3 ms·

Our monkey brains are not evolved to deal with the satisfaction barrage, the microdosed dopamine of incremental reputation tallies and continually met expectati

Our monkey brains are not evolved to deal with the satisfaction barrage, the microdosed dopamine of incremental reputation tallies and continually met expectations. Social media platforms weaponise the limbic system in support of commerce, and once habituated, regrettably few people display a reflexive defiance when the same mechanisms are hijacked by hostile actors & propagandists. As any student of history knows, this is hardly a new phenomenon, but it was never before so globally industrialised or automated. > everyone was happy "Everyone" ... except for all the people whose lives are made materially worse by the subsequent ease of disseminating hate material & misinformation. Also unhappy: anyone possessing the humanity to feel for others in distress. > cowed or [...] ideologically sympathetic Intentional or not, this came across dripping with derision, but it falls flat: the only "ideological sympathy" here is that of being a decent human being. > an extremely small set of activists and journalists This ratifies the well-known aphorism that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. It does not undermine the necessity for showing assholes the door.

mancerayder 6y ago
>> an extremely small set of activists and journalists >This ratifies the well-known aphorism that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. It does not undermine the necessity for showing assholes the door. Wonderful. And the "asshole" designation that these Elect ("extremely small set of ..." as was put above) - how do they get to decide who's an asshole and gets shown the door, what are their criteria and what is the procedure for the rest of us to appeal or ratify their decision-making? Can we at least agree that censors can make mistakes, or have their own biases? And shouldn't censors be policed as well, so they are accountable to the public?
- inopinatus 6y ago
  > these Elect Again, a statement dripping with derision, that is actually just sticking up for the rights of assholes. > how do they get to decide who's an asshole Peddling a message harmful to others. > what is the procedure for the rest of us to appeal "appeal" is for crooks, not wankers being thrown out of the pub
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    That's your opinion, that I'm sticking up for the rights of assholes. And by the way, I'm not surprised that someone who favors censorship and calls out wankers, would also interpret for someone else what they believe, before they said anything. But I'll say it now: the argument against censorship isn't a defense of assholes and wankers (and people you don't like), it's an appeal for the very historical, empirically shown problem with censorship that it's hard to have an unbiased, fair and accountable body of censors. Thus, you inevitably end up with good ideas that get thrown out with the bad, if you take a generous argument, and if you want to be cynical about it, you get critical ideas thrown out when they don't match mainstream narrative. This latter matters only little now, but during wartime or times of strife, boy does it matter. Your name-calling should be enough for people to raise their eyebrows at the question: who decides what gets censored.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      Since there's no censorship occurring, this foaming-mouthed rant is simply more of the same. Tip for idiots thrown out of pubs: yelling at the bouncers isn't going to get your name off the landlord's shit-list, and you don't have a right to make everyone listen to your drivel.

mancerayder 6y ago

>> an extremely small set of activists and journalists >This ratifies the well-known aphorism that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. It does not undermine the necessity for showing assholes the door. Wonderful. And the "asshole" designation that these Elect ("extremely small set of ..." as was put above) - how do they get to decide who's an asshole and gets shown the door, what are their criteria and what is the procedure for the rest of us to appeal or ratify their decision-making? Can we at least agree that censors can make mistakes, or have their own biases? And shouldn't censors be policed as well, so they are accountable to the public?

inopinatus 6y ago
> these Elect Again, a statement dripping with derision, that is actually just sticking up for the rights of assholes. > how do they get to decide who's an asshole Peddling a message harmful to others. > what is the procedure for the rest of us to appeal "appeal" is for crooks, not wankers being thrown out of the pub
- mancerayder 6y ago
  That's your opinion, that I'm sticking up for the rights of assholes. And by the way, I'm not surprised that someone who favors censorship and calls out wankers, would also interpret for someone else what they believe, before they said anything. But I'll say it now: the argument against censorship isn't a defense of assholes and wankers (and people you don't like), it's an appeal for the very historical, empirically shown problem with censorship that it's hard to have an unbiased, fair and accountable body of censors. Thus, you inevitably end up with good ideas that get thrown out with the bad, if you take a generous argument, and if you want to be cynical about it, you get critical ideas thrown out when they don't match mainstream narrative. This latter matters only little now, but during wartime or times of strife, boy does it matter. Your name-calling should be enough for people to raise their eyebrows at the question: who decides what gets censored.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Since there's no censorship occurring, this foaming-mouthed rant is simply more of the same. Tip for idiots thrown out of pubs: yelling at the bouncers isn't going to get your name off the landlord's shit-list, and you don't have a right to make everyone listen to your drivel.