5 ms·

sounds like china has the right idea. it takes me (in america) constantly weeding the garden of my youtube (also american) to minimize the dumb shit it shows me

sounds like china has the right idea. it takes me (in america) constantly weeding the garden of my youtube (also american) to minimize the dumb shit it shows me. so does america want stupid americans? is that not the biggest deal?

npteljes 4y ago
>so does america want stupid americans I'd say it depends on the politicians themselves. I'd say populists don't mind the people's stupidity and misery at all, because they turn that into an advantage for themselves, by very publicly providing, or even just promising, a short term relief for them. In this way, systemic issues like the welfare trap or wage slavery give them opportunity to inflate their popularity by organizing handouts, or by redirecting the people's misery to outgroups, such as non-heterosexuals, people of color, immigrants or other marginalized groups like people with addictions.
krapp 4y ago
- nebula8804 4y ago
  I think you are too focused on one side of the bubble. The most popular desired career in the US is Youtuber/influencer and before that it was actor. This is just how American culture always was. [1]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3617062/children-turn-backs-on-traditional-careers-in-favour-of-internet-fame-study-finds/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3617062/children-turn-backs-on... (I get the irony of pushing a gossip blog to prove the point) As others have mentioned, before the rise of Youtube, the learning based channels on TV weren't doing so well in terms of popularity. On a positive note though, our late stage capitalism era(plus half the millenial generation failing) has beaten any idea of "follow your dreams" out of young peoples souls. As a result, Gen-Z (and I suspect Gan Alpha) seem to be very pragmatic when they come of age and realize that the only real viable career is to hide in a closet/cube and be a coder or (surprisingly) enter the trades. Great for the US economy, terrible for the generation's self-esteem. (Gen-Z has one of the highest suicide rate of any generation in American history). [2]:https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-teenage-gen-z-american-suicide-epidemic https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-teenage-gen-z-american-s...
Spooky23 4y ago
Freedumb baby.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
What are you proposing exactly? That the US government moderate YouTube content?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  The FCC has the authority to ban swearing and nudity on public television. States can ban nudity, profanity, and (in my state) adult video-store ads from highway signage. States can control what teachers instruct students with (who wants a flat-earth teacher?) I don't see why a law, which generically states that recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content, would necessarily be a violation of the First Amendment without undermining earlier accepted laws.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    I have seen and heard way too many dumb things by people in suits in the finest language, so I do not think focusing on this is helping much. "recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content" How would you even define "intellectually stimulating content" in juristical clear terms? If I would want to increase the general level of science education (I strongly do), I would increase funding to schools and enable them to have fun experiments with the students of all sorts. I love science, ever have and my teachers did the best they could, but even to me school was booring as hell.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    > I don't see why a law, which generically states that recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content, would necessarily be a violation of the First Amendment without undermining earlier accepted laws. This is an extremely misleading line of reasoning. Publicly traded companies are not 'public' in the same sense as publicly owned airwaves, public (that is, government) employees, and public property. They don't cede any constitutional rights simply by offering equity for sale in the capital markets.
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
_mway 4y ago
I don't think America (as a collective) "wants stupid Americans", I think people are generally of the mind that "intelligence is good". Unfortunately, I think what that means is largely subjective in many cases, and tends to be aligned with their own interests/preferences. My suspicion, which is mostly just me thinking out loud and is based on no real evidence, is that folks are (a) largely desensitized to stimulation due to aggressive "marketing" (in the loosest sense of the word - whether ads, click/viewbait, or other quasi-exploitative attention-grabbing things); and/or (b) have observed that, culturally, a lot of "dumb shit" is mainstream enough (in terms of critical mass within their social microcosm) to warrant conformity, and thus may be a preference that is adopted for identity or inclusivity purposes. Similarly, it may be seen as a pathway to some form of success or recognition (see: IG/YT influencers, tiktok fads, etc). I'm sure other, much smarter folks have actual evidence or have performed studies (and I would be interested in learning more), but based on my personal experience, the above seems to hold true, generally speaking.

npteljes 4y ago

>so does america want stupid americans I'd say it depends on the politicians themselves. I'd say populists don't mind the people's stupidity and misery at all, because they turn that into an advantage for themselves, by very publicly providing, or even just promising, a short term relief for them. In this way, systemic issues like the welfare trap or wage slavery give them opportunity to inflate their popularity by organizing handouts, or by redirecting the people's misery to outgroups, such as non-heterosexuals, people of color, immigrants or other marginalized groups like people with addictions.

krapp 4y ago

nebula8804 4y ago
I think you are too focused on one side of the bubble. The most popular desired career in the US is Youtuber/influencer and before that it was actor. This is just how American culture always was. [1]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3617062/children-turn-backs-on-traditional-careers-in-favour-of-internet-fame-study-finds/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3617062/children-turn-backs-on... (I get the irony of pushing a gossip blog to prove the point) As others have mentioned, before the rise of Youtube, the learning based channels on TV weren't doing so well in terms of popularity. On a positive note though, our late stage capitalism era(plus half the millenial generation failing) has beaten any idea of "follow your dreams" out of young peoples souls. As a result, Gen-Z (and I suspect Gan Alpha) seem to be very pragmatic when they come of age and realize that the only real viable career is to hide in a closet/cube and be a coder or (surprisingly) enter the trades. Great for the US economy, terrible for the generation's self-esteem. (Gen-Z has one of the highest suicide rate of any generation in American history). [2]:https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-teenage-gen-z-american-suicide-epidemic https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-teenage-gen-z-american-s...

Spooky23 4y ago

Freedumb baby.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

What are you proposing exactly? That the US government moderate YouTube content?

gjsman-1000 4y ago
The FCC has the authority to ban swearing and nudity on public television. States can ban nudity, profanity, and (in my state) adult video-store ads from highway signage. States can control what teachers instruct students with (who wants a flat-earth teacher?) I don't see why a law, which generically states that recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content, would necessarily be a violation of the First Amendment without undermining earlier accepted laws.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  I have seen and heard way too many dumb things by people in suits in the finest language, so I do not think focusing on this is helping much. "recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content" How would you even define "intellectually stimulating content" in juristical clear terms? If I would want to increase the general level of science education (I strongly do), I would increase funding to schools and enable them to have fun experiments with the students of all sorts. I love science, ever have and my teachers did the best they could, but even to me school was booring as hell.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  > I don't see why a law, which generically states that recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content, would necessarily be a violation of the First Amendment without undermining earlier accepted laws. This is an extremely misleading line of reasoning. Publicly traded companies are not 'public' in the same sense as publicly owned airwaves, public (that is, government) employees, and public property. They don't cede any constitutional rights simply by offering equity for sale in the capital markets.
- Cyberdog 4y ago

_mway 4y ago

I don't think America (as a collective) "wants stupid Americans", I think people are generally of the mind that "intelligence is good". Unfortunately, I think what that means is largely subjective in many cases, and tends to be aligned with their own interests/preferences. My suspicion, which is mostly just me thinking out loud and is based on no real evidence, is that folks are (a) largely desensitized to stimulation due to aggressive "marketing" (in the loosest sense of the word - whether ads, click/viewbait, or other quasi-exploitative attention-grabbing things); and/or (b) have observed that, culturally, a lot of "dumb shit" is mainstream enough (in terms of critical mass within their social microcosm) to warrant conformity, and thus may be a preference that is adopted for identity or inclusivity purposes. Similarly, it may be seen as a pathway to some form of success or recognition (see: IG/YT influencers, tiktok fads, etc). I'm sure other, much smarter folks have actual evidence or have performed studies (and I would be interested in learning more), but based on my personal experience, the above seems to hold true, generally speaking.