4 ms·

Any strategy for the betterment of society that depends on for-profit companies voluntarily forgoing legal ways to earn a profit is doomed to failure. It's elab

Any strategy for the betterment of society that depends on for-profit companies voluntarily forgoing legal ways to earn a profit is doomed to failure. It's elaborate do-gooder fan fiction. The world does not work that way. The world shouldn't work that way either: if companies stopped providing the goods and services people needed because a few self-appointed guardians of the public good scream about it on social media, we'd never have been able to make progress at all, since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression, and so err toward stasis. If you want high-engagement features disabled, fine. Propose a law. Let's duke it out in the process of government. You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population.

exergy 9y ago
What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol. The world absolutely _should_ work that way. Companies _should_ have half a brain to realise that selling bottled water is bad for the environment, that fracking causes earthquakes, that sugar is the root of all dietary evil, that tobacco is carcinogenic, that overfishing causes unspeakable damage to ocean life, that SUVs are colossal wastes of space and fuel... All the companies doing the above are providing wildly popular goods and services. And a lot of them are perfectly legal too. Your suggestion implies that all this is just dandy, thank you very much, so take your hemp clothing and your vegan sandals and your do-gooderness off of my property and gtfo acting as a "self appointed guardian". What kind of extreme libertarian hard-on does a man have to possess to believe that all of this is how society SHOULD work? I deeply resent this sentiment that you have to take the good with the bad of a free market society because there is no alternative. Of course there is! Regulate these idiots into the ground! While this is clearly a pipe dream, that's a long way away from the statement that this is how society _should_ be.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  It’s not a pipe dream in Northern Europe.
- Humdeee 9y ago
  > What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol. For those who are vocabulary stunted (like me apparently): myopic: nearsighted. vitriol: cruel and bitter criticism.
  - Lurker397412 9y ago
    For those who don't English good: vocabulary: how many big, confusing words you know. stunted: not grow big. nearsighted: not see far. criticism: what assholes say they're giving you, when they call you dumb.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I disagree with you at a philosophical level. Companies exist to satisfy demand and earn a profit. The benefit to our capitalist democratic system is that the people in power both commercially and politically are beholden to the demands of the people. We define morality in terms of demand. That can happen through legislation or through personal accountability. The public brain trust remains in control, this protects us from the ultimate danger, a well-intentioned yet myopic autocrat.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    So long as rent-seeking and externalities exist, "profit" is by no means aligned with increasing common weal.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mulmen 9y ago
      I should have been more clear in my original comment. I have no opposition to regulation and consider it a crucial part of any capitalist system. I disagree with the idea that companies should be expected to make these moral value judgements themselves.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Gresham's Law details why a regulatory framework, rather than voluntary action, is required. That firms are able to dismantle, oppose, co-opt, or avoid such frameworks is very much part of the problem. I'd like to see vast changes in liability and increased veil-piercing abilities.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
some_account 9y ago
Special power? It's easy for most to see if something has damaging consequences. When did we start needing experts to tell us basic things? If we don't trust our own judgment, we are not adults.
petra 9y ago
>> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression OK. That may be true. but demand is also a poor signal of distinguishing progress from regression. So let's work on that. On a better method for doing so. It seems possible to do so, using the knowledge we gained in the many sciences dealing with human/eco welfare. >> Let's duke it out in the process of government. ... You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population. Leaving aside the many failures of democracy, people not always know or prefer the thing that is good for them in the long term. I'm not saying that totalitarinsm is OK, but most people do benefit from living in an environment that guides them well, surrounds them with good things, and makes it hard for them to choose the wrong choices.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  Do you have any idea how much evil and misery throughout history has been perpetuated by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? And "knowledge"? What knowledge? The social sciences largely do not reproduce. For the past few decades, the social sciences have been a mystic cult with political aspirations. We knew more in 1990 than we "know" now.
  - kolpa 9y ago
    What did we know in 1990?
  - petra 9y ago
    Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? In the grand parent post, we talked about "YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads.". It is quite different from the great evils of history. And sure, we should work on reproducing social sciences. it's a big problem. But i would guess that if you'd describe something like the internet that is today in very general terms(possible to predict once you know that attention/engagement is the lead driver) to psychologists, a decade ago, they would have told you that it may hold some serious potential problems. Does it mean we need to stop progress ? maybe not, but slowing "progress" in the name of caution may not be a bad trade-off. and once we see the dangers, rolling it back(even against the addicted population's wishes) may also be a decent option.
Karrot_Kream 9y ago
> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression, and so err toward stasis. Citation needed.
blub 9y ago
"providing the good and services people needed"? Nobody needs to watch videos or like memes on Facebook. It's just a cheap type of stimulation that can easily become addictive (because it's designed to become addictive). Judging by how gushing you are about those services, and how they represent progress, one could be excused for thinking that you're referring to some essential scientific invention, instead of the internet based fast-food of the mind. And it's funny that you're challenging people to fight Facebook & co in the process of government, which has been subverted by lobbyist money from... Facebook & co. Why do you think that the US government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to privacy? Because they're paid a lot of money to not worry about it. And with enough money changing hands, it becomes easy to think that in fact those services are needed by the public and they represent progress. So no thanks. The self-appointed guardians of the public are smart to use different tactics.

exergy 9y ago

What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol. The world absolutely _should_ work that way. Companies _should_ have half a brain to realise that selling bottled water is bad for the environment, that fracking causes earthquakes, that sugar is the root of all dietary evil, that tobacco is carcinogenic, that overfishing causes unspeakable damage to ocean life, that SUVs are colossal wastes of space and fuel... All the companies doing the above are providing wildly popular goods and services. And a lot of them are perfectly legal too. Your suggestion implies that all this is just dandy, thank you very much, so take your hemp clothing and your vegan sandals and your do-gooderness off of my property and gtfo acting as a "self appointed guardian". What kind of extreme libertarian hard-on does a man have to possess to believe that all of this is how society SHOULD work? I deeply resent this sentiment that you have to take the good with the bad of a free market society because there is no alternative. Of course there is! Regulate these idiots into the ground! While this is clearly a pipe dream, that's a long way away from the statement that this is how society _should_ be.

ggg9990 9y ago
It’s not a pipe dream in Northern Europe.
Humdeee 9y ago
> What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol. For those who are vocabulary stunted (like me apparently): myopic: nearsighted. vitriol: cruel and bitter criticism.
- Lurker397412 9y ago
  For those who don't English good: vocabulary: how many big, confusing words you know. stunted: not grow big. nearsighted: not see far. criticism: what assholes say they're giving you, when they call you dumb.
mulmen 9y ago
I disagree with you at a philosophical level. Companies exist to satisfy demand and earn a profit. The benefit to our capitalist democratic system is that the people in power both commercially and politically are beholden to the demands of the people. We define morality in terms of demand. That can happen through legislation or through personal accountability. The public brain trust remains in control, this protects us from the ultimate danger, a well-intentioned yet myopic autocrat.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  So long as rent-seeking and externalities exist, "profit" is by no means aligned with increasing common weal.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I should have been more clear in my original comment. I have no opposition to regulation and consider it a crucial part of any capitalist system. I disagree with the idea that companies should be expected to make these moral value judgements themselves.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Gresham's Law details why a regulatory framework, rather than voluntary action, is required. That firms are able to dismantle, oppose, co-opt, or avoid such frameworks is very much part of the problem. I'd like to see vast changes in liability and increased veil-piercing abilities.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

some_account 9y ago

Special power? It's easy for most to see if something has damaging consequences. When did we start needing experts to tell us basic things? If we don't trust our own judgment, we are not adults.

petra 9y ago

>> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression OK. That may be true. but demand is also a poor signal of distinguishing progress from regression. So let's work on that. On a better method for doing so. It seems possible to do so, using the knowledge we gained in the many sciences dealing with human/eco welfare. >> Let's duke it out in the process of government. ... You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population. Leaving aside the many failures of democracy, people not always know or prefer the thing that is good for them in the long term. I'm not saying that totalitarinsm is OK, but most people do benefit from living in an environment that guides them well, surrounds them with good things, and makes it hard for them to choose the wrong choices.

quotemstr 9y ago
Do you have any idea how much evil and misery throughout history has been perpetuated by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them? And "knowledge"? What knowledge? The social sciences largely do not reproduce. For the past few decades, the social sciences have been a mystic cult with political aspirations. We knew more in 1990 than we "know" now.
- kolpa 9y ago
  What did we know in 1990?
- petra 9y ago
  Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ? In the grand parent post, we talked about "YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads.". It is quite different from the great evils of history. And sure, we should work on reproducing social sciences. it's a big problem. But i would guess that if you'd describe something like the internet that is today in very general terms(possible to predict once you know that attention/engagement is the lead driver) to psychologists, a decade ago, they would have told you that it may hold some serious potential problems. Does it mean we need to stop progress ? maybe not, but slowing "progress" in the name of caution may not be a bad trade-off. and once we see the dangers, rolling it back(even against the addicted population's wishes) may also be a decent option.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago

> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression, and so err toward stasis. Citation needed.

blub 9y ago

"providing the good and services people needed"? Nobody needs to watch videos or like memes on Facebook. It's just a cheap type of stimulation that can easily become addictive (because it's designed to become addictive). Judging by how gushing you are about those services, and how they represent progress, one could be excused for thinking that you're referring to some essential scientific invention, instead of the internet based fast-food of the mind. And it's funny that you're challenging people to fight Facebook & co in the process of government, which has been subverted by lobbyist money from... Facebook & co. Why do you think that the US government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to privacy? Because they're paid a lot of money to not worry about it. And with enough money changing hands, it becomes easy to think that in fact those services are needed by the public and they represent progress. So no thanks. The self-appointed guardians of the public are smart to use different tactics.