5 ms·

> Ironically, rather than unifying mankind and increasing sympathy and understanding, we are using network technology to maximize comfort by crafting artificial

by vacri 10y ago

> Ironically, rather than unifying mankind and increasing sympathy and understanding, we are using network technology to maximize comfort by crafting artificial "safe spaces" where patrons never even have to be exposed to thoughts they dislike. That's bad. This is a bad characterisation; it was much easier to ignore stuff you didn't like before the internet. The internet is also not to blame for politics - while it helped intensify things, it wasn't the 'safe spaces' that gave you Trump, but the hysterical fearmongering that the conservatives had been doing for almost a decade beforehand. I'm not sure how you think people were 'forced' to see views they didn't like before the internet.

cookiecaper 10y ago
They weren't able to dismiss people who resisted by doing the equivalent of "unfriend"ing them. If you are in the same physical space with someone, the only way you can enforce silence (rather than just pleading for it) is to leave or compel the property owner to exert force against the other guest. In the public square, no one can exert this force over complaints as petty as "I don't like what he's saying". Some types of public demonstrations or forums require permits and the like, but the public square is still available to anyone with a point to make, and if you're in the same physical area/space, you're going to see it, like it or not. As the bulk of our discussion offloads from public spaces or common community gathering places to curated digital gardens where no one knows the difference if you unfollow their feed, we lose the forces that make it difficult to ignore each other. That makes it much easier to stay closed-minded.
- vacri 10y ago
  You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day. >Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. Obviously, this is not absolute. But it is seriously limited. If you wanted to have an active discussion of policy issues, what were your options pre-internet? Three-way calling (I think this came out in the 90s anyway)? You could write letters and stuff but that's quite the lag time. Serious discussion that kept human attention spans engaged had to happen in person. >You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. First, are these necessarily mutually exclusive? Second, isn't this discussion specifically about how our freedoms are jeopardized by the closed-mindedness that arises from cultural disregard for the social principle and value of free speech? >Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then. I'm not saying that people were more open-minded in an absolute sense, though I think it's easy to say that the mainstream political discourse was more civil. I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue. You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
    - vacri 10y ago
      > I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue. You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed. Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square. > You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand. You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not. But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...

by vacri 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

They weren't able to dismiss people who resisted by doing the equivalent of "unfriend"ing them. If you are in the same physical space with someone, the only way you can enforce silence (rather than just pleading for it) is to leave or compel the property owner to exert force against the other guest. In the public square, no one can exert this force over complaints as petty as "I don't like what he's saying". Some types of public demonstrations or forums require permits and the like, but the public square is still available to anyone with a point to make, and if you're in the same physical area/space, you're going to see it, like it or not. As the bulk of our discussion offloads from public spaces or common community gathering places to curated digital gardens where no one knows the difference if you unfollow their feed, we lose the forces that make it difficult to ignore each other. That makes it much easier to stay closed-minded.

vacri 10y ago
You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day. >Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. Obviously, this is not absolute. But it is seriously limited. If you wanted to have an active discussion of policy issues, what were your options pre-internet? Three-way calling (I think this came out in the 90s anyway)? You could write letters and stuff but that's quite the lag time. Serious discussion that kept human attention spans engaged had to happen in person. >You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. First, are these necessarily mutually exclusive? Second, isn't this discussion specifically about how our freedoms are jeopardized by the closed-mindedness that arises from cultural disregard for the social principle and value of free speech? >Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then. I'm not saying that people were more open-minded in an absolute sense, though I think it's easy to say that the mainstream political discourse was more civil. I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue. You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue. You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed. Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square. > You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand. You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not. But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...