3 ms·

Sitting back, reading the comments, and using '~>' to indicate a paraphrase. This conversation seems to have gone like this: Ancient Apocalypse ~> Archaeologi

Sitting back, reading the comments, and using '~>' to indicate a paraphrase. This conversation seems to have gone like this: Ancient Apocalypse ~> Archaeologists are lying/participating in a conspiracy of suppression Archaeologists ~> _Ancient Apocalypse_ -- and therefore, Netflix -- is not only lying, but profiting from lying. These lies directly hurt science and scientists. (Some) Hacker News ~> OK, fair, but you did not account for how fascinating and entertaining those lies are! Marketplace of ideas! My take: The extent to which the sociopolitical circumstances of the pandemic have incited otherwise-rational engineers to entertain conspiracy theories about vaccinations, masking, woke intellectuals and mind virii, 'mass formation psychosis,' etc. is disheartening. One is reminded forcefully that while intelligence may be generalized, _talent_ is subject-matter-specific, and that good epistemology is, in fact, a talent, and one moreover that is always rare, especially when not selected for. Let me put it for you another way. Netflix -- the 'N' in FAANG -- is making money by willfully undermining belief in science and scientists at a particularly vulnerable moment for the civilization. *Our industry is doing something as bad as fracking, and we are not univocal and unequivocal in our repudiation.*

jfengel 4y ago
I concur with what you observe, with one caveat: I think this was true before COVID. It parallels the partisanship of American society, which has ramped up since (at least) the 1990s. One might expect technologists to do better, but we've all noticed that scientists are actually not very good outside their discipline. Worse, they're bolstered by their success within the discipline, leading them to believe that their biases are based in fact and therefore their conclusions can be firmly held. One other thing: Netflix is, in this aspect, not a tech company, but a movie distributor. It doesn't endorse its content; it just feeds the gaping maw of people seeking entertainment. It's not great that people will get the perception that a big, successful tech company is endorsing conspiracy theories, but I don't think they've ever considered whether content is good before making it available.

jfengel 4y ago

I concur with what you observe, with one caveat: I think this was true before COVID. It parallels the partisanship of American society, which has ramped up since (at least) the 1990s. One might expect technologists to do better, but we've all noticed that scientists are actually not very good outside their discipline. Worse, they're bolstered by their success within the discipline, leading them to believe that their biases are based in fact and therefore their conclusions can be firmly held. One other thing: Netflix is, in this aspect, not a tech company, but a movie distributor. It doesn't endorse its content; it just feeds the gaping maw of people seeking entertainment. It's not great that people will get the perception that a big, successful tech company is endorsing conspiracy theories, but I don't think they've ever considered whether content is good before making it available.