3 ms·

While I agree it's not a net positive, I find it dangerous to equate all addictions.

by rockskon 8mo ago

Forgeties79 8mo ago
He’s not equating all addictions beyond saying they are all addictions and should be treated as such.
- rockskon 8mo ago
  But that's the problem - different substances require different solutions. You reduce sugar intake, not eliminate it. You eliminate cocaine intake, not just reduce it. Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me.
  - xracy 8mo ago
    It looks to me like you're adding the conflation to "all addictions" because you can clearly distinguish between "sugar" and "cocaine" as both forms of addictions. Why would you not be willing to include "scrolling" as another form of addiction? Just because it's labeled the same way you yourself are demonstrating that we handle that in different ways. Social Media is being treated as "sugar" in this instance instead of as "cocaine".
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    > Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me. As it should, because there's a really obvious "slippery slope" argument right there. But… it can kill people. There is a certain fraction of the population who, for whatever reason, can be manipulated, to the point of becoming killers or of causing injury to themselves. Social media… actually, worse than that, all A/B testing everywhere, can stumble upon this even when it isn't trying to (I would like to believe that OpenAI's experience with 4o-induced psychosis was unintentional). When we know which tools can be used for manipulation, it's bad to keep allowing it to run unchecked. Unchecked, they are the tool of propagandists. But… I see that slippery slope, I know that any government which successfully argues itself the power to regulate this, even for good, is one bad election away from a dictatorship that will abuse the same reasoning and powers to evil ends.
    - DarkUranium 8mo ago
      There's literally a name for using this on purpose: stochastic terrorism. There's also a very good TED talk on this topic from 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
      - rockskon 8mo ago
        I've always found the notion of "stochastic terrorism" to be elastic, effectively transforming "speech a given person dislikes" into "danger" so censorship looks like virtue. Not to mention - you have to account for what happens if someone you hate may be in power and could wield any sort of system to stop "stochastic terrorism" against you. This is often dismissed as an abstract what-if, but....given what's been happening with world leaders these days, it should be a central consideration.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
        You are worried about the “what if” fallout over the multiple world leaders actually engaging in it. Their followers enact violence on their behalf while the leader maintains plausible deniability/enough perceived distance from the act they can never be explicitly blamed. You can be worried about more than one thing but clearly one is a bigger issue than the other right now.
        rockskon 8mo ago
        I never said "multiple". Just the leader in the jurisdiction you live in. And I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret your last sentence. In the US we have a President that is increasingly going after people for their speech, in quite a few cases by using the laws and policies put in place to go after dissent. He is going after colleges and businesses who have "bias against whites" using policies put in place to punish hate speech against minorities and women.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
  - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
    This is a weird take. Sugar have been killing much more people historically than cocaine.
    - rockskon 8mo ago
      Yes, and without any sugar, the human body cannot function. Literally. You must mean "added sugar", which is different and one I more readily agree with you about.

While I agree it's not a net positive, I find it dangerous to equate all addictions.

Forgeties79 8mo ago

He’s not equating all addictions beyond saying they are all addictions and should be treated as such.

rockskon 8mo ago
But that's the problem - different substances require different solutions. You reduce sugar intake, not eliminate it. You eliminate cocaine intake, not just reduce it. Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me.
- xracy 8mo ago
  It looks to me like you're adding the conflation to "all addictions" because you can clearly distinguish between "sugar" and "cocaine" as both forms of addictions. Why would you not be willing to include "scrolling" as another form of addiction? Just because it's labeled the same way you yourself are demonstrating that we handle that in different ways. Social Media is being treated as "sugar" in this instance instead of as "cocaine".
- ben_w 8mo ago
  > Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me. As it should, because there's a really obvious "slippery slope" argument right there. But… it can kill people. There is a certain fraction of the population who, for whatever reason, can be manipulated, to the point of becoming killers or of causing injury to themselves. Social media… actually, worse than that, all A/B testing everywhere, can stumble upon this even when it isn't trying to (I would like to believe that OpenAI's experience with 4o-induced psychosis was unintentional). When we know which tools can be used for manipulation, it's bad to keep allowing it to run unchecked. Unchecked, they are the tool of propagandists. But… I see that slippery slope, I know that any government which successfully argues itself the power to regulate this, even for good, is one bad election away from a dictatorship that will abuse the same reasoning and powers to evil ends.
  - DarkUranium 8mo ago
    There's literally a name for using this on purpose: stochastic terrorism. There's also a very good TED talk on this topic from 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
    - rockskon 8mo ago
      I've always found the notion of "stochastic terrorism" to be elastic, effectively transforming "speech a given person dislikes" into "danger" so censorship looks like virtue. Not to mention - you have to account for what happens if someone you hate may be in power and could wield any sort of system to stop "stochastic terrorism" against you. This is often dismissed as an abstract what-if, but....given what's been happening with world leaders these days, it should be a central consideration.
      - Forgeties79 8mo ago
        You are worried about the “what if” fallout over the multiple world leaders actually engaging in it. Their followers enact violence on their behalf while the leader maintains plausible deniability/enough perceived distance from the act they can never be explicitly blamed. You can be worried about more than one thing but clearly one is a bigger issue than the other right now.
        rockskon 8mo ago
        I never said "multiple". Just the leader in the jurisdiction you live in. And I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret your last sentence. In the US we have a President that is increasingly going after people for their speech, in quite a few cases by using the laws and policies put in place to go after dissent. He is going after colleges and businesses who have "bias against whites" using policies put in place to punish hate speech against minorities and women.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
- lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
  This is a weird take. Sugar have been killing much more people historically than cocaine.
  - rockskon 8mo ago
    Yes, and without any sugar, the human body cannot function. Literally. You must mean "added sugar", which is different and one I more readily agree with you about.