinced it is a bad decision except in probably very extreme conditions.
We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. No demand, no offer. Got it? Easy as that.
We all like a world we do not have, we always find problems. But that is not a reason to say what is bad or good. The market will decide :D
I do not get stressed at all with all these Betting houses (now fashionable in Spain) or drugs or anything: just need to be responsible.
We regulate gambling and tobacco for the same reason we should regulate this. Google and Facebook ads have been scientifically tuned to hijack your brain chemistry for money. This isn't blame, or whining, it's simply acknowledging that these companies weaponized visual stimulus and data collection to sell ads on the internet. No amount of personal responsibility is going to solve a human society level problem.
That said... well, I still think that at the end, nothing can beat having good information. Close Facebook, Google and put ads blockers.
And again, the whole thrust of my argument is that telling people to close Facebook is the same as telling them to stop smoking. It's naïve and ignores the reality of brain chemistry and addiction.
Seriously? I was not taught like that at my home sorry. It is not the way it should.
You do something and, unless fooled or cheated, you are responsible for the consequences.
> So if I have all the information known for years from tobacco and I smoke and get into trouble, then I blame it on not having regulations?
If you, as a fully-informed, grown adult in 2021 make that choice, then no. In the real world, that's not how people get addicted to cigarettes. People generally get addicted when they are young, uninformed, and highly susceptible to the marketing aimed at them. Plenty of people living today remember doctors recommending cigarettes for pregnant women - it's silly to assume every person is going to know the risks of these things from the very minute they decide to engage in them. Just look at how quickly Juul took over high schools - you are really going to tell me that a 15 year old trying to fit in is making a full informed, long term decision about tobacco usage? Absurd. Or the Oxycotin epidemic - all those people were addicted to drugs because of Sackler's marketing and the corruption of their doctors - how does one take personal responsibility for following medical advice?
Social media is now where tobacco was in the 70s and 80s before all the information was released in a narrative form that the public could easily digest. All that knowledge about the risks comes from the process of bringing that information into the public light.
That would prevent way more I guess. Of course, in our law, trying to sell cigarrettes actively to underage is illegal and I find that regulation reasonable.
But trying to protect adults from their own irresponsibility is a totally different story. It is their problem.
I get your point and in some way you are right also. I am just advocating for little regulation, but, of course, I am talking also about adults here.
I did not mean underage people. If you target underage for gambling or any addiction in bad faith, that is an attempt to cause damage and punishable.
But that does not mean that the most important thing is to have the information there and decide. Again, I am talking about adults.
By the way, talking about regulations. In my country you can open a university only if it has 8 or 9 degrees offered. If I want to open the best CS degree in the country as a University, I cannot. Do you find it reasonable? Do you think this goes in the interest of consumers? Do you think the state abuses its position by doing so? (Clearly yes). That is why I do not want regulations. You give them the power and they end up regulating even your position to go to the toilet. That said, I find under/overage, even if it is arbitrary (there are teenagers that are responsible people), reasonable, to protect them from unscrupulous people.
But I do not need my life to be ruled in the name of so many things, that is bad and it goes against us if you think of it carefully.
But you will always have responsible teenagers and irresponsible adults. We should not help people that do not want to be helped.
The same way we should help people that have trouble. We should, I think, honestly, but... that we should does not mean we should have that responsibility unconditionally and coactively.
You know what? It can look selfish to you but you are going to have way more autonomous, responsible and self-sufficient people if you apply this rule. A good outcome IMHO.
Forbiding is not the way to go. The way to go is to make people aware of the dangers and implications of their choices and convince them why we should avoid damaging others. Empathy is key here: just do not do to others what you do not want for you seems to me like the most basic of the rules.
Imposing a view of what others can or cannot do is absurd, harmful and also we can miss all the good things we can do with things that can also be misused.
Social media is one of those things. It doesn't present itself with the same raw force of nuclear power, but it has proven to have an undeniable power over the human mind. Despite the evidence we have now, though, it still seems that ethical considerations of social media are not being taken seriously enough by the people with the most power of social media platforms, and this worries me.
I would like to know which ones. If you do something to not harm, why do you have to be blamed because other misuse it? I do not think this is the right line of thinking if you mean that we should not do it just on the basis that "someone evil could misuse it". Of course, as an individual you can refuse to research if you think it can yield those results, but never blame it on a researcher that someone else misused their invention.
Social media is a fight because there is an obsession for censorship from some interested parties, in part. That is why.
I do not believe in those super powers as much in the sense that you can always stay away from it as much as you wish. It is a matter of self-discipline also, even if it is indeed a "powerful weapon".
What I’m talking about is twofold: a cultural recognition and appreciation of the ethical issues, and secondly appropriate safeguards to prevent maluse of said technology, where appropriate.
Take nuclear weapons for instance. I personally wouldn’t have involved myself in building them, but others did and here we are. We as a society don’t just let that technology run amok though. There are laws about their proliferation, organizations dedicated to keeping their use in check, and a society-level understanding that their use have such terrible consequences that they can never, ever be taken lightly.
With this environment, so far we’ve averted armed nuclear conflict. But it’s important to realize this is a purposeful thing. People dedicate their lives to this pursuit. It takes effort to build this shared understanding of their dangers.
I agree with you that an individual researcher is not to blame if they are doing careful, considered research. If the attitude is “the implications of my research are not my concern. That is for someone else to worry about” then I do have a problem with that. And yes, that is a real opinion I have heard expressed by a researcher in deep fakes, and it deeply dismayed me.
I would also refuse to be involved in programs to harm people honestly.
What would not be great is if we just allow a handful of people to own all the robots in the world (and their output), just as we allow a handful of people to own all the capital producing equipment in the world. Then we're just where we are today, but even worse off. This is actually my nightmare, and partly why I don't do much robotics anymore these days...
Remember, people only need jobs because we as a society have decided if they don't have jobs, we will allow them to go hungry and suffer exposure of the elements due to homelessness. This is perhaps necessary when there's so much work to be done you want people working instead of idle and comfortable. But if the robots can do all the work, then why do people need jobs? Only if the benefits of that work accrue to a handful of people rather that society as a whole.
It is interesting about peoplr must havr jobs or not. If you do not provide value and someone has to pay those costs with their work, is that fair? Even if we have robots: who maintains them, manufacture, program the AI?
You want tha some people work doing that and the rest enjoy a life as good as the ones who work hard and people who benefit from them just be privileged?
Something does not match well here.
You do your contribution and find a place in society. If your contribution is not great, I do not find a reason to be in exactlythe same position as others. Yes you have the right to live and so on. But do not expect a Ferrari at your door and a luxury life.
And imposing others share the fruit of their value, unethical.
- building the business
- maintaining it healthy (this can incur additional expenses at unpredictable times)
- the jobs it generates (that never mind, they are bad in your mind I suppose or they just do it to earn money! They do... but you also pick the job in the first place to make money!)
- the expenses they have to pay in case of firing someone if it does not produce.
- social security they pay and contribute for everyone (at least in the spanish system)
Do you find ethical to just ask for more money go and leave them bankrupt, without any regard of how they coud survive, when you just went pick up a position when much of that business was built? Really? I find it unethical also.
Get your best deal, with your employer, they will give you what they think they can or want, but by mutual contract. If you do not like it, go move to the next chance, it is not anyone's fault. Nothing bad into it. It is how you do in life: you choose what you drink (and what you do not!), who you join, where you go... nothing different here.
Otherwise, the logical consequence would be that we would not. I believe in win-win deals. The voluntary ones are by definition like that. You can take a bad decision, yes. But still, you get my point.
This depends on more variables, but the goal is to avoid barriers and regulations so that the wealth increases, since these break monopolies or de-facto monopolies (via absurd regulations).
But yes, that has its own set of risks. Risks that are disregarded all the time making employers the bad part of the story and employees the good ones. This is not at all like that you can find good and bad on both sides...
An employer is not bad for trying to pay you less. The reverse argument should be true also: the employee is bad because they want more (than they deserve or produce).
No part is bad, it is natural to want to maximize our outcome. It is how things are. I see many people having a problem with this thing. But they only have the problem when it is the other who tries to do that. When they do it for their own benefit then everything is fair and alright.
Considering the huge variety in "natural by definition wealth inequality" across countries it feels like we have enough freedom to choose how much inequality we want. What we definitively know we is that we can make wealth inequality much worse than it has to be. Just take a look at South Africa. 30% unemployment by nature. Thank god we chose a different "natural by definition wealth inequality". What your argument also fails to consider is that wealth inequality is getting worse over time implying there must have been a natural shift rather than a political one.
>And imposing others share the fruit of their value, unethical.
If you refuse to share work, then you must share income by definition.
Consider a society that only needs a 4 hour work week. One person decides to work 8 hours because they like their job and talk about how amazing work is and people should work more. One person no longer has to work. The hard working person will then look at the unemployed person and then tell everyone how lazy he is.
Before you invoke the lump of labor fallacy, you have to realize that the argument relies on Say's law which assumes that the hard working person worked because he wasn't satisfied with the products and services one can obtain in a 4 hour work week, essentially that all the money that person earns will be spent and therefore generate demand for the person that is unemployed. The truth is far more pessimistic.
The hard working person will insist that he should keep his money even though he has no intention to spend it, essentially denying that say's law even exists (empirical evidence shows it's being broken all the time). This insistence is what keeps the lazy person unemployed. That unemployed person still needs 1 hour of services and goods (housing and food). The bandaid answer is to tax the hard working person and transfer the bare minimum to the unemployed person and it works because making everyone spend all their money is never going to happen, there are too many morally inclined people on this planet that insist on a oddly specific and harmful form of saving.
There are plenty of people that take bad decisions or take jobs with lower income or no jobs at all and they try to blame the rest. I do not feel responsible for the bad decisions of others. I am not morally forced to help them.
You can be sure that if they are people I know and I know their stories I could help. But that is very, I mean, VERY different from being morally responsible for the failures of others.
Saving harmful? First, it is good in that it will lower the inflation lolol. But leaving that apart... so it is bad to not spend the money so we must force them? Seriously, I do not understand anything.
In order to make money u mist provide services or goods. If u have money is bc ur service is serving others, at least in a free market... so tell me why those people that took yhe trouble to serve others and take risks should be penalized. Do not tell me they do it for money not for serving others... that is not important. The important thing is that the side-effects is satisfying a demandand that u bought either bc it is better than the competition or cheaper.
In my view it should be much more penalized a person that does not want to work bc they say those jobs are all shit and expects the welfare to rescue them.
Sorry to be so harsh with the topic, because I know that there are people who are not like that. But the problem is not helping itself, it is systematizing it. At that point people abuse it.
This is difficult to say: you mean a person that works has exactly the same skills? In the case they have, you still can have a 4h/day person that is more skilled. That person will still have a job.
And yes, if a person works harder, it will get more from it. They cannot be blamed for working I think. In any case people should be blamed for not wanting to work and wanting to live from others. I do not find a problem with the reverse reasoning. Just my opinion, I understand your point, though.
It is this. Nothing else.
And I mean the lazy. I understand there are other kind of people that are broke for other reasons.
The sad truth of our reality is that as long as there are people willing to inflict violence against us, we need people who can plausibly threaten to inflict violence in return. It is hypocritical to condemn your country's military in general, while depending on said military for protection. [1]
[1] It isn't necessarily hypocritical to condemn certain militar actions or policies, though.
I noticed this around the same time. It was 2010 and I was still in grad school, my lab mate and I used to poke fun of what we called the "Twitter researchers", who were working on what we perceived to be very boring projects (i.e. figure out the optimal ranking of N articles on a page to maximize some objective function). They also didn't like the research, but Twitter/Facebook/Microsoft/Google was paying for their tuition and stipend, so they didn't have much of a choice. When the big grant funding agencies are funding projects at a rate of around 20% - 25%, if you're a researcher hurting for federal dollars then that big tech money looks really good. I can only imagine this dynamic being replicated at universities across the country, how many young minds are wasted on this pursuit. And for what? So Google can sell more ads and become even richer? So Facebook can suck all of your attention just to make you depressed and suffer from body dysmorphia and an eating disorder?
I'm in the robotics field, and in our lab we used to draw a clear line that whatever we worked on would not have a direct military application, because we couldn't stand the thought of our work being used to kill people. Obviously the line is blurry (will my localization algorithm be used on a predator drone?), but there was always at least an eye toward ethical considerations in our research group. We always asked ourselves "How could this be used to hurt people?" It was in our culture, because our work had such obvious evil implications. Just watch pretty much any sci-fi movie ever, there was no shortage of ideas about how robotics research could go wrong.
But there's not a lot of sci-fi source material on how page-ranking algorithms can destroy society. These "Twitter researchers" as I called them never really had a notion that their work could be used for evil purposes, and who could blame them? In 2010 it seemed so benign. But looking around at the state of social media, maybe there should have been more conversations early on about the ethical implications of the research they were doing.