8 ms·

I don’t think this author speaks for a lot of people in tech. His viewpoint seems to be from a very narrow subculture, mainly Web 2.0 era social networking. So

I don’t think this author speaks for a lot of people in tech. His viewpoint seems to be from a very narrow subculture, mainly Web 2.0 era social networking. Some of us have had a lifelong passion for technology and are actually happy and excited about the current state of the industry (and always have been). If you don’t like people disagreeing with you on Twitter, just turn it off. Don’t claim that it’s part of some apparatus (that the author feels he helped invent) that somehow brought out the worst in humanity. He should feel happy he can now get exposed to views outside of his bubble.

QAPereo 9y ago
Are you really arguing that social media isn’t optimized to create bubbles?
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  Social media is a tool, you can use it to create an echo chamber, or to explore alternative view points and discuss. The key to the later is growing up, and being ready to empathize, even when it's hard or you disagree.
- notacoward 9y ago
  Social media are optimized for maximum engagement. If people engage more in bubbles, they'll get bubbles. If people engage more by reaching out and exploring beyond their bubbles, the platforms will facilitate that instead. Don't blame the mirror.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    I blame the algorithm behind the mirror, and the people behind the algorithms.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
> (that the author feels he helped invent) agreed... article felt like maximum ego-stroking, minimal thinking. to my mind, the conversation about where "the web" went off the rails ends with the dopamine-hook. I worked with a team building game experiences 5 years ago, it was all we could think about. good examples of it were everything we wanted to emulate. it was disgusting... mea culpa. for the children growing up today, whose parents put their baby photos on blast all day... there will be a reckoning. i wonder what that will look like.
dgreensp 9y ago
It's not Web 2.0-era social networking, it's a kind of tech utopianism that's been around for decades. I agree that the article doesn't make a lot of sense if you never believed that the Internet was going to automatically bring about (or be) a utopia. It's also reasonable to argue that the Internet, for all its flaws, succeeds at being an agent of social progress.
skywhopper 9y ago
It's not really about "can I keep from seeing opinions I don't like on Twitter?" It's more about, "how much real-world badness (specifically, many violent, racist, hate-based movements around the world) has been enabled by what we thought were benevolent principles of radically open information and free speech?" But I don't think even _that's_ the right question. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others have built so much trust in algorithm and API and machine learning, and no one stopped to ask how careful they needed to be with turning over so much power to a computer program that can and will be gamed by malicious actors. Hate speech and conspiracy theories and fraud can now be amplified a millionfold, and the vehicles by which it's happening were not prepared to deal with the implications. And they continue to double-down on the "more machine learning will fix it" self-delusion.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  > It's not really about "can I keep from seeing opinions I don't like on Twitter?" No, it’s 100% about this. You do know that violent crime is at an all time low, right (at least in the US)? There is no problem other than the audience for technology is using it in a way not approved of by some if its creators (the OP, not me for instance). If you’re not unhappy with the state of the industry, these think pieces lamenting it read as really self-centered and out of touch.
  - ninkendo 9y ago
    > No, it’s 100% about this. You do know that violent crime is at an all time low, right (at least in the US)? This is incorrect, it's been rising the past couple years: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-chicago-increase-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-c...
    - tomnipotent 9y ago
      You forgot this part. > While crime over all and violent crime remain well below their levels of the 1980s and 1990s, last year was the first time violent crime increased in consecutive years since 2005 and 2006
dvanduzer 9y ago
I think this author is pretty clear about what it means to be culpable, and why a "lifelong passion for technology" is no substitute for ethical analysis, and introspective skepticism of our enthusiasm. I have had a lifelong passion for technology, and I am not happy or excited about the current state of the industry, nor am I doom and gloom pessimistic and advocating a Neo Luddite approach. The author is talking about Nazis. Not just people who disagree with you. You are wrong, and I hope, as Alexis Ohanian did, that you admit the error of your ways.
- tomxor 9y ago
  > The author is talking about Nazis. Not just people who disagree with you. You are wrong, and I hope, as Alexis Ohanian did, that you admit the error of your ways. No you are wrong. Nasty people exist, you are blaming X technology for making it worse, what about mobile phones, cars, microwave ovens, shoes... where does it end, nasty people exist, stop fucking blaming technology and try to understand why they are nasty if you care.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    That’s a ridiculous argument. Microwaves don’t make it easy for someone to send harassing messages to 40,000 people. Shoes don’t make it possible for someone across the globe to send a SWAT team into your living room. Those aren’t communication methods. That’s like asking why the waffle maker didn’t solve tuberculosis. You have to compare communication methods, like the telephone and the post office. And notice that we have lots of rules about how and who can contact you and trying to enforce accountability. If you start sending threatening letters to the post office, they’ll work to find you. If you start making dirty calls to random strangers, you’ll be tracked down. But Twitter and Reddit and a great many other things on the Internet don’t seem to think that’s necessary… or at least didn’t early on. They chose to ignore (or didn’t know of) how previous communication methods tried to deal with these issues. You can only make one phone call at a time. For a VERY long time you might not have been able to call across the country let alone overseas. It would’ve cost you a lot of money to do either one. It took time to physically mail envelopes or postcards and you had to pay a fee for each one. The Internet has removed all those barriers. It’s made harassment trivial. Without something else to keep a lid on the issue the obvious has happened: harassment has exploded compared to other media.
SCAQTony 9y ago
With great advantages come equal disadvantages. I agree, the author does not speak for a lot of people in tech and there lies the problem. The fact that some people who work in tech are thoroughly excited by disruption and automation is disturbing. It certainly does not excite photographers, musicians, gallerists, truck-drivers, customer service workers, industrial workers and 50% of the public who does not have the IQ to work in tech. Look what high frequency trading has done to "Main Street. In fact look what Amazon is doing to Main Street. Then there is the Dark web... How do you think the opioid crisis which has lowered life expectancy in the US for two years in a row got that lethal? It's not by by street dealers on a corner but rather through online purchasing. Yes tech is mad, phat, awesome but the consequences are catching up with it.

QAPereo 9y ago

Are you really arguing that social media isn’t optimized to create bubbles?

neveroffensive 9y ago
Social media is a tool, you can use it to create an echo chamber, or to explore alternative view points and discuss. The key to the later is growing up, and being ready to empathize, even when it's hard or you disagree.
notacoward 9y ago
Social media are optimized for maximum engagement. If people engage more in bubbles, they'll get bubbles. If people engage more by reaching out and exploring beyond their bubbles, the platforms will facilitate that instead. Don't blame the mirror.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  I blame the algorithm behind the mirror, and the people behind the algorithms.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

> (that the author feels he helped invent) agreed... article felt like maximum ego-stroking, minimal thinking. to my mind, the conversation about where "the web" went off the rails ends with the dopamine-hook. I worked with a team building game experiences 5 years ago, it was all we could think about. good examples of it were everything we wanted to emulate. it was disgusting... mea culpa. for the children growing up today, whose parents put their baby photos on blast all day... there will be a reckoning. i wonder what that will look like.

dgreensp 9y ago

It's not Web 2.0-era social networking, it's a kind of tech utopianism that's been around for decades. I agree that the article doesn't make a lot of sense if you never believed that the Internet was going to automatically bring about (or be) a utopia. It's also reasonable to argue that the Internet, for all its flaws, succeeds at being an agent of social progress.

skywhopper 9y ago

It's not really about "can I keep from seeing opinions I don't like on Twitter?" It's more about, "how much real-world badness (specifically, many violent, racist, hate-based movements around the world) has been enabled by what we thought were benevolent principles of radically open information and free speech?" But I don't think even _that's_ the right question. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others have built so much trust in algorithm and API and machine learning, and no one stopped to ask how careful they needed to be with turning over so much power to a computer program that can and will be gamed by malicious actors. Hate speech and conspiracy theories and fraud can now be amplified a millionfold, and the vehicles by which it's happening were not prepared to deal with the implications. And they continue to double-down on the "more machine learning will fix it" self-delusion.

malvosenior 9y ago
> It's not really about "can I keep from seeing opinions I don't like on Twitter?" No, it’s 100% about this. You do know that violent crime is at an all time low, right (at least in the US)? There is no problem other than the audience for technology is using it in a way not approved of by some if its creators (the OP, not me for instance). If you’re not unhappy with the state of the industry, these think pieces lamenting it read as really self-centered and out of touch.
- ninkendo 9y ago
  > No, it’s 100% about this. You do know that violent crime is at an all time low, right (at least in the US)? This is incorrect, it's been rising the past couple years: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-chicago-increase-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-c...
  - tomnipotent 9y ago
    You forgot this part. > While crime over all and violent crime remain well below their levels of the 1980s and 1990s, last year was the first time violent crime increased in consecutive years since 2005 and 2006

dvanduzer 9y ago

I think this author is pretty clear about what it means to be culpable, and why a "lifelong passion for technology" is no substitute for ethical analysis, and introspective skepticism of our enthusiasm. I have had a lifelong passion for technology, and I am not happy or excited about the current state of the industry, nor am I doom and gloom pessimistic and advocating a Neo Luddite approach. The author is talking about Nazis. Not just people who disagree with you. You are wrong, and I hope, as Alexis Ohanian did, that you admit the error of your ways.

tomxor 9y ago
> The author is talking about Nazis. Not just people who disagree with you. You are wrong, and I hope, as Alexis Ohanian did, that you admit the error of your ways. No you are wrong. Nasty people exist, you are blaming X technology for making it worse, what about mobile phones, cars, microwave ovens, shoes... where does it end, nasty people exist, stop fucking blaming technology and try to understand why they are nasty if you care.
- MBCook 9y ago
  That’s a ridiculous argument. Microwaves don’t make it easy for someone to send harassing messages to 40,000 people. Shoes don’t make it possible for someone across the globe to send a SWAT team into your living room. Those aren’t communication methods. That’s like asking why the waffle maker didn’t solve tuberculosis. You have to compare communication methods, like the telephone and the post office. And notice that we have lots of rules about how and who can contact you and trying to enforce accountability. If you start sending threatening letters to the post office, they’ll work to find you. If you start making dirty calls to random strangers, you’ll be tracked down. But Twitter and Reddit and a great many other things on the Internet don’t seem to think that’s necessary… or at least didn’t early on. They chose to ignore (or didn’t know of) how previous communication methods tried to deal with these issues. You can only make one phone call at a time. For a VERY long time you might not have been able to call across the country let alone overseas. It would’ve cost you a lot of money to do either one. It took time to physically mail envelopes or postcards and you had to pay a fee for each one. The Internet has removed all those barriers. It’s made harassment trivial. Without something else to keep a lid on the issue the obvious has happened: harassment has exploded compared to other media.

SCAQTony 9y ago

With great advantages come equal disadvantages. I agree, the author does not speak for a lot of people in tech and there lies the problem. The fact that some people who work in tech are thoroughly excited by disruption and automation is disturbing. It certainly does not excite photographers, musicians, gallerists, truck-drivers, customer service workers, industrial workers and 50% of the public who does not have the IQ to work in tech. Look what high frequency trading has done to "Main Street. In fact look what Amazon is doing to Main Street. Then there is the Dark web... How do you think the opioid crisis which has lowered life expectancy in the US for two years in a row got that lethal? It's not by by street dealers on a corner but rather through online purchasing. Yes tech is mad, phat, awesome but the consequences are catching up with it.