5 ms·
I suspect if they provided telemetry into the Facebook Zeitgeist, it would show its userbase to be terrifyingly stupid and superstitious folk on par with the la
by varelse 5y ago
I suspect if they provided telemetry into the Facebook Zeitgeist, it would show its userbase to be terrifyingly stupid and superstitious folk on par with the late Carl Sagan's predictions in _The Demon Haunted World_.
For IMO the Google Zeitgeist was bad enough 10 years ago in a somewhat simpler time when we could still laugh at stupidity and ludicrous conspiracies, but stupidity is a major influencer on social media now that it has been monetized and drives revenue. I don't see a solution to that any time soon.
- the_optimist 5y agoPlease tell us more about how telemetry can reveal the moral and intellectual value of a human being.
- Miraste 5y agoHow could it not? What you click on, what you look at, what you read and for how long, what you write, where you go, what you buy, how you feel, what you like and dislike, who you know, who you talk to, what sites you visit... Facebook knows many of its users (and non-users) better than they know themselves.
- hammock 5y agoSo my moral value is based on what I read? If I read the wrong thing I might as well be second-class citizen?
- thereisnospork 5y agoDo you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance
- rayiner 5y agoEveryone is superstitious some people are just in denial. It wasn’t an accident that progressive ideology went down the eugenics path, or that countries like China engaged in things like the one child policy. Atheist utilitarianism freed of superstition can justify a lot. As against it, you can repackage the concept of “the inherent dignity of every human life in the eyes of god” into a variety of secular packagings but that doesn’t make it any less superstitious.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hammock 5y ago>Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Yes, 100%. How can it, if we agree all human life is sacred? Are some people more sacred than others? Holier than thou? (getting downvoted for this) All men are created equal. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Ephesians 6:9 "Slave owners, you must treat your slaves with this same respect. Don't threaten them. They have the same Master in heaven that you do, and he doesn't have favorites."
- fossuser 5y agoYou're getting downvoted because you're not arguing in good faith.
- Dylan16807 5y agoAt this point you're just arguing semantics about the term "moral value". But that wasn't even the original term. The first comment in the thread was about whether people are "stupid and superstitious". So pretend the question was "Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on how stupid and superstitious they are?"
- the_optimist 5y agoThere are many different ways to be stupid and many to be superstitious. Not one of those attaches to a prerogative to ban reading material or assign cognitive attributes to swaths of humanity.
- CobrastanJorji 5y agoYou are (perhaps intentionally) confusing correlation and causation. You're also trying to transform a conversation about predicting stupidity, gullibility, and superstition into a conversation about whether some people are more valuable than others because the latter argument is easier to win.
- the_optimist 5y agoWhat's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated with the most horrific, unspeakable crimes against humanity that have occurred repeatedly in human history?
- webinvest 5y agoThe answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness to get Trump into the White House —- and the Democrats who were still using weak user-data like race & ethnicity said hey that’s not fair! Essentially some researchers at Cambridge had a large number of participants take a personality test and click a button to share their FB account data. The personality test measured 5 traits: 1) Openness 2) Conscientiousness 3) Extroversion 4) Agreeableness 5) Neuroticism Now based on our large sample size of personality test takers, we can correlate that you or this Facebook user you’re studying has the following 5 personality traits and they probably have the following oddly-specific likes: ex: Anime, Lil Wayne, popping bubble wrap, Frosted Mini Wheats, AK47s, anal sex, cheap beer, and the sweet smell of air right before it rains.
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
- CRConrad 5y agoYes, of course your moral value is based, at least in large part, on what you read. How could it not be?!? If you read nothing but bullshit, and furthermore not just read but "like" and share and amplify and spread it on, you not just "might as well be [a] second-class citizen", but absolutely reveal yourself to be a second-class human being.
- splitstud 5y agoBecause said telemetry would be based on an assumption. Said assumption is at the very heart of what we consider morality.
- fedreserved 5y agoOutside of a diary, or a brain implant where I saw and felt everything the other person felt, I cant think of a better tool to tell the moral and intellectual value or a human being then telemetry. It's not definitive, but as a data point it could be powerful depending on what you are trying to evaluate
- jozvolskyef 5y agoYou are making a straw man argument by assuming that GP claims they can infer individual-level attributes from telemetry while all they claim is to infer population-level attributes.
- the_optimist 5y agoThat is far, far worse. Let’s make sweeping generalizations about the stupidity of all ________ people. Fill in the blank on your favorite enemy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]