3 ms·

> 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 wo

> 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.

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.