4 ms·

This technology is clearly harmful to those who participate in it. Why anybody would think the solution is to get the government involved in the farce is beyond

This technology is clearly harmful to those who participate in it. Why anybody would think the solution is to get the government involved in the farce is beyond me.

dadarepublic 7y ago
I think you've misperceived PBS and what this effort would be. The funding would be _public_ - as in crowdsourced. If the effort were non-profit like PBS it would be eligible for grants and funding from government(s) but it would not act as a government agency. I think a good question to ask would be to ask how we insure that governmental intelligence agencies do not have their hooks in the effort.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  I think the argument here is that social media is harmful, with increasing evidence that in those that use it most, it promotes loneliness and depression rather than bringing people together. That's before you consider the network effects of misinformation.
- weberc2 7y ago
  Genuine question: can the government legally sponsor a social media network if that network censors legal but abhorrent speech (e.g., anti-black or anti-white hate speech)? Seems like it would either be a cesspool or it would get struck down in the courts.
  - conception 7y ago
    The government has censored public speech in various forms of media since forever, whether funded or not. It wouldn't be an issue.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      I would be surprised if the courts would uphold an equivalence between broadcast television and a social network. I would expect them to interpret speech on a public social network like speech in a town square.
ape4 7y ago
Not the government but a non-profit.
basch 7y ago
What is harmful, electronic expression, and hosting? How is that different from the site you are on right now or email? Are you really saying the "tech" is harmful, or do people just say things you dont like? It's not so much facebook thats harmful, but how THEY choose to rank content. What content they give preference to is a human decision, no matter how much they shout the word algorithm. If you are saying people shouldnt be allowed to express or amplify sentiment, then I would think you are against the mail as well.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >How is that different from the site you are on right now or email? I don't think Hacker News or "Email" are collecting/monetizing your data, or have teams of PhD's actively researching how the UX/UI can psychologically addict you so you spend more time using them...thats just for starters. But sure lets bury our head in the sand and pretend FB is still some fun startup college kids built in their dorm for college kids to communicate with each other, and lets also pretend Zuckerburg has matured from those days of calling users "dumbfucks" for trusting him with their data.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    The point is that it is not the concept of social media that is problematic, it is that what is now available and popular is beholden to corporate interests, which tend to be in conflict with user interests. Just like commercial TV and radio. Hence the proposal of the article.
  - basch 7y ago
    is addictive design ux harmful tech or an attack on human psychology and behavior? im more asking why we are blaming "technology."
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      >im more asking why we are blaming "technology." reply No one is blaming technology with a broad brushstroke, hence the article suggesting a "PBS for Social Media", if social media was painted as inherently bad, they wouldn't be proposing and alternative platform. It was you who originally extrapolated some judgement on social media to Hacker News and Email. I was simply suggesting there are certain concerning behaviors social media giants engage in that clearly are not applicable to HN or Email as a whole. Not sure how you again extrapolate that to blaming technology. >is addictive design ux harmful tech or an attack on human psychology and behavior? Attacking human psychology and behavior through addictive design is harmful, especially when its successful and done at scale. Just as allowing corporations behind harmful and addictive products (tobacco) to attack human psychology and behavior...such as marketing tobacco as "cool" to children using cartoons as they historically did. Are cartoons bad? I guess they could be. Is marketing to children bad? Maybe, we need more information. Are tobacco products harmful? It took nearly 50 years of litigation, but the answer is a resounding yes, tobacco products are harmful to health.
qntty 7y ago
You could say the same about television.

This technology is clearly harmful to those who participate in it. Why anybody would think the solution is to get the government involved in the farce is beyond me.

dadarepublic 7y ago

I think you've misperceived PBS and what this effort would be. The funding would be _public_ - as in crowdsourced. If the effort were non-profit like PBS it would be eligible for grants and funding from government(s) but it would not act as a government agency. I think a good question to ask would be to ask how we insure that governmental intelligence agencies do not have their hooks in the effort.

oliwarner 7y ago
I think the argument here is that social media is harmful, with increasing evidence that in those that use it most, it promotes loneliness and depression rather than bringing people together. That's before you consider the network effects of misinformation.
weberc2 7y ago
Genuine question: can the government legally sponsor a social media network if that network censors legal but abhorrent speech (e.g., anti-black or anti-white hate speech)? Seems like it would either be a cesspool or it would get struck down in the courts.
- conception 7y ago
  The government has censored public speech in various forms of media since forever, whether funded or not. It wouldn't be an issue.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I would be surprised if the courts would uphold an equivalence between broadcast television and a social network. I would expect them to interpret speech on a public social network like speech in a town square.

ape4 7y ago

Not the government but a non-profit.

basch 7y ago

What is harmful, electronic expression, and hosting? How is that different from the site you are on right now or email? Are you really saying the "tech" is harmful, or do people just say things you dont like? It's not so much facebook thats harmful, but how THEY choose to rank content. What content they give preference to is a human decision, no matter how much they shout the word algorithm. If you are saying people shouldnt be allowed to express or amplify sentiment, then I would think you are against the mail as well.

throwaway_law 7y ago
>How is that different from the site you are on right now or email? I don't think Hacker News or "Email" are collecting/monetizing your data, or have teams of PhD's actively researching how the UX/UI can psychologically addict you so you spend more time using them...thats just for starters. But sure lets bury our head in the sand and pretend FB is still some fun startup college kids built in their dorm for college kids to communicate with each other, and lets also pretend Zuckerburg has matured from those days of calling users "dumbfucks" for trusting him with their data.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  The point is that it is not the concept of social media that is problematic, it is that what is now available and popular is beholden to corporate interests, which tend to be in conflict with user interests. Just like commercial TV and radio. Hence the proposal of the article.
- basch 7y ago
  is addictive design ux harmful tech or an attack on human psychology and behavior? im more asking why we are blaming "technology."
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >im more asking why we are blaming "technology." reply No one is blaming technology with a broad brushstroke, hence the article suggesting a "PBS for Social Media", if social media was painted as inherently bad, they wouldn't be proposing and alternative platform. It was you who originally extrapolated some judgement on social media to Hacker News and Email. I was simply suggesting there are certain concerning behaviors social media giants engage in that clearly are not applicable to HN or Email as a whole. Not sure how you again extrapolate that to blaming technology. >is addictive design ux harmful tech or an attack on human psychology and behavior? Attacking human psychology and behavior through addictive design is harmful, especially when its successful and done at scale. Just as allowing corporations behind harmful and addictive products (tobacco) to attack human psychology and behavior...such as marketing tobacco as "cool" to children using cartoons as they historically did. Are cartoons bad? I guess they could be. Is marketing to children bad? Maybe, we need more information. Are tobacco products harmful? It took nearly 50 years of litigation, but the answer is a resounding yes, tobacco products are harmful to health.

qntty 7y ago

You could say the same about television.