3 ms·

I understand how you're struggling with this, but can I make an observation? You seem to have a personal experience that you are vulnerable to YouTube. Howeve

by neilk 7y ago

I understand how you're struggling with this, but can I make an observation? You seem to have a personal experience that you are vulnerable to YouTube. However, you seem to be concluding that you are NOT vulnerable to YouTube. Not based on data, but because that is an unacceptable conclusion. Like a lot of people, you believe accountability is important for society to function. And it seems like you force blame on yourself, in order to rescue the notion of accountability. I think you see the problem, right? But what if this whole way of thinking isn't right? There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong. What if being vulnerable to cognitive exploitation is similar? What if it's foolish to put this in the realm of "the victim needs moral strength" and it should be more in the realm of "the perpetrator needs to stop harming / the risk factors need to be reduced by collective actions".

somada141 7y ago
I may have oversimplified and have come across as saying "personal responsibility and self-control needs to be absolute and be treated as such". I was by no means trying to exonerate YouTube or any service that aims to manipulate its users. I was only trying to convey that a large campaign against exploitation should not be the other extreme where victims are automatically absolved while the perpetrator is entirely demonized. Surely there must be a middle-ground?
- neilk 7y ago
  I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame. Or indeed why blame is a kind of conserved quantity and if we give more to one we must give less to another. Look, when I got up in the morning I had no intention of looking at videos from the 2001: A Space Odyssey soundtrack, but I followed an urge and lost 15 minutes as it led me to viral videos about deleted scenes from Star Wars and then surprisingly well-made fan videos, and... you get the gist. On the other hand, many people at YouTube did wake up this morning with the intention of maximizing my viewing time. They are armed with supercomputers and artificial intelligences piloted by Ph.Ds. If in some future world, "conspiracy to steal time" was a crime, this would be an easy prosecution. That said, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't take any steps to defend myself. I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
  - RangerScience 7y ago
    > I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame. Either one or the other party receives all the blame, or you are in the middle ground of spreading the blame around. One group is entirely responsible IFF the other entirely _not_ responsible. Anecdotally, it does not seem like either party bears zero responsibility, so neither party bears all responsibility, which seems to me to be a nearly-inherent reason why the middle ground is correct. > I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms. Very well put!
badrabbit 7y ago
> There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong. That is a dramatic generalization,and who is "we"? Your initial argument seems sound to me but the analogies and the method you arrived at the conclusion sounds like you are not aware of your own confirmation bias. If you mean that introspection is a bad way to recognize when you're being manipulated I agree. That concept is not exclusive against taking responsibility. One can say "I am responsible for my actions but youtube is also responsible for manipulating my thought process,on purpose and with bad faith" P.S.: None of the major world religions teach "not praying makes you sick", perhaps you meant "prayer cures illness"? Plenty of medical doctors and surgeons believe prayer helps (even if they think it is strictly the hoping and positivity aspect that allows the mind to work with the body to fight illness),which is why I asked "who is 'we'"?

by neilk 7y ago

somada141 7y ago

I may have oversimplified and have come across as saying "personal responsibility and self-control needs to be absolute and be treated as such". I was by no means trying to exonerate YouTube or any service that aims to manipulate its users. I was only trying to convey that a large campaign against exploitation should not be the other extreme where victims are automatically absolved while the perpetrator is entirely demonized. Surely there must be a middle-ground?

neilk 7y ago
I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame. Or indeed why blame is a kind of conserved quantity and if we give more to one we must give less to another. Look, when I got up in the morning I had no intention of looking at videos from the 2001: A Space Odyssey soundtrack, but I followed an urge and lost 15 minutes as it led me to viral videos about deleted scenes from Star Wars and then surprisingly well-made fan videos, and... you get the gist. On the other hand, many people at YouTube did wake up this morning with the intention of maximizing my viewing time. They are armed with supercomputers and artificial intelligences piloted by Ph.Ds. If in some future world, "conspiracy to steal time" was a crime, this would be an easy prosecution. That said, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't take any steps to defend myself. I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  > I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame. Either one or the other party receives all the blame, or you are in the middle ground of spreading the blame around. One group is entirely responsible IFF the other entirely _not_ responsible. Anecdotally, it does not seem like either party bears zero responsibility, so neither party bears all responsibility, which seems to me to be a nearly-inherent reason why the middle ground is correct. > I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms. Very well put!

badrabbit 7y ago

> There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong. That is a dramatic generalization,and who is "we"? Your initial argument seems sound to me but the analogies and the method you arrived at the conclusion sounds like you are not aware of your own confirmation bias. If you mean that introspection is a bad way to recognize when you're being manipulated I agree. That concept is not exclusive against taking responsibility. One can say "I am responsible for my actions but youtube is also responsible for manipulating my thought process,on purpose and with bad faith" P.S.: None of the major world religions teach "not praying makes you sick", perhaps you meant "prayer cures illness"? Plenty of medical doctors and surgeons believe prayer helps (even if they think it is strictly the hoping and positivity aspect that allows the mind to work with the body to fight illness),which is why I asked "who is 'we'"?