4 ms·

A spooky future possibility: if we as a population are rupturing our shared perceptions of reality, will this affect our nations ability to perform on an intern

A spooky future possibility: if we as a population are rupturing our shared perceptions of reality, will this affect our nations ability to perform on an international scale? If so, then over time power will shift to countries that heavily dictate allowable online discourse (China)

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
One of my greatest dreads is that at least for this era of humanity’s evolution the National censored/moderated strategy is the correct one. It may be that free speech for a nation was the winning play before the Information Age (and may be again in the future) but isn’t now. I don’t necessarily believe this, but it’s increasingly hard to build compelling arguments against it in the face of mounting evidence.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I'm almost sure this is the case. Countries that don't lock things down are gonna get badly disrupted (not in the "good" tech-company sense) by other states that do, and take advantage of the others' openness. And not just states, but stronger-than-many-states corporations. I expect democracies to be particularly vulnerable. I think a wide-open global Internet in anything like its current form will turn out to be one of those things that seems amazing and mostly-great when you look at it from an individual perspective but has very bad consequences at a population scale, far outweighing any benefit. Again, especially for democracies—we thought it would liberalize oppressive states, but I think we got that tragically wrong, and it may in fact be the instrument that unleashes the "chaos" and painful disorder that critics of democracy and liberalism have always predicted.
- JTbane 4y ago
  My greatest fear is the surveillance state, to be honest. The dragnet revelations mean that privacy really doesn't exist anymore, and police are always chomping at the bit to get more access to anything electronic.
ggpsv 4y ago
A bit of a retorical question but isn't this a common source of contention between groups of people (across magnitudes of scale and means of information) throughout history?
avgcorrection 4y ago
Good question comrade #9246546.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
Considering that 99.9% of the people arguing on the internet have 0 influence on international performance, I'd say no.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  They have 99.9% influence on international performance, whether they know it or not is a different matter. It's the same with 99.9% of players that play MMORPG's or buy a game, or anything for that matter. The participation _is_ the performance in play, and it only exists because people participate. Yet this can be unpacked into whether those participating even know they are participating and yadda yadda. It's an interesting dive.
- jacobsenscott 4y ago
  Actually these people arguing on the internet have quickly become very adept at organizing, shaping the news, electing candidates, etc.
imiric 4y ago
Most definitely. Your enemies are counting on it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe they are mostly responsible for your current situation[1]. There's no cheaper and more effective way to do modern warfare than to psychologically manipulate your enemy's population and watch the country implode from the inside out. You even gave them the tools to do that. As for the power shift: more than likely, yes. Governments that have a tight grip on the information that reaches its population, and have already been manipulating it for their own benefit, have a higher chance of surviving than those that don't. We're already seeing signs of this, and it will only get crazier in the following decades. We're living in dark times. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21052 https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21052

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago

One of my greatest dreads is that at least for this era of humanity’s evolution the National censored/moderated strategy is the correct one. It may be that free speech for a nation was the winning play before the Information Age (and may be again in the future) but isn’t now. I don’t necessarily believe this, but it’s increasingly hard to build compelling arguments against it in the face of mounting evidence.

yamtaddle 4y ago
I'm almost sure this is the case. Countries that don't lock things down are gonna get badly disrupted (not in the "good" tech-company sense) by other states that do, and take advantage of the others' openness. And not just states, but stronger-than-many-states corporations. I expect democracies to be particularly vulnerable. I think a wide-open global Internet in anything like its current form will turn out to be one of those things that seems amazing and mostly-great when you look at it from an individual perspective but has very bad consequences at a population scale, far outweighing any benefit. Again, especially for democracies—we thought it would liberalize oppressive states, but I think we got that tragically wrong, and it may in fact be the instrument that unleashes the "chaos" and painful disorder that critics of democracy and liberalism have always predicted.
JTbane 4y ago
My greatest fear is the surveillance state, to be honest. The dragnet revelations mean that privacy really doesn't exist anymore, and police are always chomping at the bit to get more access to anything electronic.

ggpsv 4y ago

A bit of a retorical question but isn't this a common source of contention between groups of people (across magnitudes of scale and means of information) throughout history?

avgcorrection 4y ago

Good question comrade #9246546.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

Considering that 99.9% of the people arguing on the internet have 0 influence on international performance, I'd say no.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
They have 99.9% influence on international performance, whether they know it or not is a different matter. It's the same with 99.9% of players that play MMORPG's or buy a game, or anything for that matter. The participation _is_ the performance in play, and it only exists because people participate. Yet this can be unpacked into whether those participating even know they are participating and yadda yadda. It's an interesting dive.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
Actually these people arguing on the internet have quickly become very adept at organizing, shaping the news, electing candidates, etc.

imiric 4y ago

Most definitely. Your enemies are counting on it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe they are mostly responsible for your current situation[1]. There's no cheaper and more effective way to do modern warfare than to psychologically manipulate your enemy's population and watch the country implode from the inside out. You even gave them the tools to do that. As for the power shift: more than likely, yes. Governments that have a tight grip on the information that reaches its population, and have already been manipulating it for their own benefit, have a higher chance of surviving than those that don't. We're already seeing signs of this, and it will only get crazier in the following decades. We're living in dark times. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21052 https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21052