woops
is not like other people
can vouch
Do we really want out?
luka
Well-known member
yeah
craner
Beast of Burden
Do you really think he was? At the very least he shored up fragments.
version
Well-known member
That's basically the thread. I was asking whether people really want out because lots more people complain than do anything.
version
Well-known member
It doesn't really appeal to me.
Leo
Well-known member
that's human nature, on most things. it's sometimes hard to do things, but it's easy to moan. moaning is free, takes no time or skill, has no consequences.
Yes, but the left has never wanted out in that sense. Revolutions are never a question of desire but of an impersonal clash of forces. Like imam al-bordigaaah (may allah grant him jannah) said: The original content of the communist program is the obliteration of the individual as an economic subject, rights-holder, and agent of human history
sus
Moderator
Ok we are on the same page good thread version...
version
Well-known member
That or "Yes, but we don't want it enough". It's complicated by the mechanisms designed to keep you in though. You could say someone who claims to hate social media but can't stay off it clearly doesn't hate it that much, but that ignores that the platforms are designed to be addictive.
woops
is not like other people
Quintessential @thirdform post. Bot-like even. I think the question is not
Should we want out?
Or
Should we just complain?
But
Is there a form of complaint that cannot be recuperated by the "inside"? Jury's out
version
Well-known member
Some hold that the act of complaining itself simply reinforces the inside by offering an outside to define itself against. It's certainly an argument, but it's a defeatist one.
sus
Moderator
You know I actually don't really believe this
It's just giving too much credit to the companies
We don't understand enough about people to really manipulate them
For all the pseudo-scientific nonsense boomers pass around about how they're manipulating us with "dopamine" hits, we actually don't even clearly know how dopamine works or how to game it.
It's true that they do a lot of A/B testing, and then choose whichever model gets the most engagement, but you could equally frame this as "making a product people like and want to use."
It's just that the "addiction" framework has become a meme
Even though ah, we don't really have any coherent way to separate out what's "good" from what's "addictive," other than the standard psychiatric/DSM way, which is to ask, "Does the subject pursue X substance even at extreme, disproportionate cost to themselves, against their own self-interest?"
And I'm just not sure we even have a way to answer that about social media, whether we hang out on it b/c we're social creatures and wanna constantly be connected, or whether it's an "addiction"
sus
Moderator
Basically IMO being able to coherently call something "addictive" basically requires a coherent rational actor model, which addictive substances somehow defy, and we're still a long way away from that—people clearly aren't super rational about their self-interest to begin with, so why are we evaluating behavior as if they were?
Like, I check Dissensus a couple times a day, and Facebook/Instagram never. Is Dissensus more addictive than Facebook/Instagram? And if it is, it's not because of Machiavellian software design.
Like, I check Dissensus a couple times a day, and Facebook/Instagram never. Is Dissensus more addictive than Facebook/Instagram? And if it is, it's not because of Machiavellian software design.