3 ms·

I think the problem, if we have to pick just one, really is the diet of crazy propaganda Youtube relentlessly pumped to the screens of two billion users for a h

I think the problem, if we have to pick just one, really is the diet of crazy propaganda Youtube relentlessly pumped to the screens of two billion users for a half decade. Granted, the awesome scale is difficult to comprehend.

fastball 6y ago
YouTube is crowdsourced. That content wouldn't exist if we actually taught people to think for themselves and not just lap up whatever is thrown at them.
- spdustin 6y ago
  I was raised and taught the same as my brothers. They’re conspiracy theorists. I’m not. I am not alone in this situation.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Are you saying there was no difference between you and your brothers until they started watching YouTube? I find that hard to believe.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  > YouTube is crowdsourced. Youtube is one of the world's primary outlets to the consciousness of humanity. If you set out to influence public opinion, it's one of the very first services you want to exploit. Half its content is about as organic as a beaker of Teflon. > if we actually taught people to think for themselves That seems unlikely to happen. Even if it did — if Youtube's viewership became much more canny — dis/misinformation would still be a huge problem. For one thing, "reason" alone is not good enough: one also needs access to correct facts. The day isn't long enough to gather accurate information when the internet is drowning in garbage... and, as they say, GIGO. I personally wish I knew enough about medicine to reason about COVID19. I do not, and should I devote the time, it would be at the expense of some other area (GPT-3? The Roman Empire?) For another, plenty of propaganda is soundly reasoned, in one context, and yet damaging to the public at large. Inter-group animosity, for example, can certainly provide sound reasons for one group in society to hate another. There is seldom a clearly "correct" answer to "with whom should I identify the most?" For example, in the context of environmentalism, a group could justly argue "if you're over 50, environmentalist groups will harm your life, more than help." Whether that makes sense depends entirely on whether you choose to care about what happens to other people, after you die. That it is a sound argument, does not make it an argument that benefits humanity, as a whole. Google hasn't been serious about its effects on the world. As enjoyable as Youtube can be, it has also done great harm.

fastball 6y ago

YouTube is crowdsourced. That content wouldn't exist if we actually taught people to think for themselves and not just lap up whatever is thrown at them.

spdustin 6y ago
I was raised and taught the same as my brothers. They’re conspiracy theorists. I’m not. I am not alone in this situation.
- fastball 6y ago
  Are you saying there was no difference between you and your brothers until they started watching YouTube? I find that hard to believe.
uniqueid 6y ago
> YouTube is crowdsourced. Youtube is one of the world's primary outlets to the consciousness of humanity. If you set out to influence public opinion, it's one of the very first services you want to exploit. Half its content is about as organic as a beaker of Teflon. > if we actually taught people to think for themselves That seems unlikely to happen. Even if it did — if Youtube's viewership became much more canny — dis/misinformation would still be a huge problem. For one thing, "reason" alone is not good enough: one also needs access to correct facts. The day isn't long enough to gather accurate information when the internet is drowning in garbage... and, as they say, GIGO. I personally wish I knew enough about medicine to reason about COVID19. I do not, and should I devote the time, it would be at the expense of some other area (GPT-3? The Roman Empire?) For another, plenty of propaganda is soundly reasoned, in one context, and yet damaging to the public at large. Inter-group animosity, for example, can certainly provide sound reasons for one group in society to hate another. There is seldom a clearly "correct" answer to "with whom should I identify the most?" For example, in the context of environmentalism, a group could justly argue "if you're over 50, environmentalist groups will harm your life, more than help." Whether that makes sense depends entirely on whether you choose to care about what happens to other people, after you die. That it is a sound argument, does not make it an argument that benefits humanity, as a whole. Google hasn't been serious about its effects on the world. As enjoyable as Youtube can be, it has also done great harm.