4 ms·
I see Spinoza, I upvote :) To give the benefit of the doubt I'm not sure if OP was objecting to the first step of placing a person or company along a good-bad
by cbkeller 8y ago
I see Spinoza, I upvote :)
To give the benefit of the doubt I'm not sure if OP was objecting to the first step of placing a person or company along a good-bad continuum or the second step of reducing that continuum to a binary label.
In either case though, no amount of complexity makes it unreasonable to consider whether a company like Facebook is a net positive or negative force on society -- which is a binary decision that requires reduction.
- rhizome 8y agoI'd argue that reduction is required for qualitative decisionmaking and so is no barrier to legitimate opinion. First, because we can never know everything that is going on outside of investigations like this one and public statements by FB. Second, language is a lossy codec for thought, so the investigations and public statements by FB are themselves reductive. It's turtles all the way down. This applies to both examples then: thinking FB is good or bad, and being required to eliminate reduction in order to make that decision.
- cbkeller 8y agoSounds fair enough to me