3 ms·

> Does society need gatekeepers to control who has reach in order to remain stable? This is the unspoken part of these sorts of criticisms of social media--peo

> Does society need gatekeepers to control who has reach in order to remain stable? This is the unspoken part of these sorts of criticisms of social media--people aren't responsible enough to form their own opinions. I actually believe that's the case, but I also believe in free speech, and I'm not sure how to reconcile those things.

ausbah 4y ago
I think part of remedy is promoting an informed electorate. I imagine this would start at the level of schooling with promoting critical thinking and instillation of democratic supporting virtues (like always vote)
- odorousrex 4y ago
  I agree with you, but the problem with this approach is there a vocal minority (in the US at least) that vehemently opposes this as it hurts votes for "their side". The last thing they want is an educated, critical thinking, populace. They want people who will fall in line, and do as they are let to believe.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    I would argue that there are two such vocal minorities.
  - __derek__ 4y ago
    While I inferred a particular angle from this comment, I realized that it actually works for folks across a broad spectrum of political leanings. It's a Rorschach test.
_aavaa_ 4y ago
This is a feedback cycle. It's hard to become "responsible" and able to form your own opinions if you hardly ever get the chance. Too add to that, if those who do express their own, dissenting, views get pilloried for it, who is going to want to start learning to express theirs? The usual answer is the thickest skinned and the most extreme.
somenameforme 4y ago
Decentralization of views will never yield the "right" opinion with unanimity, because we're all so often drawn to bad ideas, bickering, or what not. But it will also never always yield the "wrong" opinion with unanimity. And that latter aspect, in my opinion, is so much more important than the former. Because in any system where you have a centralized opinion-maker, that authority will sooner, rather than later, end up being abused. The examples through history are endless and horrible. Imagine a scenario in modern highly interconnected times should the right opinion become the reich opinion once again. Such wrongness is only allowed to foster when it eventually becomes impossible to challenge it publicly. Of course alongside that freedom also comes my freedom to publicly reject the idea that 2+2=4. It seems to me that in modern times the problem has not been so much people coming to 'wrong' opinions, but people being unable to accept others having such opinions. Then in the fruitless and effortful battle to convert the pagan, divisions are only widened and beliefs hardened. Perhaps the issue is not one of wrongness but intolerance of wrongness. I suspect we all get this feeling when we see something we believe to be wrong of "Agh! If he only knew what I knew, he'd never think this way." Of course the catch is the other guy is also often thinking the exact same about you.

ausbah 4y ago

I think part of remedy is promoting an informed electorate. I imagine this would start at the level of schooling with promoting critical thinking and instillation of democratic supporting virtues (like always vote)

odorousrex 4y ago
I agree with you, but the problem with this approach is there a vocal minority (in the US at least) that vehemently opposes this as it hurts votes for "their side". The last thing they want is an educated, critical thinking, populace. They want people who will fall in line, and do as they are let to believe.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  I would argue that there are two such vocal minorities.
- __derek__ 4y ago
  While I inferred a particular angle from this comment, I realized that it actually works for folks across a broad spectrum of political leanings. It's a Rorschach test.

_aavaa_ 4y ago

This is a feedback cycle. It's hard to become "responsible" and able to form your own opinions if you hardly ever get the chance. Too add to that, if those who do express their own, dissenting, views get pilloried for it, who is going to want to start learning to express theirs? The usual answer is the thickest skinned and the most extreme.

somenameforme 4y ago

Decentralization of views will never yield the "right" opinion with unanimity, because we're all so often drawn to bad ideas, bickering, or what not. But it will also never always yield the "wrong" opinion with unanimity. And that latter aspect, in my opinion, is so much more important than the former. Because in any system where you have a centralized opinion-maker, that authority will sooner, rather than later, end up being abused. The examples through history are endless and horrible. Imagine a scenario in modern highly interconnected times should the right opinion become the reich opinion once again. Such wrongness is only allowed to foster when it eventually becomes impossible to challenge it publicly. Of course alongside that freedom also comes my freedom to publicly reject the idea that 2+2=4. It seems to me that in modern times the problem has not been so much people coming to 'wrong' opinions, but people being unable to accept others having such opinions. Then in the fruitless and effortful battle to convert the pagan, divisions are only widened and beliefs hardened. Perhaps the issue is not one of wrongness but intolerance of wrongness. I suspect we all get this feeling when we see something we believe to be wrong of "Agh! If he only knew what I knew, he'd never think this way." Of course the catch is the other guy is also often thinking the exact same about you.