Every time you use Facebook, see an advertisement there, or click it, every time you share content on Facebook and get others to engage with that platform, you are contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human psychological harm, in many different ways.
Same for Twitter, and for Reddit, and Instagram... and probably TikTok.
I don’t believe the use of these platforms can be considered ethical.
Does this logic also apply to commenting on hacker news? Or is it specifically the platforms you mentioned?
What specifically is the reason you consider those particular platforms to be unethical, and what is the solution.
It's not enough to say "social media bad". You can say that about anything including the internet as a whole. We need the reasons it's bad and solutions.
> What specifically is the reason you consider those particular platforms to be unethical, and what is the solution.
These platforms are so large that they require hundreds of thousands of moderators in order to remove vile, illegal content, causing trauma for a vast underclass of foreign workers.
Here’s a few solutions:
Limit the number of people that a person can be friends with to 150, the Dunbar number.
Restrict the posting of photos to those which have been identified as having you or your friends in the picture, or no humans at all. Require permission from all human participants to post.
Is it just that you're worried about the outsourcing of content moderation? Because other than than the problems are the same. Someone will always need to moderate the content.
Size is not the determining factor. It's a single factor that highly influences the value in posting damaging content. It's clear from the rise of influencers on YT, IG, Twitter, etc -- as well as the prolific use of these platforms by terrorists and other malefactors -- that being able to reach many people with a single post is a significant driver of people to post content.
My concern is not primarily with the outsourcing of moderation, but with the type of moderation that is required. There are ways to limit the kind of content that people post. Making things less sharable is one way of doing that. Creating barriers to entry is another. My list of suggestions encompasses both. Of course, these are two suggestions which are antithetical to the ad-riddle, growth-driven social network model, so there is no way they would ever be implemented.
I should add another solution to my wish-list: remove ads entirely.
> My concern is not primarily with the outsourcing of moderation, but with the type of moderation that is required.
But the problem doesn't go away when you shrink the size of the social media site. The same people will still try to post disturbing content. In fact, you're giving them more places to post that content, so potentially more people will have to moderate it.
> There are ways to limit the kind of content that people post. Making things less sharable is one way of doing that. Creating barriers to entry is another. My list of suggestions encompasses both.
Your suggestions can be implemented on smaller websites as well as larger ones.
It seems like your issue is with the ease of access to social media. Thus your solution is to limit access. However, I don't think there's a reasonable implementation of your idea that could work. Nor do I think any kind of social media is going to want to go that route. It doesn't matter if the site is funded by ads or is trying to grow. The point of these sites is to share content. People don't want to limit that.
Also, breaking large social media sites into smaller ones makes it much more difficult to deal with troublesome individuals. Right now, it only takes a few bans before you're blocked from most mainstream sites. If we had, say, 10× the number of sites, that's 10× the number of bans required to get these individuals out of the system and 10× the number of moderators who had to look at their content before banning them.
I'm not saying there's no solution here, but I think people are misidentifying the problem. We all want simple answers and simple solutions even when there aren't any.
> But the problem doesn't go away when you shrink the size of the social media site. The same people will still try to post disturbing content. In fact, you're giving them more places to post that content, so potentially more people will have to moderate it.
I’m not sure I follow. A site like Facebook already has mechanisms for detecting multiple accounts, and in any case, multiple accounts don’t mean that there are more “places” to post. It’s still Facebook.
I don’t propose breaking Facebook into smaller websites. I propose limiting the reach of a single individual on those sites. Basically, normalizing the localness of social media to be more meaningful.
As well, I think Facebook and other platforms need to reckon with the consent when it comes to posting images of people, in general. That’s why I suggested limiting the posts to only those of friends who consent.
And again, you run into the problem where nobody wants their website to work like that. In fact, limiting the person's audience really only works with facebook's system where people post content specifically to their friends. Other sites like Hacker News, Reddit, youtube, and various other forums aren't even designed with the concept of friends that are the sole consumers of your content. You're specifically posting in a public space that everyone can see. That's not a social media thing. That's just an internet thing where most things are visible to everyone.
And again, people still post horrible content to small groups just like they post it in large ones. You've divided the problem up, but you haven't really solved anything. Someone has to moderate the content.
>And again, you run into the problem where nobody wants their website to work like that.
Cancer patients don't want chemo, but it's better than dying, some might say.
>Other sites like Hacker News, Reddit, youtube, and various other forums aren't even designed with the concept of friends that are the sole consumers of your content.
Right, which is why those sites (besides HackerNews) would require slightly different solutions.
Reddit: Limit subreddits to 500 participants at most. Eliminate the number next to upvotes. Verify accounts. Limit posting.
YouTube: Not sure. This one is video-forward, probably the most difficult problem in terms of bad content. Definitely remove the algorithm for targeting people based on interest, though.
>That's not a social media thing. That's just an internet thing where most things are visible to everyone.
This is not any feature inherent to the Web, it's a function of sites that purposefully link together and allow people to rapidly post information. Pre-social media, to get your idea out you had to build a website. There was friction. The earl y web had little moderation because you really had to go searching for bad stuff.
>And again, people still post horrible content to small groups just like they post it in large ones. You've divided the problem up, but you haven't really solved anything. Someone has to moderate the content.
Dividing the problem up is a strategy that I propose lessens the impact to both the users (because content can't spread as fast) and the moderators (because there will be less content to moderate).
Elimination of advertisers and the implementation of cost (as a form of friction), I think, would also go a long way. Cost per post would be ideal.
> Cancer patients don't want chemo, but it's better than dying, some might say.
What good is chemo if your patients refuse it?
> Reddit: Limit subreddits to 500 participants at most. Eliminate the number next to upvotes.
This doesn't stop people from posting disturbing content, and it destroys reddit's entire model. This solution doesn't work.
> Verify accounts.
In what way? Do you want to abolish anonymity? Because I can tell you right now that most of us aren't interested in such a solution.
> Limit posting.
In what way? Throttling posting speed? Sure if you just lessen the amount of content overall there will also be less disturbing content... but there's still disturbing content that needs to be moderated.
> This is not any feature inherent to the Web, it's a function of sites that purposefully link together and allow people to rapidly post information.
The default state of the internet is publicly viewable information. Thus it's an inherent feature that you can access almost anything out there.
> Pre-social media
As far as I'm aware, there was no such time. There have almost always been bulletin boards, forums, chat rooms, image/file sharing sites, and other forms of social media.
> there will be less content to moderate
Dividing up the content doesn't reduce the amount of it that needs to be moderated any more than cutting a cake reduces the amount of cake.
> Elimination of advertisers and the implementation of cost (as a form of friction), I think, would also go a long way. Cost per post would be ideal.
This just shuts people out according to income bracket. It reduces the total population, but I doubt it helps reduce the fraction of that population that are interested in posting and sharing disturbing content. It's just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I think this is pushing it a bit. By similar logic, paying taxes to, or simply being a member of the US (or almost any country) is contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human harm.
>paying taxes to, or simply being a member of the US (or almost any country) is contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human harm.
I agree with that. But I also assert that people have an ethical obligation to opt-out of systems that cause harm when / if they are able, or at least advocate to change them.
I don't have the ability to change Facebook. But I have the ability to opt out of it, though my actions on the Internet, and the ability to advocate for others to do the same. So, here I am.
HackerNews is a limited-focus link aggregation and comment platform. It doesn't require the kind of moderation that larger scale, broad-focus social media platforms do.
I don't envy the work that Dan and Scott have to do in the slightest, but I don't think they'll end up with PTSD from it. At least, that's what I gathered when I read "The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News"[0], especially this description of it: "Pressed to describe Hacker News, they do so by means of extravagant, sometimes tender metaphors: the site is a “social ecosystem,” a “hall of mirrors,” a “public park or garden,” a “fractal tree."
social media is a mirror--you see what you want in it. for every horrifying or hyperviolent act or outrageous scandal, you can find the most joyous and beautiful depiction.
have you ever seen foxes laughing? they sound like babies. without social media, i never would have known that, nor experienced one minute of happiness while watching it.
>Though I don't fully understand their ridiculously long trousers.
As others have pointed out, they hem them for free. This is a clever bit of optimization for them, for two reasons:
(1) Fewer SKUs to stock. Each type of pant only varies in waist, not length.
(2) The pants become non-returnable after alternation. This reduces the number of items that can be returned substantially, since very few people fit the dimension of the pants.
As much as I agree with Lovelock's sentiments about the environment, Gaia is more wishful thinking and certainly doesn't have its foundations in science. That is, the world does not tend towards stability. Ecosystems tend towards chaos and don't return a norm.
Define "chaos". Ecosystems do tend towards equilibrium, unless something happens to end up having a _really great_ advantage selected for (e.g. our interpersonal politics selecting for intelligence) or the environment changes significantly (e.g. climate change, great big asteroid boi, ice age).
Chaos in the sense of instability, of constant change, of randomness. Earlier ecologists like Frederic Clements thought that ecosystems tended towards a stable climax, but this theory has been largely disproven by more rigorous data analysis that shows ecosystems are more influenced by chance of physiological and environmental condition than by competition.
If you're interested in reading more, I found Kricher's "The Balance of Nature" to be a highly engaging read. There's a good retail PDF available from Princeton University Press [0]
chaos is just our way to say i dont understand or i cant measure this. so far it seems nothing lasts in the universe but it can be quite a while until things leave
It’s important to consider not your specific implementation, but the common implementation that is Android. And that implementation is chock full of spyware/adware/malware.
Android is open, and therefore exhibits the classic tension of liberty: free to do what you want, including harm yourself.
I saw more than a few Mom and Pop shops looted. If they had shotguns, maybe their shop would have suffered broken glass but the looting would stop after you had "peppered up"[1] the first looter.
Do you have a history of suicidal ideation, either in you or in your family? Consider this when you get a gun. 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides [0].
While I agree in principle, I don't think this is manageable given how diverse the content is on the Internet. What sort of thing are you going to sell me when I'm reading a news article about wars in the Middle East?
>where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you must hold Ideas X, Y, and Z because those must be the views you hold as a member of those groups.
This was never more obvious to me than when I was in college. As an out gay guy who studied Arabic, this seemed to short-circuit the expectations of my peers; being in awe of Islamic art, and wanting deeply to travel to Iran and see the mosques of the world was something that, for some reason, didn't compute to them. "But don't they hate your kind over there?" was not an uncommon reaction. I get it, I really do, but sometimes it felt like I wasn't allowed, in their eyes, to have access to those beautiful things in the world, or else I was considered "brave" for trying to access them. But to me they have been wholly distinct interests from the start, and only incidental that they happen to coexist in me as a individual person.
And then there's the converse - when e.g. Iranian and Arab immigrants are shamed for legitimately criticizing religious-based oppression in their societies, because their criticism - with extra weight lent to it by their background - supposedly fuels Islamophobia in the West; and is thus a form of cultural imperialism that they're expected to not partake in, regardless of the reality of oppression that they talk about, or their own personal experience in that regard.
The most famous example is probably Maajid Nawaz - a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir who renounced his extremist views, and since then has been actively criticizing political Islamism (of both violent and non-violent variety), while remaining a practicing Muslim. Despite that last fact, he was identified as an "anti-Muslim extremist" by SPLC - and they only retracted this after a massive outcry.
You are trying to portray ISLAM as religion of peace. It is not. ISLAM is incompatible with democracy. I understand all types of people exist given the amount of population. With ISLAM it is followed very strongly and that's why even physics majors don't question the existence of god in the open even when they are non in the Islamic state.
I could say the same of every monotheistic religion. For example, one of the most famous Church Fathers, one still recognized as a saint by most Christian denominations, wrote as early as 4th century:
"Should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them, and when the judge ... calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!"
But we don't judge all Christians based on that. Neither should all Muslims be judged on the basis of a particular interpretation of their scriptures, especially when the vast majority of them do not subscribe to it at all.
I know a lot of Christians and other religions where people can openly say they are atheist openly and their family(and society in general) is okay with that. The problem with ISLAM is it is so dogmatic, no one can oppose it irrespective of education, in fact they double down when questioned or shown facts and preach tolerance to others or point other religions quotes. This is what i hate about ISLAM. There is some thing deeply wrong with it, they can not take criticism even if you are in the STEM field.
I think the reason it short-circuits their expectations is that what they're actually trying to do is "cancel" Islam on your behalf. Like: "wait a minute, I'm trying to defend/protect you here, isn't that what you want from a majority, to stand up for you?" And what you're doing, ignoring their protective effort, becomes a kind of betrayal. Which has got to be so frustrating -- the idea that you're not qualified to have your own opinion, that you have to conform to what the majority says simply because they're "helping" you.
Interesting, but I'm not sure this qualifies to the point, in this case they are worried for your safety for valid reasons.. not trying to force you an opinion on something.
There is absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran. There isn't some magic gaydar they can scan you with to discover your nature. I'd recommend not trying to find hookup partners while you're in Iran, but that is different than them just figuring out you're gay and deciding to harm you. Being an American in Iran is a far bigger burden IMHO, because of the required government minders.
Not sure, but possibly, not much? Foreigners are given a pass on many issues. For example, you can easily rent a hotel room with your unmarried partner without a marriage certificate.
"There is absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran. ", yeah as long as you no one know you are gay. So it's a valid concern because you have to watch what you say / do if you are gay in Iran.
And anyway, that had nothing to do with the original discussion of the having someone to force an opinion on something.
I think their concern was well-founded and the reason identity and politics have become so intertwined is because "the personal is political".
In Iran, homosexuality has been punished by imprisonment, torture, and execution. People who are gay in Iran do not have the luxury of being able to go and visit, they live under that threat every day. And many countries in the Middle East have similar policies and their gay population - rarely out - live under similar threat.
Wanting to go study the beautiful works of art in Iran is brave. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to do so as well, and yet the Islamic scientific and cultural golden age is still quite interesting to me.
But yet, it's still true that many, perhaps most of them "hate my kind" over there. Atheism is also punishable by execution in several countries in the Arabic speaking world. If I told friends I wanted to go study and live in Iran and they were concerned and asked me that question, I don't think it'd be disproportionate. If they said it was brave, I don't think I'd dispute it.
(Though in all fairness and perhaps you find this cringeworthy, I am fortunate and privileged in that being a straight atheist in these countries is a lot easier than being gay, and being gay and Muslim might actually exacerbate the threat.)
I studied in Iran for a couple of months and travelled a lot around the country as an anglophone atheist (that happens to speak Farsi). I don't think anyone ever asked me about religion. Everyone was nice.
There's the law, and then there's the law's practical application. These rarely line up, especially for foreigners. Iran isn't really interested in making world news by executing foreigners.
Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed, and not to preemptively seek out violators. That's not necessarily morally any better, but at least it removes the spectre of "I'm going to get killed the instant I land at the airport" feeling that seems to be so common.
> Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed,
How on Earth does that make it better in any way? That is the hallmark of any fascist or authoritarian state. That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.
I feel like I'm the upside down here, why are people in any way defending actual thought crime laws in countries like Iran? In what universe is it acceptable for the state to make not believing in something a crime punishable by death?
> How on Earth does that make it better in any way? [...] That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that GP was saying that? Did you read sentence 2 of 2, in which he clarifies he was not making a moral comparison? If you feel you’re in the upside down, it’s because you’re reading something that isn’t there. Not everything you encounter must be immediately classified as ‘for’ or ‘against’ whatever moral issue you currently feel passionate about. Nuance exists.
I have non-religious Iranian friends, living in Iran, that will share their views with others and certainly do not live in fear of their lives. It is a complex topic however. Much of what a western person might associate with 'religion' is better attributed to 'culture'. Openly rejecting all cultural norms, unlikely to go well, foreigner or local, Iran or elsewhere. Your comment does not provide meaningful understanding and rather misleads.
I have met people from middle eastern countries who are apostates, a crime punishable by death. They fear for their life and the history of executions in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name two of several, is clear.
It is undeniably true that in Iran and several other countries, blasphemy and apostasy is a crime. A real, actual thought crime which the state punishes with violence.
So it's the state you are concerned about? Not common Iranians?
>> Wanting to go study the beautiful works of art in Iran is brave. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to do so... But yet, it's still true that many, perhaps most of them [Iranians] "hate my kind" over there.
In practical terms, for your trip to Iran, US citizenship is a more likely source of potential issues than your religious beliefs.
Yes, I am more concerned about authoritarian states than individuals generally.
And yes, my passport would pose a bigger problem for me on first blush. But even for a European in Iran. Or an Iranian in Iran, apostasy is a crime and one that can be severely punished. We should decry that as a threat to freedom of thought and religion.
This article seems to praise people for not being "conventional minded," as if being unorthodox in itself is something to be cherished and rewarded. That is too low of a bar to clear. There are lots of opinions and viewpoints that are unorthodox for good reason -- because they are just bad ideas, or are factually untrue no matter how many times you argue it. It's as if PG is saying to us "Think Different," and just stopping there. What he should be saying is "Think Different, but be prepared to prove it," as well as "Be a little tolerant of people who are doing their best to prove it."
The problem is that, unless you're speaking to someone with whom you have a great deal of trust, that second part -- the earnestness of their unorthodoxy -- is difficult to prove.
Absolutely agree with you.
Sometimes your unorthodox opinion just sucks.
Also, was anybody else bracing themselves for what "unorthodox" was code for while reading? I think I'm so used to seeing this argument used in an attempt to justify stuff like blatant racism, antisemitism, etc. that I'm sort of conditioned to look for that.
By the way, not saying that's what's going on here, but it was just an interesting reaction I noticed in myself. Ironically, similar to what another commenter posted, the whole article is one of those things which is obviously true, but may completely miss the point depending on context.
I think that’s exactly the kind of subtle thing he is trying to capture in this essay: we read ‘unorthodox’ and we get ready, almost as a subconscious reflex, to dismiss whatever comes next as, like you put it, ‘blatant Xism’, or as Paul puts it, false.
Same for Twitter, and for Reddit, and Instagram... and probably TikTok.
I don’t believe the use of these platforms can be considered ethical.