3 ms·

These conversations become hard, because its not well discussed, and the finesse to divide these into "new" and "old" problems is being developed. For example

These conversations become hard, because its not well discussed, and the finesse to divide these into "new" and "old" problems is being developed. For example an "old" problem is that this is how humans interact with information and sensationalism. The news cycle effect, the sale of content along with the packaging of professionalism - was a problem before the net. But there are also a novel situations where this new rate, scale, and quality of information creation/dissemination result in new structures issues. An example of this is the perception that a belief is more widely held than it is in the general public, due to social media. IF you got into a conspiracy group, and it were populated by 1000s of real conspiracists, it would still be a small fraction of the population of %(people online)(speak your language)(other filters). BUT - the human brain sees "enough" activity in the forum/web page to trigger an internal "critical mass" threshold, this creates "social proof" and the belief gets solidified. A clear field where tech creates new problems is where tech outstrips old societal and human thresholds of functioning. Social media feeds which reinforce information, constant and from your pocket? New problem Automated creation of content to populate feeds? New New problem. Creation of propaganda ? Old problem, new medium, new tools - question on whether scope and scale make it a new problem. ----- Perhaps the "new" problems can, to some extent, be solved by tech. "Old" problems will almost certainly need tech+political will and manpower to solve.

mistermann 6y ago
> BUT - the human brain sees "enough" activity in the forum/web page to trigger an internal "critical mass" threshold, this creates "social proof" and the belief gets solidified. I think you're pointing out some important but extremely easy to overlook things here. How many newspaper articles, blog posts, and twitter/forum discussions have we had in the last two years about fake news and conspiracy theories, typically written in confident but grave tones? But of the people writing these things, how many of them really know what they're talking about? What is the source of their knowledge? What is the underlying source of the claims Jacques is making in the article we're discussing? How many of the people opining on such subjects actually spend any serious time within the communities they're reporting on? If the topic/culture was something other than the behaviour of conspiracy theorists (say, African Americans), do you think it would have any effect on how the information would be received by readers? In that case, I suspect a lot of people might fairly quickly wonder if the author actually happens to know as much as they claim, and I think it would be fairly easy to find plenty of anecdotal conversations on the internet to substantiate that prediction. The human brain "sees" all sorts of things. It can produce an instantaneous answer to most any question you ask it, whether or not it actually has much actual concrete data to work with. There are a variety of ways to control this default functionality, the major progress we've made with decreasing racial stereotyping in the last several decades is a good example. But that took a lot of coordinated messaging, education, and peer pressure, for a very long time. Despite that, we're still rather far from declaring mission accomplished. And that is just one topic - how many others do we have in this same category? I doubt we'll make much progress on these issues, especially now with the brutal efficiency of mass communication we've released into society (with hardly a second thought), until we can finally realize what the root of the problem is: the human mind. And it's not just "those other people" whose minds are flawed, the problem is with the base hardware and software itself - it's just easier to notice in some people than others, especially when it's constantly in the news.
- intended 6y ago
  Funnily, the questioning of authority is a common trait of over turning common sense arguments in conspiracy circles, kinda showing how easy it is to make the argument, and how tough it can be to defend. And even more ironically, since I Don't have any sources off the top of my head which can link you to good content with research, where people are verifiable sources, I am left with personal experience and memory :).
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > good content with research On which topic?

mistermann 6y ago

> BUT - the human brain sees "enough" activity in the forum/web page to trigger an internal "critical mass" threshold, this creates "social proof" and the belief gets solidified. I think you're pointing out some important but extremely easy to overlook things here. How many newspaper articles, blog posts, and twitter/forum discussions have we had in the last two years about fake news and conspiracy theories, typically written in confident but grave tones? But of the people writing these things, how many of them really know what they're talking about? What is the source of their knowledge? What is the underlying source of the claims Jacques is making in the article we're discussing? How many of the people opining on such subjects actually spend any serious time within the communities they're reporting on? If the topic/culture was something other than the behaviour of conspiracy theorists (say, African Americans), do you think it would have any effect on how the information would be received by readers? In that case, I suspect a lot of people might fairly quickly wonder if the author actually happens to know as much as they claim, and I think it would be fairly easy to find plenty of anecdotal conversations on the internet to substantiate that prediction. The human brain "sees" all sorts of things. It can produce an instantaneous answer to most any question you ask it, whether or not it actually has much actual concrete data to work with. There are a variety of ways to control this default functionality, the major progress we've made with decreasing racial stereotyping in the last several decades is a good example. But that took a lot of coordinated messaging, education, and peer pressure, for a very long time. Despite that, we're still rather far from declaring mission accomplished. And that is just one topic - how many others do we have in this same category? I doubt we'll make much progress on these issues, especially now with the brutal efficiency of mass communication we've released into society (with hardly a second thought), until we can finally realize what the root of the problem is: the human mind. And it's not just "those other people" whose minds are flawed, the problem is with the base hardware and software itself - it's just easier to notice in some people than others, especially when it's constantly in the news.

intended 6y ago
Funnily, the questioning of authority is a common trait of over turning common sense arguments in conspiracy circles, kinda showing how easy it is to make the argument, and how tough it can be to defend. And even more ironically, since I Don't have any sources off the top of my head which can link you to good content with research, where people are verifiable sources, I am left with personal experience and memory :).
- mistermann 6y ago
  > good content with research On which topic?