5 ms·
> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. Th
by ordu 8y ago
> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true.
The sad part of it, to my mind, is those who critisize Facebook for this want to be exposed for opposing viewpoints to be able to fight opposing viewpoints. I do not want my viewpoints were exposed to those who oppose it. Opposition is too way ready to fight, I'm not. I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. Even your comment hints the same: you want exposure to make some viewpoints impossible, to fight them to death.
These critics are declaring openness and freedom but they are authoritarian by their nature, they want to one (their) viewpoint to win all others. It is irremovable contradiction between declared goals and real ones that cannot be fixed by Facebook.
The story from Bangladesh shows it in some sense. Authoritarian reign wants to be exposed to opposing views to fight them. Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views, they want to expose to their views only those who is ready to accept them.
SJW want to be exposed to opposing views to be able to scream "fire him". They also want to expose others to their views to hurt them.
Trolls of different colors and sizes want their shit to be exposed to a fan of public opinion and to make fun of hurting others.
I do not want my views to be exposed for general public because the goals of that public are under doubt, they do not want to learn my viewpoint to shift their beliefs close to mine, they want to learn my viewpoint to fight my viewpoint.
The trouble is not a degree of exposure, the trouble is people thinking that contradicting viewpoints should fight to death. And too many people looking not for viewpoints but for a fight of viewpoints. Of course it leads viewpoints to guard theirselves in a fragmented echo chambers, to self-reinforcing ideologies.
- beat 8y ago> Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views Students do not want to be exposed to arrest and torture either. There's the problem with your analysis.
- ordu 8y agoOf course they do not want, so they do not want their views were exposed to everyone. Therefore they want an echo chamber for chosen ones. It is not a fault of Facebook, it is a direct consequence of authorian reign behaviour.
- beat 8y agoBut the way you phrased it, you make it sound as if it were the fault of the students, that this is simply a difference of opinion. It is not.
- ordu 8y agoI want to cry. I hoped that the way I phrased it would let me to stay away from this particular issues, not to fight over them and let me to speak about the opinions fighting in a whole. Though maybe humanity not that bad and hopeless, maybe it was my English is that bad and hopeless?
- beat 8y agoIt might well have just been your English. Communicating ideas in a second language can be very difficult! The way I see it, there is an asymmetry of power. Governments are able to harm individuals far more than individuals can harm governments. This needs to be taken into account when we talk about "freedom" online.
- ddingus 8y agoRight. When we differ, there are many options besides deathmatch politics fueled by righteous indignation. Seek understanding of others. Be secure in that, and who you are. Celebrate differences and gain perspective. Amplify good, talk through and maybe past bad. I no longer judge much for past votes and difficult politics. I am most interested in votes and politics to come. A whole lot is possible. Getting along better is the root of the possible. We need more of the possible and line in the sand type conflict gets in the way.
- rhcom2 8y ago> I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. What is "fight for them"? You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Are you surprised people fighting for social justice have a strong reaction against viewports they feel are attacking their very personhood?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Yes, that is how civilized discussion works. You criticize the idea, not the person who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks that escalate into trying to get people fired are not a debating tactic, they're an attack on the mechanism of open discussion itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rebuilder 8y agoIt seems hard to maintain civil political discourse in an environment where the discussion is public and participation is largely open to all. I think this is to some extent because when we think of discussion, we think of answering questions like "what should we do", but without privacy and barriers to entry, discussions enter the other realm of politics where the main question is "how do we get it done". The former requires openness to self-doubt, which in the latter context is harmful to achieving goals.
- rhcom2 8y agoI meant he sounds like he wants his to discuss his views but not have his views criticized. Also people often take criticism of their ideas as personal attacks so framing criticism as an ad hominem attack is often used to silence the criticism.