Why Conspiracy Theories?

[Clinamenic]

I’ve also never seen a committee compliment a witness so much. She was understandably dripping with clout by the end of it, authoritatively talking to senators about what is and isn’t allowed in our system.

 

[Clinamenic]

Really it was a good watch, would recommend.

 

[version]

I was literally the only one I knew in my four years of college that went without a social media presence. It became a distinct characteristic of mine, not using a smartphone and not using social media.

I get this from people my age too. It's almost a novelty to see any phone other than a smartphone for some.

 

[version]

Also worth noting is that I haven’t had a social media presence associated with my legal identity since the first year of high school, ~ten years ago, and can describe from firsthand experience the profound degree of alienation that comes with opting out of these systems, as someone of my generation.

Yeah, I can imagine. I had social media during school, but gradually dropped off it once I left and even then I had a sense of being out of the loop.

I sometimes get the urge to sign up for Twitter, but I just think "What for? I can browse without an account and with an account I'd just get drawn further into it, hand over more and more data, then probably reach a point where I got fed up and leave again,".

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah, I can imagine. I had social media during school, but gradually dropped off it once I left and even then I had a sense of being out of the loop.

I sometimes get the urge to sign up for Twitter, but I just think "What for? I can browse without an account and with an account I'd just get drawn further into it, hand over more and more data, then probably reach a point where I got fed up and left again,".

Yeah, and you are among the minority who could muster the will to actually leave.

 

[version]

I thought about jumping back in the Discord I was in with Linebaugh and people too, but I have similar thoughts about Discord.

 

[Clinamenic]

Really? I wouldn’t have expected that from discord, as it seems to be a platform primarily for pseudonymous users

 

[version]

I mean that I'd end up spending even more time online, pouring more and more data into something and probably get fed up and leave again. It's nice only really using Dissensus as once there's a lull it's easier to do something else as I can't just check my Twitter or jump on Discord and remain glued to the screen.

 

[version]

I've always used pseudonyms online except for when I had social media in school.

 

[Clinamenic]

Sounds like a good arrangement, for both mental health and data security.

Would you say that there are others, even most people, that are incapable of willing themselves out of these situations, or shouldn’t be expected to will themselves out of these situations, and that instead a governmental agency should mandate certain policies pertaining to data collection and information circulation?

Do you believe that such things can be accomplished, even imperfectly?

 

[Clinamenic]

I've always used pseudonyms online except for when I had social media in school.

Same. Growing up with Xbox got me used to operating socially under a handle.
@Homedawg1

 

[Clinamenic]

Although socializing with randos there rarely extended beyond receiving an invitation to join a clan in Halo Reach, which never happened to interest me.

 

[version]

Would you say that there are others, even most people, that are incapable of willing themselves out of these situations, or shouldn’t be expected to will themselves out of these situations, and that instead a governmental agency should mandate certain policies pertaining to data collection and information circulation?

Do you believe that such things can be accomplished, even imperfectly?

I suppose so, but I don't know whether it's possible. These companies have a lot of weight to throw around and data's incredibly valuable to them.

I'd feel more comfortable with the state saying private companies can't collect certain data than I would them saying they can't circulate certain information. A regulation saying Facebook can't collect data on your location or shopping habits seems much more appealing to me than a regulation saying they can't let certain news sites or stories circulate on their platform.

 

[Clinamenic]

I agree. I think “non-content based” regulation would be optimal. Like you said, certain kinds of data, categories of metadata, etc.

 

[Clinamenic]

The main point of this prospective regulation regarding content would be on the grounds of misinformation and hate, which I am unsure how to handle.

I think the state should define a legal basis for hate speech, and then leave it up to the platform to decided whether or not to deplatform someone for hate speech.

As for misinformation, perhaps we can minimize deplatforming here and instead establish information pathways for the state to facilitate it’s official information, having perhaps a privileged position in a users feed, without requiring as much censorship of ostensible misinformation.

 

[Clinamenic]

Hoagen here suggests a chronological feed, drawn from subscribed-to accounts, instead of a feed that includes recommended accounts/channels.

 

[version]

The state already has established pathways for official information. They just don't want people accessing anything but that information.

Did you see any of those articles warning people not to look into things or "do their own research"? There's obviously a problem with people being misinformed and stumbling across crackpots, but the mainstream and official press is also rife with misinformation and the idea that people should completely abandon any attempt at self-sufficiency and just outsource everything to people working in established organisations who are as fallible as anyone else strikes me as corrupt.

They want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be able to lie to and manipulate the public whilst maintaining complete authority and the public trust.

 

[Clinamenic]

I do think that altering the recommendation algorithms may go a long way here, even without introducing new content-censoring policies on the grounds of misinformation.

 

[version]

This is partly why this stuff with Facebook rings so hollow. You've got career politicians feigning outrage at this company for manipulating and damaging the public as though they themselves haven't spent their careers doing exactly the same.

There are all these newspapers and government figures and so on lamenting the uncertainty, the loss of trust and authority and the state of public discourse when it's a direct consequence of their own actions. They can't pin it all on Trump or Facebook or whoever else, as though everything was fine until they came along. This has been decades in the making.

 

[Clinamenic]

And it it’s tough here understanding organizations, namely public ones, has having coherent agendas, when really it seems there are those who are sentimentally/ideologically driven to represent common interests and there are those who answer only to their own bottom line.

Really I think the latter outweigh the former, in terms of how much trust we should grant public organizations. But again I think once we deny trust altogether then there is almost nothing standing in the way of dispassionate financial interests, I.e trust is pragmatic in this sense.