3 ms·

I agree with what you say, expect what you say about the tech industry being directly responsible. Could you expand a little more on that? I don't really see t

I agree with what you say, expect what you say about the tech industry being directly responsible. Could you expand a little more on that? I don't really see the connection between the tech industry and the US electorate..

lacerta 10y ago
I think he is referring to social echo chambers, ie. twitter/facebook/reddit and so on.
- BTinfinity 10y ago
  Oh, I see. Thank you :)
jdavis703 10y ago
We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"
- chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
  It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place? I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse. I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own? With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views. [0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org http://debate.org
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?" It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this? The whole thing about suing gun manufacturers is incredibly stupid. They're producing a product that is a tool for a certain purpose; if that product is used successfully for that purpose, but for killing someone who's innocent, that's not the manufacturer's fault, it's the user's fault. If you don't like that, then you need to enact laws to limit who's allowed to buy guns, instead of holding manufacturers responsible for improper usage. Using the court system to bankrupt gunmakers is nothing more than abuse of the legal system because some people couldn't achieve a political victory and get a legislative solution. If you really don't want people to have guns at all, then you need to ban guns from being sold to civilians, not allow it willy-nilly and then allow them to get sued. It's asinine. It's like allowing liquor store owners to sell to minors and then allowing them to be sued when those minors get drunk and do stupid stuff. If you don't want kids drinking, then pass a law forbidding it; don't muddy up the court system with BS cases because you couldn't figure out how to pass a law fixing the problem. Personally, I do think we have done a poor job in limiting who has access to guns, but abusing the court system is not the answer. The answer is to pass better laws, get better background checks, etc. If you can't do that, you need to find some better candidates that people actually want to vote for.
  - evan_ 10y ago
    In a vacuum I would agree with you that simply manufacturing guns does not in itself lead to gun violence. The person buying the gun is ultimately responsible for its use. However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with firearm manufacturers, has for decades pushed the idea that a home with guns in it is safer than a home without- this sells guns, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Enthusiast magazines, blogs, and radio shows, sponsored by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, espouse the idea that the end of the world is coming in the form of Islamic terror, and to be prepared you must buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you can. Politicians, lobbied by the NRA, preach that Obama and Clinton are going to take your guns away, so you need to buy more. These are all calculated actions designed to increase the fear and panic in the public, and to convince them that the only solution to this fear is to buy more guns. This results in scared, afraid people with deadly weapons and frequently little-to-no training. The form of these lawsuits would not be "you made this gun so you are responsible for how it's used", they would be "to sell your product, you generated endless reams of propaganda to intentionally create the circumstances which led to" whatever specific thing, be it an intentional or accidental shooting. I'm not saying that this is definitely true, or that there is strong enough evidence that this is true to win what would be a very contentious lawsuit- but I think you're wrong to suggest it's a completely frivolous question.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  Talk radio and our universities have been doing a much more effective job of this than the tech industry ever could. If anything, tech has created platforms that allow for some questioning of the status quo. Sanders was largely a social media driven phenomena. Same with Trump (who's views I don't agree with). He's at least taking a hammer to the broken and corrupt 2 party system with all their institutionalized backing and coordinated mainstream media messaging.

lacerta 10y ago

I think he is referring to social echo chambers, ie. twitter/facebook/reddit and so on.

BTinfinity 10y ago
Oh, I see. Thank you :)

jdavis703 10y ago

We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"

chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place? I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse. I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own? With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views. [0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org http://debate.org
Grishnakh 10y ago
>Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?" It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this? The whole thing about suing gun manufacturers is incredibly stupid. They're producing a product that is a tool for a certain purpose; if that product is used successfully for that purpose, but for killing someone who's innocent, that's not the manufacturer's fault, it's the user's fault. If you don't like that, then you need to enact laws to limit who's allowed to buy guns, instead of holding manufacturers responsible for improper usage. Using the court system to bankrupt gunmakers is nothing more than abuse of the legal system because some people couldn't achieve a political victory and get a legislative solution. If you really don't want people to have guns at all, then you need to ban guns from being sold to civilians, not allow it willy-nilly and then allow them to get sued. It's asinine. It's like allowing liquor store owners to sell to minors and then allowing them to be sued when those minors get drunk and do stupid stuff. If you don't want kids drinking, then pass a law forbidding it; don't muddy up the court system with BS cases because you couldn't figure out how to pass a law fixing the problem. Personally, I do think we have done a poor job in limiting who has access to guns, but abusing the court system is not the answer. The answer is to pass better laws, get better background checks, etc. If you can't do that, you need to find some better candidates that people actually want to vote for.
- evan_ 10y ago
  In a vacuum I would agree with you that simply manufacturing guns does not in itself lead to gun violence. The person buying the gun is ultimately responsible for its use. However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with firearm manufacturers, has for decades pushed the idea that a home with guns in it is safer than a home without- this sells guns, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Enthusiast magazines, blogs, and radio shows, sponsored by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, espouse the idea that the end of the world is coming in the form of Islamic terror, and to be prepared you must buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you can. Politicians, lobbied by the NRA, preach that Obama and Clinton are going to take your guns away, so you need to buy more. These are all calculated actions designed to increase the fear and panic in the public, and to convince them that the only solution to this fear is to buy more guns. This results in scared, afraid people with deadly weapons and frequently little-to-no training. The form of these lawsuits would not be "you made this gun so you are responsible for how it's used", they would be "to sell your product, you generated endless reams of propaganda to intentionally create the circumstances which led to" whatever specific thing, be it an intentional or accidental shooting. I'm not saying that this is definitely true, or that there is strong enough evidence that this is true to win what would be a very contentious lawsuit- but I think you're wrong to suggest it's a completely frivolous question.
exstudent2 10y ago
Talk radio and our universities have been doing a much more effective job of this than the tech industry ever could. If anything, tech has created platforms that allow for some questioning of the status quo. Sanders was largely a social media driven phenomena. Same with Trump (who's views I don't agree with). He's at least taking a hammer to the broken and corrupt 2 party system with all their institutionalized backing and coordinated mainstream media messaging.