3 ms·

I miss some of your points - but the last paragraph is fair. I assume by emphasising "bad school" you say that the parent was also saying social media not inhe

I miss some of your points - but the last paragraph is fair. I assume by emphasising "bad school" you say that the parent was also saying social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was? I think that we could design (regulate?) better social media (I have high hopes that something similar to the "this looks like anti-vaxxer posting, here are some links to scientific consensus on the issue) would help move us from facebook to wikipedia. But I may be blinded by my own privilege

mdp2021 5y ago
> I miss some of your points I will rephrase a core concept more plainly: people are supposed to be trained to be "reflective": whatever input (intellectual, emotional, informational, ideal - so external or internal - etc.) they get, it should be put on a buffer with a label "tentative, provisional, waiting for further validation, digestion, development". Whatever incites to shallowness, cheap, immature thought, reaction etc., is against civilization. > social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was Yes indeed. Some environments clearly "point towards evil". I was mainly thinking about incitation to rush, quick consumption, construed emotional response etc. But already the policy of one of the biggest boards out there, encouraging upvoting and downvoting according to "feeling", (mis-)educates people to give value to a knee-jerk reaction (which should at most be there as a preliminary orientation) and consolidate it through the psychological trap of a statement of position, and create identities in the deterior sense, self-images based on stagnating undiscussed assumptions. > design (regulate?) You need to promote, through function and policy, better examples and work recursively from them (let them lead and criticize). In fact, the very example you provide is all about credibility of the proponents.

mdp2021 5y ago

> I miss some of your points I will rephrase a core concept more plainly: people are supposed to be trained to be "reflective": whatever input (intellectual, emotional, informational, ideal - so external or internal - etc.) they get, it should be put on a buffer with a label "tentative, provisional, waiting for further validation, digestion, development". Whatever incites to shallowness, cheap, immature thought, reaction etc., is against civilization. > social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was Yes indeed. Some environments clearly "point towards evil". I was mainly thinking about incitation to rush, quick consumption, construed emotional response etc. But already the policy of one of the biggest boards out there, encouraging upvoting and downvoting according to "feeling", (mis-)educates people to give value to a knee-jerk reaction (which should at most be there as a preliminary orientation) and consolidate it through the psychological trap of a statement of position, and create identities in the deterior sense, self-images based on stagnating undiscussed assumptions. > design (regulate?) You need to promote, through function and policy, better examples and work recursively from them (let them lead and criticize). In fact, the very example you provide is all about credibility of the proponents.