Worthwhile intertubez finds

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4649
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Painboy »

JD wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 14:05 An interesting article on America's change from a high-trust to a low-trust society, what this bodes for us, what history suggests, and how we might turn things around.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ca/616581/

I don't agree with it all of it, but there's some interesting stuff, and it is definitely a real and significant issue.
I just can't get past the apocalyptic tone of the article. I'm sorry but even in 2020 things just aren't that bad. And I think a not small part of the current anxieties are people convincing themselves that things are that bad when they're not. Unfortunately our tribal brains are not very good at understanding the actual scale of things.
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17284
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Aresen »

Painboy wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 22:17
JD wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 14:05 An interesting article on America's change from a high-trust to a low-trust society, what this bodes for us, what history suggests, and how we might turn things around.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ca/616581/

I don't agree with it all of it, but there's some interesting stuff, and it is definitely a real and significant issue.
I just can't get past the apocalyptic tone of the article. I'm sorry but even in 2020 things just aren't that bad. And I think a not small part of the current anxieties are people convincing themselves that things are that bad when they're not. Unfortunately our tribal brains are not very good at understanding the actual scale of things.
Team Painboy. As far back as I can remember, the END OF THE WORLD was always at hand in one form or another.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15097
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Eric the .5b »

JD wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 14:05 An interesting article on America's change from a high-trust to a low-trust society, what this bodes for us, what history suggests, and how we might turn things around.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ca/616581/

I don't agree with it all of it, but there's some interesting stuff, and it is definitely a real and significant issue.
A bit heavy on the "the real problem is that people realize they're getting fucked over" angle vs why people are actually getting screwed over by institutions.. Not to mention that every single damn cohort of young people in my lifetime has been predicted to be crushed by modern life and inclined to embrace a different, collectivist ethos from the modem culture.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12193
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JD »

The NY Times Magazine pretty explicitly sneers at the idea that free speech is good:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/maga ... peech.html
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30166
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Warren »

JD wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 11:49 The NY Times Magazine pretty explicitly sneers at the idea that free speech is good:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/maga ... peech.html
As we hurtle toward the November election with a president who has trapped the country in a web of lies, with the sole purpose, it seems, of remaining in office, it’s time to ask whether the American way of protecting free speech is actually keeping us free.
Irony is dead.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20440
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Did the Times mention anything about revisiting that whole freedom of the press nonsense, too?
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19726
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Hugh Akston »

I'm not sure if sneers is the word I would use. Bazelon is pointing out some of the negative consequences of relatively robust free speech in a digital world.

The proposed solutions that I see in here are:
  • [the government] could stop the decline of local reporting by funding nonprofit journalism. It could create new publicly funded TV or radio to create more alternatives for media that appeals across the ideological spectrum.
  • using Section 230 as leverage to push the platforms to be more transparent, for example, by disclosing how their algorithms order people’s news feeds and recommendations and how much disinformation and hate speech they circulate.
  • Congress, as well as the Justice Department, can also promote competition through antitrust enforcement.
  • banning microtargeted political ads, requiring disclosure of the ad buyers, making the platforms file reports detailing when they remove content or reduce its spread.
  • treating [social media] platforms like essential facilities, the European version of public utilities, and subjecting them to more regulation.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30166
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Warren »

Hugh Akston wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 13:21 I'm not sure if sneers is the word I would use. Bazelon is pointing out some of the negative consequences of relatively robust free speech in a digital world.

The proposed solutions that I see in here are:
  • [the government] could stop the decline of local reporting by funding nonprofit journalism. It could create new publicly funded TV or radio to create more alternatives for media that appeals across the ideological spectrum.
  • using Section 230 as leverage to push the platforms to be more transparent, for example, by disclosing how their algorithms order people’s news feeds and recommendations and how much disinformation and hate speech they circulate.
  • Congress, as well as the Justice Department, can also promote competition through antitrust enforcement.
  • banning microtargeted political ads, requiring disclosure of the ad buyers, making the platforms file reports detailing when they remove content or reduce its spread.
  • treating [social media] platforms like essential facilities, the European version of public utilities, and subjecting them to more regulation.
And is there any of those that don't make you piss in your pants a little?
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12193
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JD »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 12:59 Did the Times mention anything about revisiting that whole freedom of the press nonsense, too?
The Times is goodspeech, so they will never be affected by restrictions on press freedom. Only badspeech will be affected.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4649
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Painboy »

JD wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 11:49 The NY Times Magazine pretty explicitly sneers at the idea that free speech is good:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/maga ... peech.html
Aside from the obvious violations of liberty, there's never any evidence provided that free speech is the problem or that any proposed restrictions have a measurable effect. It's just all "hey look some people believe crazy stuff and they shouldn't" and all you have to do is shut down an article or two and they suddenly stop believing crazy shit.

This doesn't even get into the backlash and resentment it breeds when a targeted group gets hit by this. It will only drive them to play unfair wherever possible since they no longer see playing field is fair.

Yeah it's a quote from a video game but it's a good one.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 30414
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by thoreau »

JD wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 13:48
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 12:59 Did the Times mention anything about revisiting that whole freedom of the press nonsense, too?
The Times is goodspeech, so they will never be affected by restrictions on press freedom. Only badspeech will be affected.
Um, Bret Stephens writes for the NYT, and he is bad speech.

Oh, wait, the Young Turks taking over the newsroom probably want him gone anyway. So, yeah.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo
User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1729
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by dead_elvis »

In many ways, social media sites today function as the public square. But legally speaking, internet platforms can restrict free speech far more than the government can. They’re like malls, where private owners police conduct.
What I think has been lost is remembering that political opinion in the "public square" used to be whoever the local paper decides to publish in its letters-to-the-editor or local op-eds, or whoever had the means and access to 'zine/newsletter type publishing stuff. Anyone who thinks public political discussion is *more* restricted than it used to be is being willfully obtuse or is under 40.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JasonL »

Painboy wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 22:17
JD wrote: 09 Oct 2020, 14:05 An interesting article on America's change from a high-trust to a low-trust society, what this bodes for us, what history suggests, and how we might turn things around.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ca/616581/

I don't agree with it all of it, but there's some interesting stuff, and it is definitely a real and significant issue.
I just can't get past the apocalyptic tone of the article. I'm sorry but even in 2020 things just aren't that bad. And I think a not small part of the current anxieties are people convincing themselves that things are that bad when they're not. Unfortunately our tribal brains are not very good at understanding the actual scale of things.
It's a very conservative take on the mechanisms of apocalypse. The idea that for community to matter in a moral sense it must be voluntary seems to occasionally get lost in that narrative, as does the idea that the thing we cling to is often just "we aren't Them" and the thing we build community around is pooping on Them.
Post Reply