5 ms·

Idk I think US has bigger problems than whether it's semiconductor tech gets stolen. Social media and the news media have created such a dysfunctional environme

Idk I think US has bigger problems than whether it's semiconductor tech gets stolen. Social media and the news media have created such a dysfunctional environment that I am finding it increasingly hard to believe constructive debate/solutions on anything are possible until the underlying environment producing the dysfunction is cleaned up. If not we are just going to get more and more leaders from both sides propped up purely for skills to pander.

endtime 8y ago
> If not we are just going to get more and more leaders from both sides propped up purely for skills to pander. While I share some of your concerns about the media, isn't this (just an uncharitable way of stating) the entire purpose of democracy?
- Udik 8y ago
  Western democracy has always been tempered (and sometimes subverted) by the control exerted by cultural elites on mass communications. Now that control is faltering, and we're seeing the results.
  - nvarsj 8y ago
    Quite the opposite. Instead, the floodgates have been opened to anyone, like the Russian government, with free access to powerful media platforms if you have the capital. Prior to that the mass media was in the hands of only a few, all based in the US. Control of the masses has been API'd. Basically, China should have bought more Facebook ads.
    - varjag 8y ago
      Looks like you both argue for the same thing. In times before, news distribution was subject to editorial process and basic standards of journalism. Not that it wasn't without own issues, but it helped sort out outright lunacy, bigotry and conspiracy theories. Distribution in 2010s bypasses that and mass media are now secondary to social network rumour mills. The political outcomes worldwide and deterioration of Western democracies are related to this.
      - JKCalhoun 8y ago
        Not sure they are arguing the same. "Editorial process and basic standards of journalism" is not "cultural elitism" — it's what we had, lost, and now desperately need again.
  - munificent 8y ago
    The real tragedy of the Internet is this: It dramatically lowered the costs of broadcasting information. At the time, we idealistically felt that would enable people of all means to communicate, and not just the rich and powerful. It did that, especially in the early days before the rich and powerful noticed. But it lowers the costs for everyone, including the rich. So once they clued in, it ended up empowering them too. In fact, it preferentially benefits them, because they have more money to throw at it. There is a useful cautionary lesson here: any technology that reduces the cost of X for all users of X is not a force of equality. Instead, it is a multiplier to any existing disparity. If you want to reduce inequality, focus on technology that does not scale up and instead is preferentially empowering to those on the low end of the scale. For example, medicine tends to be an equalizer because once you're healthy, having more access to the same medicine doesn't benefit you much. There is a natural upper limit to its efficacy. (Of course, being able to control others' access to medicine does scale up.)
- obelix_ 8y ago
  My feeling is the kind of pandering a leader used to do to get into a seat of power has changed thanks to the internet and the state of info overload we live in. They are much more aware of who to target and what that group wants to hear. And since every targeted group is overloaded with info, getting/keeping their attention creates this arms race of who can be the most touching, entertaining or outrageous circus clown. Not just in politics but in every sphere I see more and more absurd attention craving characters being propped up. And I am finding it hard to see how democracy benefits.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    This is not new. Huey Long is an excellent example, as is the fact that we have a word for it that is thousands of years old: demagogue.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Democracy assumes constructive attitude towards debate. Today we are getting it's better to be wrong with our side, than right with the opponent partisanship instead.
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    Ideally democracy also assumes, for the most part, that the majority of the system is comprised of rational actors. But it's as they say. In theory, but not in practice.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    Are you sure you just don't disagree with people and can't imagine that they'd disagree with you because you're so obviously right, so they must secretly agree you're correct, but continue with a charade? Otherwise you need to provide some clear citations to how millions of people could know they are wrong but continue with their positions out of spite.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      It's not only in politics, but also in business, sales, at job, etc. Have you ever witnessed a bubble in opinions in some company, group, etc? Job's RDF was a harmless form of this :) Many have internalized their position and they won't secretly agree. They won't even realize why they disagree, and won't consider objective facts. Some tiny minority may be aware of that, but many have economic incentive to continue their position, that mortgage won't pay itself after all. Thinking too much about it just makes it harder. I'm trying to stay in theoretical level and not provide any specific examples except the RDF, because they could be too political/divisive/controversial, and I don't want to argue the specific cases or take sides, but point out to the phenomenon itself.
      - merpnderp 8y ago
        Oh, I completely get what you're saying about the irrational obtuseness of our species. My only point of contention was that it is worse instead of simply more obvious. And my point was that since it is more obvious, things are very likely better. And maybe it just feels worse because all of a sudden, all of our differences are out in the open and we're going through this cathartic jolt of confronting the faults in our long held opinions in a messy, public contentious debate. But actually, issues such as racism, bigotry of gay people, attitudes towards poverty and early access to education, unequal access to justice, have never been more positive. And they've also never been this publicly debated by so many.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
+1 and I wish I could give you +10. You nailed it: we need to get our own house in order and not just made ourselves feel better by focusing on difficulties other countries have. I am a grandpa, and leaving the world in good shape for my grandchildren is top priority.
chapium 8y ago
Fyi- https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24622/what-fallacy-dismisses-problems-by-presenting-bigger-problems https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24622/what-fa... You have a good point, but because we have a problem with social media does not mean we dont need to worry about the semiconductor industry.
- obelix_ 8y ago
  Thanks for the link. It's good to have someone point these things out when one gets carried away :)
merpnderp 8y ago
Everyone always says things are dysfunctional or bad but never says how. Manipulating people through social media has been a thing since there's been social media. Only today more people are aware of it than ever. Same with news agencies with axe's to grind. Journalists have been using their barrels of ink to push their angles since there has been newspapers. Today more people are aware of it than ever.
- obelix_ 8y ago
  Agree but there are two new issues today that I can think of - 1. Targeting is much more sophisticated. Today you can round up every lunatic who hates squirrels or whatever by tomorrow morning and influence what people need to focus on. 2. Messed up social signals i.e. like counts/views/retweets/upvotes etc are just misguiding people left and right. If I don't know what to make of something/too busy/too distracted etc I fall back on these highly inaccurate proxies to make decisions. This is happening all the time and not just to the poor or semi-literate but too highly educated folks. Everyone is unconsiously nudged to support X or Y cause, org or person purely based on these numbers. Take those numbers away and it would be a very different world.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    I know this is just person experience, but many of the people/organizations I follow on Facebook have posts that are often quite filled with people who disagree with them, explained in rational and professional courtesy. I don't personally experience this mob of group think, but I see popular/unpopular ideas espoused and their weakinessness explored in the comments (not without the internet's normal levels of trolling and batshittery of course). Of course I curate who I follow often based on the courteousness of their followers - so self-selection and all that.

endtime 8y ago

> If not we are just going to get more and more leaders from both sides propped up purely for skills to pander. While I share some of your concerns about the media, isn't this (just an uncharitable way of stating) the entire purpose of democracy?

Udik 8y ago
Western democracy has always been tempered (and sometimes subverted) by the control exerted by cultural elites on mass communications. Now that control is faltering, and we're seeing the results.
- nvarsj 8y ago
  Quite the opposite. Instead, the floodgates have been opened to anyone, like the Russian government, with free access to powerful media platforms if you have the capital. Prior to that the mass media was in the hands of only a few, all based in the US. Control of the masses has been API'd. Basically, China should have bought more Facebook ads.
  - varjag 8y ago
    Looks like you both argue for the same thing. In times before, news distribution was subject to editorial process and basic standards of journalism. Not that it wasn't without own issues, but it helped sort out outright lunacy, bigotry and conspiracy theories. Distribution in 2010s bypasses that and mass media are now secondary to social network rumour mills. The political outcomes worldwide and deterioration of Western democracies are related to this.
    - JKCalhoun 8y ago
      Not sure they are arguing the same. "Editorial process and basic standards of journalism" is not "cultural elitism" — it's what we had, lost, and now desperately need again.
- munificent 8y ago
  The real tragedy of the Internet is this: It dramatically lowered the costs of broadcasting information. At the time, we idealistically felt that would enable people of all means to communicate, and not just the rich and powerful. It did that, especially in the early days before the rich and powerful noticed. But it lowers the costs for everyone, including the rich. So once they clued in, it ended up empowering them too. In fact, it preferentially benefits them, because they have more money to throw at it. There is a useful cautionary lesson here: any technology that reduces the cost of X for all users of X is not a force of equality. Instead, it is a multiplier to any existing disparity. If you want to reduce inequality, focus on technology that does not scale up and instead is preferentially empowering to those on the low end of the scale. For example, medicine tends to be an equalizer because once you're healthy, having more access to the same medicine doesn't benefit you much. There is a natural upper limit to its efficacy. (Of course, being able to control others' access to medicine does scale up.)
obelix_ 8y ago
My feeling is the kind of pandering a leader used to do to get into a seat of power has changed thanks to the internet and the state of info overload we live in. They are much more aware of who to target and what that group wants to hear. And since every targeted group is overloaded with info, getting/keeping their attention creates this arms race of who can be the most touching, entertaining or outrageous circus clown. Not just in politics but in every sphere I see more and more absurd attention craving characters being propped up. And I am finding it hard to see how democracy benefits.
- ameister14 8y ago
  This is not new. Huey Long is an excellent example, as is the fact that we have a word for it that is thousands of years old: demagogue.
vetinari 8y ago
Democracy assumes constructive attitude towards debate. Today we are getting it's better to be wrong with our side, than right with the opponent partisanship instead.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  Ideally democracy also assumes, for the most part, that the majority of the system is comprised of rational actors. But it's as they say. In theory, but not in practice.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  Are you sure you just don't disagree with people and can't imagine that they'd disagree with you because you're so obviously right, so they must secretly agree you're correct, but continue with a charade? Otherwise you need to provide some clear citations to how millions of people could know they are wrong but continue with their positions out of spite.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    It's not only in politics, but also in business, sales, at job, etc. Have you ever witnessed a bubble in opinions in some company, group, etc? Job's RDF was a harmless form of this :) Many have internalized their position and they won't secretly agree. They won't even realize why they disagree, and won't consider objective facts. Some tiny minority may be aware of that, but many have economic incentive to continue their position, that mortgage won't pay itself after all. Thinking too much about it just makes it harder. I'm trying to stay in theoretical level and not provide any specific examples except the RDF, because they could be too political/divisive/controversial, and I don't want to argue the specific cases or take sides, but point out to the phenomenon itself.
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      Oh, I completely get what you're saying about the irrational obtuseness of our species. My only point of contention was that it is worse instead of simply more obvious. And my point was that since it is more obvious, things are very likely better. And maybe it just feels worse because all of a sudden, all of our differences are out in the open and we're going through this cathartic jolt of confronting the faults in our long held opinions in a messy, public contentious debate. But actually, issues such as racism, bigotry of gay people, attitudes towards poverty and early access to education, unequal access to justice, have never been more positive. And they've also never been this publicly debated by so many.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

+1 and I wish I could give you +10. You nailed it: we need to get our own house in order and not just made ourselves feel better by focusing on difficulties other countries have. I am a grandpa, and leaving the world in good shape for my grandchildren is top priority.

chapium 8y ago

Fyi- https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24622/what-fallacy-dismisses-problems-by-presenting-bigger-problems https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24622/what-fa... You have a good point, but because we have a problem with social media does not mean we dont need to worry about the semiconductor industry.

obelix_ 8y ago
Thanks for the link. It's good to have someone point these things out when one gets carried away :)

merpnderp 8y ago

Everyone always says things are dysfunctional or bad but never says how. Manipulating people through social media has been a thing since there's been social media. Only today more people are aware of it than ever. Same with news agencies with axe's to grind. Journalists have been using their barrels of ink to push their angles since there has been newspapers. Today more people are aware of it than ever.

obelix_ 8y ago
Agree but there are two new issues today that I can think of - 1. Targeting is much more sophisticated. Today you can round up every lunatic who hates squirrels or whatever by tomorrow morning and influence what people need to focus on. 2. Messed up social signals i.e. like counts/views/retweets/upvotes etc are just misguiding people left and right. If I don't know what to make of something/too busy/too distracted etc I fall back on these highly inaccurate proxies to make decisions. This is happening all the time and not just to the poor or semi-literate but too highly educated folks. Everyone is unconsiously nudged to support X or Y cause, org or person purely based on these numbers. Take those numbers away and it would be a very different world.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  I know this is just person experience, but many of the people/organizations I follow on Facebook have posts that are often quite filled with people who disagree with them, explained in rational and professional courtesy. I don't personally experience this mob of group think, but I see popular/unpopular ideas espoused and their weakinessness explored in the comments (not without the internet's normal levels of trolling and batshittery of course). Of course I curate who I follow often based on the courteousness of their followers - so self-selection and all that.