4 ms·

> it is startling that we allow ourselves to force information into each others minds, but we don't allow ourselves to shove food into each others mouths, with

by imgabe 7y ago

> it is startling that we allow ourselves to force information into each others minds, but we don't allow ourselves to shove food into each others mouths, without permission! I'm sorry, this whole concept irks me in a "not even wrong" way. It's difficult to even begin to explain how wrong I feel this sentiment is. Let me try. First, it makes no sense to draw an equivalence between taking in information and physically assaulting someone with food. Eating is an active thing. It's something you do. You can be in the same room as a piece of cake and not eat it. You can't choose not to sense something. There is not even an option to consent to communication with someone. If you're near someone and they talk, they've communicated with you, whether you wanted them to or not. (Assuming you speak the same language). It's the natural state of a person (all living organisms, actually) to be passively receiving as much information as possible all the time. This is because survival is dependent on being as aware as possible of your surroundings so you can detect both threats and opportunities. Deliberately choosing to limit the type of information you're able to perceive makes as little sense to me as deliberately trying to reduce the number of colors you can see. Or making it so you can feel only pleasure but not pain. There are people who can't feel pain, it's a debilitating disorder that makes it very difficult to navigate the world. We need to be exposed to uncomfortable ideas just as much as we need to be able to feel pain. Removing any information you "don't like" from your awareness would be about as healthy for your mind as eating only cake and potato chips would be for your body.

kgwxd 7y ago
So you don't have a spam filter on your email?
- imgabe 7y ago
  What's being proposed is more like that episode of Black Mirror where the mother gets her daughter a brain implant that makes her unable to perceive anything "objectionable" (anything that raises heart rate or upsets her in any way). Spam/Not Spam is a very limited category to filter. "Things I Like / Things I Don't Like" is very different. Sometimes you need to know about things you don't like. Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world?
  - bmarquez 7y ago
    > Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world? If they've already made the conscious decision to filter out that information, forcefully shoving it down their throat isn't going to change their mind, and may even reinforce their beliefs.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      But existing in a bubble where the only information they get is "Everything is fine, climate change is a hoax" ... is going to change their beliefs? How? The mere existence of information within your realm of perception doesn't mean it's "shoved down your throat". That is an unnecessarily hostile view to have towards information. I assume you're in a room somewhere with some objects around you. Maybe there's a painting on the wall. Is the painting being shoved down your throat or is it just a thing that you might notice that happens to exist? Yes, there are definitely ways of presenting information that are counter-productive to changing people's minds, but quarantining them off from information doesn't seem likely to do any better. People can learn and grow and change their views, but they need access to information to do it.
      - bmarquez 7y ago
        To use your analogy, if I chose to remove all paintings from my wall, you would break into my house to install a painting on my wall to force it into my peripheral vision. Why should someone be obliged to consume information that they've deliberately and consciously chosen to ignore? Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? And if not, who decides what information people are being forced to consume? Why can't the user decide for himself?
        imgabe 7y ago
        But you're not consciously choosing to ignore it. You're handing your conscious choice over to an opaque algorithm and telling it to ignore anything it deems "similar" to some content, via however the person who programmed the algorithm decided to define "similar". That is the opposite of a conscious choice to examine and reject information. > Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? Yes! They do! You don't have to read it or agree with it, but of course they have the right to express it. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong. The Internet is not your home. Walking around the Internet with filters hiding information from you is like walking around in public with blinders on and headphones in. Sure, maybe it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable sometimes, but sooner or later you're going to get blindsided by a speeding car you didn't see.
javajosh 7y ago
"Would you like to hear a pro-Trump piece of propaganda?" If you say yes, they tell you. If you say no, they move on. But what they don't do is lead with the propaganda. You can get mired in the details of proper categorization and the fact that people will undoubtedly try to hack the system to create communication without consent. But try not to, and see what I'm trying to say. Billboards are an example of communication without consent. There you are driving on the freeway, and this brightly lit picture of a half-naked woman is selling you perfume. This is not something you just don't notice, or choose not to allow to influence your mind. I would argue it is exactly like having someone shove a cupcake down in your mouth - and I daresay I'd take the cupcake. Regarding information, times have changed. In the past, in small rural towns where the biggest thing that happens is when the carnival sets up once a year at the end of summer, sure. You'd probably re-read the Sears catalog just to keep from being bored. In that information-starved environment I don't think "consensual communication" is a problem. That is not the world we live in. Sadly, computer mediated communication greatly amplifies the moral hazards of lying, of speaking for money not for conviction, and of exercising cruelty. Spam is part of it, surveillance capitalism another. So much of my interaction is paid for by the information that is forcibly shoved into my eyeballs as I try to do something else! So, yeah, I'd like to have such an agent looking out for me. No, I personally wouldn't want to be always insulated from ideas I disagree with; but nor do I want to be bombarded by the exact same claim, with the exact same argument, that I already decided was bogus. I don't want spam, or robocalls, or to be asked if I've accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Amen.

by imgabe 7y ago

kgwxd 7y ago

So you don't have a spam filter on your email?

imgabe 7y ago
What's being proposed is more like that episode of Black Mirror where the mother gets her daughter a brain implant that makes her unable to perceive anything "objectionable" (anything that raises heart rate or upsets her in any way). Spam/Not Spam is a very limited category to filter. "Things I Like / Things I Don't Like" is very different. Sometimes you need to know about things you don't like. Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world?
- bmarquez 7y ago
  > Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world? If they've already made the conscious decision to filter out that information, forcefully shoving it down their throat isn't going to change their mind, and may even reinforce their beliefs.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    But existing in a bubble where the only information they get is "Everything is fine, climate change is a hoax" ... is going to change their beliefs? How? The mere existence of information within your realm of perception doesn't mean it's "shoved down your throat". That is an unnecessarily hostile view to have towards information. I assume you're in a room somewhere with some objects around you. Maybe there's a painting on the wall. Is the painting being shoved down your throat or is it just a thing that you might notice that happens to exist? Yes, there are definitely ways of presenting information that are counter-productive to changing people's minds, but quarantining them off from information doesn't seem likely to do any better. People can learn and grow and change their views, but they need access to information to do it.
    - bmarquez 7y ago
      To use your analogy, if I chose to remove all paintings from my wall, you would break into my house to install a painting on my wall to force it into my peripheral vision. Why should someone be obliged to consume information that they've deliberately and consciously chosen to ignore? Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? And if not, who decides what information people are being forced to consume? Why can't the user decide for himself?
      - imgabe 7y ago
        But you're not consciously choosing to ignore it. You're handing your conscious choice over to an opaque algorithm and telling it to ignore anything it deems "similar" to some content, via however the person who programmed the algorithm decided to define "similar". That is the opposite of a conscious choice to examine and reject information. > Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? Yes! They do! You don't have to read it or agree with it, but of course they have the right to express it. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong. The Internet is not your home. Walking around the Internet with filters hiding information from you is like walking around in public with blinders on and headphones in. Sure, maybe it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable sometimes, but sooner or later you're going to get blindsided by a speeding car you didn't see.

javajosh 7y ago

"Would you like to hear a pro-Trump piece of propaganda?" If you say yes, they tell you. If you say no, they move on. But what they don't do is lead with the propaganda. You can get mired in the details of proper categorization and the fact that people will undoubtedly try to hack the system to create communication without consent. But try not to, and see what I'm trying to say. Billboards are an example of communication without consent. There you are driving on the freeway, and this brightly lit picture of a half-naked woman is selling you perfume. This is not something you just don't notice, or choose not to allow to influence your mind. I would argue it is exactly like having someone shove a cupcake down in your mouth - and I daresay I'd take the cupcake. Regarding information, times have changed. In the past, in small rural towns where the biggest thing that happens is when the carnival sets up once a year at the end of summer, sure. You'd probably re-read the Sears catalog just to keep from being bored. In that information-starved environment I don't think "consensual communication" is a problem. That is not the world we live in. Sadly, computer mediated communication greatly amplifies the moral hazards of lying, of speaking for money not for conviction, and of exercising cruelty. Spam is part of it, surveillance capitalism another. So much of my interaction is paid for by the information that is forcibly shoved into my eyeballs as I try to do something else! So, yeah, I'd like to have such an agent looking out for me. No, I personally wouldn't want to be always insulated from ideas I disagree with; but nor do I want to be bombarded by the exact same claim, with the exact same argument, that I already decided was bogus. I don't want spam, or robocalls, or to be asked if I've accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Amen.