4 ms·

> Literally nothing will change fir the better unless meta can profit off of positive mental health outcomes. There are a lot of businesses like this, with a p

by smt88 5y ago

> Literally nothing will change fir the better unless meta can profit off of positive mental health outcomes. There are a lot of businesses like this, with a profit incentive that is directly at odds with the health of their customers. You can't solve that fundamental issue, so you regulate them or tax the harm. If you make the harm more expensive, the profit motive is (at least a bit) blunted.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Or you take some individual responsibility to moderate them. Everyone forgets about this option.
- ben_w 5y ago
  If individual responsibility was enough, social media wouldn’t be a problem. Same deal with obesity. Blaming individuals is how we’re wired, but it’s not functional when you’re concerned about population behaviours.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Im not blaming anyone, I am identifying a root cause. Any durable changes in population behavior will individuals to take primary responsibility for their social media consumption. Like obesity, no amount of health warnings, sugar taxes, ect on products will solve the obesity epidemic if more individuals don't assume agency for what they put in their body and the bodies of their children.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      None of us have any real agency, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can start truly analyzing cause and effect of behaviors. We need to stop lying to ourselves if we want to truly enact change Free will is an illusion
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I fully agree that free will is an illusion, but I don't think this negates my position. Even a fully deterministic computer takes input/instructions and completes actions. Humans are complex logic engines with programing. They can be programed to need external input to take an action, or take actions without external input. You can program a child to think they need permission to go to the bathroom, or to think they can get up and go without permission. You can program an addict to think they helpless to resist a drug, or that they can resist the urge and stop. In this sense, humans can be programed with logic that either helps them achieve their goals, or prevents them from doing so. Human "agency", "willpower", and "control" is simply shifting a person's program to take actions less on environmental inputs based more on their core values (e.g happiness - also programed). I think that telling humans that they are helpless to control their behavior and need outside input is bad programing which harms their outcomes. People overestimate the helplessness and dependence on circumstance. It is better to program people to act with more self control.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Admitting we are powerless allows us to investigate and change the factors that truly lie behind the behavior Take obesity for example, do we know why so many people have gained so much weight? If I were to judge what I think your opinion might be from your response so far, it would be purely that people are eating too much. So what causes that behavior? Do people just eat as much as the person next to them? Eat as much as their parents? Do they eat what's available and that just happens to be highly reinforcing (salt, simple sugars, fats) and easily available? Are there hormonal signaling pathways that control feeding behavior? Maybe there are environmental factors, such as hormone disruptors that weren't there 100 years ago? Is there a high prevalence of genetic disorders relating to weight control and feeding behaviors? There may be multiple causes, and some may overlap. Also this puts far too much on the end consumer, when there are also emergent patterns that come from behaviors of businesses and markets such as locations of grocery stores and stock in those stores. All of this, all of us. We are all part of the same system and we should not attempt to place blame on any certain part when there are many many contributing factors. We should attempt to figure out which parts need to be adjusted and how, and its never going to be only one thing such as the agency of the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
- smt88 5y ago
  I can have all the individual responsibility I want. It doesn't protect me or my loved ones from other people who aren't responsible. As examples: if Facebook spreads misinformation, my government gets worse. I may even lose individual liberties, like women currently losing the right to medical privacy. If Facebook gives children eating disorders, my health insurance premiums go up. Even if I only care about myself and police myself, Facebook can still rip apart the society that I live in. > Everyone forgets about this option. No they don't. You seem to have forgotten about externalities.
- Spivak 5y ago
  If humans were a Pokémon type we would be weak against addiction. Personal responsibility is not a policy that can’t be applied across a population. You might have a combination of will, mental health state, and life advantages that puts you in the the 80 or 90th percentile of being able to resist or avoid addictive activities but you are not common. Willpower is finite and companies have thousands of lifetimes worth of resources.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think you expertly articulated the position I am opposing. I don't believe personal responsibility and willpower is a fixed quantity, even at the population level. In fact, I think they are negatively impacted by emphasizing the influence of external factors in personal behavior. Telling an addict that they are powerless to regulate their consumption only erodes their ability to improve. External factors my have led them to their addiction, but they can't fix an additional without assuming agency taking control of their behavior. Yes, this is HARD, but no addict can recover without it. The only durable solution that will help people is shifting the curve such that more people are able to resist or avoid addictive activities. Policy solutions are simply too ineffective and porous to have a durable effect.
    - quinnjh 5y ago
      You absolutely have a point- and yes it opposes the other. The other point is valid from a scientific perspective though. I highly recommend you read Norbert Weiners "Cybernetics the human use of human beings" to be able to grapple with the dualism at play. In particular he discusses the manichaean vs augustinian version of evil. He could not reconcile the two but reflecting on the general ways that information leads to effects, and the ontological conflict between "we have free will so its your fault you are oppressed" vs "its not your fault it was engineered to oppress you" - the problem is dual. Social media platforms are giant algorithmic feedback engines creating the most reliable way for their regular users to fulfill their neuro-chemical and social needs. That these people cannot find better information in their mediasphere means that we need to encourage people and remind them of their agency - yes - but we cannot leave it at "words of encouragement" when the other end is "massive highly personalized feedback loop of all the people you miss seeing"

by smt88 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Or you take some individual responsibility to moderate them. Everyone forgets about this option.

ben_w 5y ago
If individual responsibility was enough, social media wouldn’t be a problem. Same deal with obesity. Blaming individuals is how we’re wired, but it’s not functional when you’re concerned about population behaviours.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Im not blaming anyone, I am identifying a root cause. Any durable changes in population behavior will individuals to take primary responsibility for their social media consumption. Like obesity, no amount of health warnings, sugar taxes, ect on products will solve the obesity epidemic if more individuals don't assume agency for what they put in their body and the bodies of their children.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    None of us have any real agency, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can start truly analyzing cause and effect of behaviors. We need to stop lying to ourselves if we want to truly enact change Free will is an illusion
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I fully agree that free will is an illusion, but I don't think this negates my position. Even a fully deterministic computer takes input/instructions and completes actions. Humans are complex logic engines with programing. They can be programed to need external input to take an action, or take actions without external input. You can program a child to think they need permission to go to the bathroom, or to think they can get up and go without permission. You can program an addict to think they helpless to resist a drug, or that they can resist the urge and stop. In this sense, humans can be programed with logic that either helps them achieve their goals, or prevents them from doing so. Human "agency", "willpower", and "control" is simply shifting a person's program to take actions less on environmental inputs based more on their core values (e.g happiness - also programed). I think that telling humans that they are helpless to control their behavior and need outside input is bad programing which harms their outcomes. People overestimate the helplessness and dependence on circumstance. It is better to program people to act with more self control.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        Admitting we are powerless allows us to investigate and change the factors that truly lie behind the behavior Take obesity for example, do we know why so many people have gained so much weight? If I were to judge what I think your opinion might be from your response so far, it would be purely that people are eating too much. So what causes that behavior? Do people just eat as much as the person next to them? Eat as much as their parents? Do they eat what's available and that just happens to be highly reinforcing (salt, simple sugars, fats) and easily available? Are there hormonal signaling pathways that control feeding behavior? Maybe there are environmental factors, such as hormone disruptors that weren't there 100 years ago? Is there a high prevalence of genetic disorders relating to weight control and feeding behaviors? There may be multiple causes, and some may overlap. Also this puts far too much on the end consumer, when there are also emergent patterns that come from behaviors of businesses and markets such as locations of grocery stores and stock in those stores. All of this, all of us. We are all part of the same system and we should not attempt to place blame on any certain part when there are many many contributing factors. We should attempt to figure out which parts need to be adjusted and how, and its never going to be only one thing such as the agency of the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
smt88 5y ago
I can have all the individual responsibility I want. It doesn't protect me or my loved ones from other people who aren't responsible. As examples: if Facebook spreads misinformation, my government gets worse. I may even lose individual liberties, like women currently losing the right to medical privacy. If Facebook gives children eating disorders, my health insurance premiums go up. Even if I only care about myself and police myself, Facebook can still rip apart the society that I live in. > Everyone forgets about this option. No they don't. You seem to have forgotten about externalities.
Spivak 5y ago
If humans were a Pokémon type we would be weak against addiction. Personal responsibility is not a policy that can’t be applied across a population. You might have a combination of will, mental health state, and life advantages that puts you in the the 80 or 90th percentile of being able to resist or avoid addictive activities but you are not common. Willpower is finite and companies have thousands of lifetimes worth of resources.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think you expertly articulated the position I am opposing. I don't believe personal responsibility and willpower is a fixed quantity, even at the population level. In fact, I think they are negatively impacted by emphasizing the influence of external factors in personal behavior. Telling an addict that they are powerless to regulate their consumption only erodes their ability to improve. External factors my have led them to their addiction, but they can't fix an additional without assuming agency taking control of their behavior. Yes, this is HARD, but no addict can recover without it. The only durable solution that will help people is shifting the curve such that more people are able to resist or avoid addictive activities. Policy solutions are simply too ineffective and porous to have a durable effect.
  - quinnjh 5y ago
    You absolutely have a point- and yes it opposes the other. The other point is valid from a scientific perspective though. I highly recommend you read Norbert Weiners "Cybernetics the human use of human beings" to be able to grapple with the dualism at play. In particular he discusses the manichaean vs augustinian version of evil. He could not reconcile the two but reflecting on the general ways that information leads to effects, and the ontological conflict between "we have free will so its your fault you are oppressed" vs "its not your fault it was engineered to oppress you" - the problem is dual. Social media platforms are giant algorithmic feedback engines creating the most reliable way for their regular users to fulfill their neuro-chemical and social needs. That these people cannot find better information in their mediasphere means that we need to encourage people and remind them of their agency - yes - but we cannot leave it at "words of encouragement" when the other end is "massive highly personalized feedback loop of all the people you miss seeing"