5 ms·

Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think that's a

by gph 10y ago

Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think that's a good solution. But in reference to this quote: >The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance, filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of private infrastructure that poses as public space. That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. Certainly with facebook and social media it's changed the whole landscape, and perhaps made it worse given what happened during the last election. But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. If social media were outlawed tomorrow it might weaken filter bubbles, but a suburban upper middle class republican from Kansas is still going to be getting way different info and building a much different world view than a barista in Brooklyn would.

humanrebar 10y ago
> That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. I'm not sure the kinds of bubbles we have aren't brand new. The bubbles used to map pretty closely to geography and political structures. The bubbles now are oriented around where our information lives, not where we physically are. Also, I think you're overstepping with 'panacea'. I don't think anyone who believes in decentralized life thinks universal panaceas even necessarily exist. But it can still be true that central planning has displaced local living without fulfilling all the same purposes. And if so, the result could be a net negative.
Karunamon 10y ago
But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. It doesn't need to be entirely fixed. There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that the "private infrastructure posing as public space" is a real and serious problem. When all complaints of censorship/manipulation/etc on a social media site of any reasonable size is thoughtlessly brushed aside with "their site, their rules", that is a very unhealthy environment being created.

by gph 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. I'm not sure the kinds of bubbles we have aren't brand new. The bubbles used to map pretty closely to geography and political structures. The bubbles now are oriented around where our information lives, not where we physically are. Also, I think you're overstepping with 'panacea'. I don't think anyone who believes in decentralized life thinks universal panaceas even necessarily exist. But it can still be true that central planning has displaced local living without fulfilling all the same purposes. And if so, the result could be a net negative.

Karunamon 10y ago

But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. It doesn't need to be entirely fixed. There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that the "private infrastructure posing as public space" is a real and serious problem. When all complaints of censorship/manipulation/etc on a social media site of any reasonable size is thoughtlessly brushed aside with "their site, their rules", that is a very unhealthy environment being created.