16 ms·
"Choice" really needs to be well-defined here. We know you can influence people to change their behavior because we invented the term "attention hacking". Sheer
by sascha_sl 5y ago
"Choice" really needs to be well-defined here. We know you can influence people to change their behavior because we invented the term "attention hacking". Sheer willpower will not overcome this on anything but an individual level. And just like obesity has other dependents like the cost of food, there is also cost/disincentives to "disconnecting". Social interaction is almost exclusively happening online now, especially during a pandemic. There is a very limited set of circumstances in which individual action will not have other severe consequences to your life - so while it might work for you, there's no way it'll work for everyone. Systemic issues require systemic solutions.
- mypastself 5y agoThe article describes a far broader group of culprits than just social media. However, the author only calls for forcing social media companies to change their business models and not, say, news sites that publish articles trigger-happy about declaring crises and emergencies.
- jacquesm 5y agoAnd they never will. There is just too much money in it. That's why ultimately the responsibility lies with us.
- thegrimmest 5y agoI'd say "choice" in the conventional sense - the exercise of voluntary control over one's body. If sheer willpower can overcome this on an individual level then it can overcome it on a societal level, society being nothing more than a collection of individuals. It seems as though you're suggesting that we use authority to "solve" these "systemic" issues - which really are just individual issues for a subset of the population. This suggests that you are comfortable deciding what's good for others. How would you respond to obese or social-media-obsessed people who are content with their lives and not interested in your "solutions"?
- sascha_sl 5y agoYou're acting like corporations aren't enacting control over large populations right now either. Everything the market does as a byproduct of maximizing profits is fine, but all other intervention with provably better mental and physical health outcomes is authoritarian. Did I get that right?
- thegrimmest 5y ago> provably better First we have to all agree on what this means, which I'm quite sure is impossible. Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. That is exactly the basis for my opposition to authoritarian paternalism. Also I disagree that corporations are "enacting control" - they are merely exerting influence. There is a world of difference.
- sascha_sl 5y ago>Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not. I think we're going to have to disagree for good here. I much prefer living in a country where radically free markets are substantially toned down.
- thegrimmest 5y agoI'm sure you do. I'm questioning the basis for your imposing this view onto others who would disagree.
- sascha_sl 5y agoThis presupposed the "voluntary" part of capitalism, which I find objectionable, but I didn't want to go on a tangent for too long. FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.