2 ms·

Framing this as "what about the children" is an easy way to attack just about anything that's not strictly top-down from some large corporate vendor. On the ot

Framing this as "what about the children" is an easy way to attack just about anything that's not strictly top-down from some large corporate vendor. On the other hand, I do wonder if "talk to strangers" is indeed a reasonable model. Our brains form largely on the basis of neurons talking and connecting to strangers. Clearly that model works there. But then again the neurons are simple (relatively) cells with much more cohesive goals and behavior, while humans are complex entities with behavior ranging from the cooperative to the ghastly predatorial. Ultimately it seems any such service can't be anonymous. Talk to strangers... fine. But you need to register first, with your name, face, age, and meet consequences for what you're doing on the service, if your intent is less than noble. Alas this takes people and money which Omegle apparently didn't have.

krisoft 3y ago
> Our brains form largely on the basis of neurons talking and connecting to strangers. This is nonsense. Our neurons don’t talk to strangers. They talk with other neurons from the same individual. There is more in common between any two connected neurons than between two family members. And besides there is no reason to think that what happens between cells is a good model to base human behaviour on whatsoever.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  you're taking a metaphor overly serious. Socialization is important (we have decades of documentation on how you can permanently damage a brain in mere weeks of solitary confinement), and we can't nor shouldn't have to base that socialization with the same relatives for your entire life. If only because we biologically have urges to reproduce and are aware enough of biology to know that family reproduction is a horrible idea.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > you're taking a metaphor overly serious. I just point it out that it is a bad one. > Socialization is important. Yes. > we have decades of documentation on how you can permanently damage a brain in mere weeks of solitary confinement Yes. > and we can't nor shouldn't have to base that socialization with the same relatives for your entire life Yes. see how easy it was to write it without asserting falsehoods about neurons, and without drawing unsupported conclusions from said falsehood? A metaphor can be faulty even if the conclusion it purports to end up with is true. And if we can do away without the obscuring metaphor (as you did in this very comment I'm responding to) then we should.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  What an odd response. I'm not even sure how to react. Your claim is we must only communicate with our families.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > What an odd response. Thank you. > Your claim is we must only communicate with our families. No. Please read my comment again. I claim no such thing.

krisoft 3y ago

> Our brains form largely on the basis of neurons talking and connecting to strangers. This is nonsense. Our neurons don’t talk to strangers. They talk with other neurons from the same individual. There is more in common between any two connected neurons than between two family members. And besides there is no reason to think that what happens between cells is a good model to base human behaviour on whatsoever.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
you're taking a metaphor overly serious. Socialization is important (we have decades of documentation on how you can permanently damage a brain in mere weeks of solitary confinement), and we can't nor shouldn't have to base that socialization with the same relatives for your entire life. If only because we biologically have urges to reproduce and are aware enough of biology to know that family reproduction is a horrible idea.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > you're taking a metaphor overly serious. I just point it out that it is a bad one. > Socialization is important. Yes. > we have decades of documentation on how you can permanently damage a brain in mere weeks of solitary confinement Yes. > and we can't nor shouldn't have to base that socialization with the same relatives for your entire life Yes. see how easy it was to write it without asserting falsehoods about neurons, and without drawing unsupported conclusions from said falsehood? A metaphor can be faulty even if the conclusion it purports to end up with is true. And if we can do away without the obscuring metaphor (as you did in this very comment I'm responding to) then we should.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
What an odd response. I'm not even sure how to react. Your claim is we must only communicate with our families.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > What an odd response. Thank you. > Your claim is we must only communicate with our families. No. Please read my comment again. I claim no such thing.