3 ms·

I cannot recall any occasion were I brought home a flu from visiting a page on the interwebs. Maybe you have a point with what you are saying, but I would not t

I cannot recall any occasion were I brought home a flu from visiting a page on the interwebs. Maybe you have a point with what you are saying, but I would not translate that to the internet.

hiatus 3y ago
They are trying to say we are too stupid to be allowed to freely consume the internet and need someone to protect us from misinformation.
- javajosh 3y ago
  And yet the arrogant position is to believe you know how human society works so well that you can say with confidence that obliterating a hundred thousand years of cultural isolation has no downside. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to change things, and the burden is higher the more you want to change things. In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we are on the brink of civil war, in part because of these effects, so I think they are worth questioning.
  - technothrasher 3y ago
    Things change naturally. There is no “burden of proof” unless you are making an argument to not allow things to naturally happen, whether that is to purposely change something or purposely keep it the same.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >Things change naturally That's a statement so empty as to not even exist. The worst attrocities and bad developments happened "naturally" too. Climate change also occured naturally (since in your use, naturally includes the acts of societies and people). We definitely should not allow things to just "naturally happen". We should steer things towards a better future, and be able to see which "naturally ocurring" developments are good, and which are bad.
    - javajosh 3y ago
      The term "natural" is basically meaningless here, and the rest of your comment implies that humans are incapable of saying "no" to change. The Amish, and Richard Stallman, are both counter-examples. We don't have to do anything, and anything that arises we don't have to accept, promote, or integrate into our lives. We "naturally" made fluorocarbons, and then realized it was a bad idea and stopped. The notion that free and open informational borders is an unalloyed good has risen to the level of dogma for many in SV, and I think that's a naive mistake. Making bomb making material accessible to an unhappy teenage boy is a bad idea; letting professional manipulators "flood the zone with shit" to perform a coup in a democracy is a bad idea, too, and for similar reasons. Letting it happen to satisfy a dogmatic position is a good way to let your civilization die. And a dead civ has no positions.
    - chimpanzee 3y ago
      Alternatively, GP is suggesting these barriers are part of the “natural” change and can have their own positive effects. We can fight them if we wish, naturally, and doing so brings about a necessary balance. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that we are necessarily “doing good” in relation to the other. And we shouldn’t believe that achieving the extreme, the unbalanced, is necessarily “best”. “Freedom-of-information fighters” are always simply fighting for a belief and a desire, not a truth. And in turn bringing balance or potentially imbalance depending on one’s assumptions regarding “Mother Nature’s Grand Evolutionary Scheme” or whatever we want to call it. Just as all fighters have been doing throughout time.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Every human decision is nature and natural.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we are on the brink of civil war, Both of these statements are bullshit. People voted based on terrible information 50 years ago as well (a couple of TV appearances for the “informed voter”). The political discourse is shitty again, but we aren’t anywhere near a civil war. The discourse and violence back around the Vietnam war was far worse than anything today.

I cannot recall any occasion were I brought home a flu from visiting a page on the interwebs. Maybe you have a point with what you are saying, but I would not translate that to the internet.

hiatus 3y ago

They are trying to say we are too stupid to be allowed to freely consume the internet and need someone to protect us from misinformation.

javajosh 3y ago
And yet the arrogant position is to believe you know how human society works so well that you can say with confidence that obliterating a hundred thousand years of cultural isolation has no downside. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to change things, and the burden is higher the more you want to change things. In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we are on the brink of civil war, in part because of these effects, so I think they are worth questioning.
- technothrasher 3y ago
  Things change naturally. There is no “burden of proof” unless you are making an argument to not allow things to naturally happen, whether that is to purposely change something or purposely keep it the same.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Things change naturally That's a statement so empty as to not even exist. The worst attrocities and bad developments happened "naturally" too. Climate change also occured naturally (since in your use, naturally includes the acts of societies and people). We definitely should not allow things to just "naturally happen". We should steer things towards a better future, and be able to see which "naturally ocurring" developments are good, and which are bad.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    The term "natural" is basically meaningless here, and the rest of your comment implies that humans are incapable of saying "no" to change. The Amish, and Richard Stallman, are both counter-examples. We don't have to do anything, and anything that arises we don't have to accept, promote, or integrate into our lives. We "naturally" made fluorocarbons, and then realized it was a bad idea and stopped. The notion that free and open informational borders is an unalloyed good has risen to the level of dogma for many in SV, and I think that's a naive mistake. Making bomb making material accessible to an unhappy teenage boy is a bad idea; letting professional manipulators "flood the zone with shit" to perform a coup in a democracy is a bad idea, too, and for similar reasons. Letting it happen to satisfy a dogmatic position is a good way to let your civilization die. And a dead civ has no positions.
  - chimpanzee 3y ago
    Alternatively, GP is suggesting these barriers are part of the “natural” change and can have their own positive effects. We can fight them if we wish, naturally, and doing so brings about a necessary balance. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that we are necessarily “doing good” in relation to the other. And we shouldn’t believe that achieving the extreme, the unbalanced, is necessarily “best”. “Freedom-of-information fighters” are always simply fighting for a belief and a desire, not a truth. And in turn bringing balance or potentially imbalance depending on one’s assumptions regarding “Mother Nature’s Grand Evolutionary Scheme” or whatever we want to call it. Just as all fighters have been doing throughout time.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Every human decision is nature and natural.
- kortilla 3y ago
  > In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we are on the brink of civil war, Both of these statements are bullshit. People voted based on terrible information 50 years ago as well (a couple of TV appearances for the “informed voter”). The political discourse is shitty again, but we aren’t anywhere near a civil war. The discourse and violence back around the Vietnam war was far worse than anything today.