3 ms·

The “filtering” that seems to exist in meatspace interactions has many names including “white supremacy” and “the patriarchy” and “manufactured consent”. There

The “filtering” that seems to exist in meatspace interactions has many names including “white supremacy” and “the patriarchy” and “manufactured consent”. There’s a rough road to consensus ahead for human culture as long as there’s this attitude that social media is “good” or “bad” rather than “inevitably chaotic”. if you look beyond the obvious bots you’ll realize these conversations are going to happen eventually with or without highly polarizing platforms designed to be addictive. our social media folks have only greased the tracks into conflict that was going to happen anyway. Just a few years ago you could find plenty of opinion articles talking about the necessity of “the marketplace of ideas” for political discourse. None of that now....

loopz 6y ago
Most ideas, like above 99% are crap though. Most people only care for their own little bubble.
- monadic2 6y ago
  This is a lazy justification with little substance that applies just as much to the users and content and voting structure of this forum. The alternative is not talking to anyone or not choosing who we talk to.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Is it though. How many people are preoccupied with concerns outside their own tribe, and are prepared to throw away 99% of ideas in order to refine and filter the remaining 1%, multiple times? Ie. do impactful work with meaning, without directly benefiting themselves?
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Do you have an example? I can’t make a head or tail of what you’re saying. It sounds like you have an extremely specific metaphysical process you have in mind.
      - loopz 6y ago
        I was answering to your last line: "Just a few years ago you could find plenty of opinion articles talking about the necessity of “the marketplace of ideas” for political discourse. None of that now...." We've seen how accellerated communications create "social" bubbles and outrage, while we know true policy-making will require much more refinement of ideas through representatives that are eager to think beyond their tribe and tend to the greater good. The opposite is happening in later populist movements, and we instead witness corruption at the highest position exploiting outrage and dissent.
nothal 6y ago
I disagree that these conversations are inevitable and I disagree about your contention that the marketplace of ideas is no longer a foundational concept in our discourse. People filtered in the past by what they cared about and who they spoke to. Now much of that filtering and indeed much of your friends are algorithmic suggestions. We're put into interactions on the internet with people you'd conceivably never meet offline. The fact that wasn't true in the past isn't white supremacy or the patriarchy or manufactured consent, it's logistic. It simply wasn't possible for the average person pre-phone, full-stop. Now people follow the people that they feel epitomize the precepts of the identity they agree with most which means naturally the popular people to follow must either become purer representations of the ideology or become less popular than those who are willing to adopt a more refined tankie, neo-nazi, athletic, techie, or what have you interests based persona. And many many people still believe strongly in the marketplace of ideas. Just look at the Harper's letter from last week. I doubt the many intellectuals there don't represent a broad base of three population.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > People filtered in the past by what they cared about and who they spoke to. Now much of that filtering and indeed much of your friends are algorithmic suggestions. But the suggestions are based on what you like (or what the algorithm "thinks" you like), and I don't believe that we're converting communists into libertarians because Twitter says "other people you might like: ". The process is very similar but has gotten gotten much more efficient, because you're not limited to the people in your immediate vicinity. You don't need to move to a big city to find other people who think like you. The world has become a village, and you can now connect with your ideological doppelgangers around the world from the comfort of your home.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Yes, the harper’s letter is an excellent illustration of manufactured consent.

loopz 6y ago

Most ideas, like above 99% are crap though. Most people only care for their own little bubble.

monadic2 6y ago
This is a lazy justification with little substance that applies just as much to the users and content and voting structure of this forum. The alternative is not talking to anyone or not choosing who we talk to.
- loopz 6y ago
  Is it though. How many people are preoccupied with concerns outside their own tribe, and are prepared to throw away 99% of ideas in order to refine and filter the remaining 1%, multiple times? Ie. do impactful work with meaning, without directly benefiting themselves?
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Do you have an example? I can’t make a head or tail of what you’re saying. It sounds like you have an extremely specific metaphysical process you have in mind.
    - loopz 6y ago
      I was answering to your last line: "Just a few years ago you could find plenty of opinion articles talking about the necessity of “the marketplace of ideas” for political discourse. None of that now...." We've seen how accellerated communications create "social" bubbles and outrage, while we know true policy-making will require much more refinement of ideas through representatives that are eager to think beyond their tribe and tend to the greater good. The opposite is happening in later populist movements, and we instead witness corruption at the highest position exploiting outrage and dissent.

nothal 6y ago

I disagree that these conversations are inevitable and I disagree about your contention that the marketplace of ideas is no longer a foundational concept in our discourse. People filtered in the past by what they cared about and who they spoke to. Now much of that filtering and indeed much of your friends are algorithmic suggestions. We're put into interactions on the internet with people you'd conceivably never meet offline. The fact that wasn't true in the past isn't white supremacy or the patriarchy or manufactured consent, it's logistic. It simply wasn't possible for the average person pre-phone, full-stop. Now people follow the people that they feel epitomize the precepts of the identity they agree with most which means naturally the popular people to follow must either become purer representations of the ideology or become less popular than those who are willing to adopt a more refined tankie, neo-nazi, athletic, techie, or what have you interests based persona. And many many people still believe strongly in the marketplace of ideas. Just look at the Harper's letter from last week. I doubt the many intellectuals there don't represent a broad base of three population.

luckylion 6y ago
> People filtered in the past by what they cared about and who they spoke to. Now much of that filtering and indeed much of your friends are algorithmic suggestions. But the suggestions are based on what you like (or what the algorithm "thinks" you like), and I don't believe that we're converting communists into libertarians because Twitter says "other people you might like: ". The process is very similar but has gotten gotten much more efficient, because you're not limited to the people in your immediate vicinity. You don't need to move to a big city to find other people who think like you. The world has become a village, and you can now connect with your ideological doppelgangers around the world from the comfort of your home.
monadic2 6y ago
Yes, the harper’s letter is an excellent illustration of manufactured consent.