How is that undue influence? Did you arrive at youtube without any action on your part, was it auto playing when you logged in to your computer? Sounds like you dislike big media... just not enough to tune out.
tldrl; eat your own dogfood before telling others to do so.
Youtube is big media? It's only in recent history that Youtube is exercising power to decide what stays and what doesn't, even if it meets the youtube content policy. This is political opinion enforced by youtube.
Given Google is a public company, taking one side or another in a political discussion may not be in their interest, it would be their right of first amendment to change the sites they own as they wish, but it dilutes the usefulness and trustworthiness of their product in the eyes of the customers, and the stock holders may not like it that way. The employees have fiduciary duty to not impose their political views on their product.
I am asking these companies as a fan of their platform that they keep it neutral.
I am not selling any dogfood. I am asking dogfood companies to sell it to all dog owners, don't discriminate if they have a poodle or a pit bull.
I guess I'm not a big fan of too much social cohesion. I actually prefer societies that embrace differences. Though I would agree that can be taken to a dangerous extreme.
I'd be curious how, in your model, you'd moderate personal behaviors to tune macro results between social harmony and everyone being a low level sociopath. Historically, peer pressure and social moores provided that functionality.
Isn't there a Black Mirror episode about this with social capital? [+]
I guess that I've seen less moderation of personal behaviors via these mechanisms in our current society over my lifetime, and I'm not sure that's a big problem. I'd argue that most of the peer pressure and social moors society (especially local society) pushes are typically a net negative, and as we grow globally, we're realizing that they don't usually make sense.
NOTE: I'm mostly talking out of my ass here as I've never really thought much about this subject before. I'd gladly welcome new ways of seeing this issue and facts that counter my view.
> I'd argue that most of the peer pressure and social moors society (especially local society) pushes are typically a net negative, and as we grow globally, we're realizing that they don't usually make sense.
It seems to me that Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat are causing extreme narcissism to embed itself in younger cohorts, along with workers being more mobile causing family units to fall apart. The shitty parts of human behavior are being exploited by tech companies for obscene profits with no governance of their actions.
Data shows that loneliness kills, but we shun extended family living arrangements in the US (you still live with your parens/grandparents?). Data shows that social media networks trigger the same parts of your brain as cocaine, and are just as addictive.
I'd agree that the changes you describe are taking place, but I'm not convinced it's all a bad thing.
There absolutely are negative aspects to these changes, but I think there's also a lot of good aspects to them as well. Instead of viewing these changes as good or bad, I guess I generally see them as "just different". Additionally, I think a lot of the bad sides to these issues seem to be ones that already existed to one degree or another, and hopefully this will increase our ability to fix them.
> The shitty parts of human behavior are being exploited by tech companies for obscene profits with no governance of their actions.
I absolutely agree with this though, and think that we should be doing a much better job here.
Well, it definitely corrolates. That's how agreements are made, after all. If you have nothing in common with another person there is no framework for understanding.
Why would the type of content you listen to prevent us from ever collaborating ? You gotta be close minded not to collaborate with people who don't consume the same content as you do...
