4 ms·

Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference t

Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference though... At least the person can see the sprouts, they have the option, the chef can say "Ah go on, try some, they've got little bits of pancetta in them!" and maybe they try one, and maybe they realise sprouts are great! Or maybe they don't, but at least they considered it. Compare that to (bare with me) someone wearing magic AR goggles that somehow bleep out any mention of sprouts, and automatically pre-warn the chef to not put any sprouts on their plate and not to mention them. Absurdity aside, I think there's something insidious about people setting up automated filter bubbles for themselves and their children

DougN7 11y ago
> filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.
- callumlocke 11y ago
  The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
  - marco1 11y ago
    You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.
marco1 11y ago
I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.

DougN7 11y ago

> filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.

callumlocke 11y ago
The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
- marco1 11y ago
  You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.

marco1 11y ago

I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.