Nate Cull
The problem I have with the Internet today is that, in the 1980s, I thought (hoped) that massive access to a) personal computing and b) networking would be a force that (slowly, perhaps, but inevitably over time) made us all smarter and kinder.
Instead I fear that networked computing is making us all dumber and crueller. And the dumbing and the cruelling is accelerating.
That's maybe too simplistic an analysis: it probably always had the potential to do both, and it probably *is* doing both.
Nate Cull
The mass behaviour of other people under the influence of a global technocratic information and influence feedback system *isn't* up to me though
but it's still going to affect my life
In much the same way that a hurricane is going to affect my life regardless of the personal choices that I, an individual water drop, make
I might be the smartest and kindest water drop in the atmosphere and still get hurt
mara_th
@natecull Net is only a tool. The boss must be yr mind. It's up to you
Nate Cull
I sure thought in 2010 that Facebook's real-names policy - and if not Facebook, then actual politicians, journalists and scientists betting their real-life reputations on Twitter - would make people more civil to each other than in anonymous forums. Because of the reputational costs of being uncivil.
Boy was I wrong about that.
What happened instead - and *fast* - was that perfomative hyper-aggressiveness toward a designated out-group became normative mainstream behaviour.
Allen Stenhaus
@natecull I'm not sure the name of the phenomenon, but we notice the more extreme ppl more often in these environments. I don't think we anticipated algorithms creating echo chambers. Back in the days of BBSs, phpbb, etc., ppl had to be reasonable. While perceived anonymity makes ppl worse (think of how drivers see cyclists as not human), there being no algorithm along with human moderation made for a better experience.
The #fediverse may be the closest we get to that nowadays.
Jon βοΈ
@natecull @baslow I think in general people underestimate the extent to which their decisions are influenced by the world around them and the systems they interact with
Case in point: Twitterβs character limit encourages short, punchy responses, because you often canβt actually get a detailed point across in that little space. But I donβt think its users are usually consciously aware that the platform is leading them towards that
Jon βοΈ
@baslow @natecull Or to use another example, people in the Netherlands ride bikes a lot while people in the US more often drive a car. If you ask people from each why they choose the mode they do, theyβll both probably tell you itβs because itβs convenient. But itβs the design of the built environment that makes each convenient
So, importantly, the *designers* of the systems we interact with have a lot of influence on the behaviors of large groups!
Nate Cull
"we can, collectively, decide to use them better. "
I guess the question is *how exactly* do "we" "collectively" "decide" something?
By what mechanism does a group establish
a) who is "we" and who isn't "we"
b) what is to be decided and what isn't to be decided
c) what the decision was, and that the decision made did in fact reflect the desires of the entire "we" in question
d) how to reflect back on whether the decision, even if desired by the group, was in fact the right one
(((Baslow)))
@natecull
There is a passivity to this formulation which, I think,
absolves us from responsibility for how we have used these technologies
and
which fails to recognize that we can, collectively, decide to use them better.
It didn't just haspen to us. We are the reason technology has had the effect it has had.
We can change.
0303
There are a lot of media studies in the early and mid 19th where scientists thought, the television will absolutely change the world. No more wars and all the good stuff, because people will finally be able to see whatβs going on in other countries and developing under this impression to a more kinder, more empathetic and more tolerant human.
Wellβ¦ we all know how that wentβ¦
Nate Cull
I believe we will get a more loving human race, eventually.
I have a spiritual philosophy which points me in that direction.
But, that philosophy also suggests that it will be a rocky time getting to that point. All the darkness that's already inside our collective subconscious needs to surface so it can be addressed at the conscious level.
Would be much better if we could do that without the pain of wars and disasters, but it will happen either way.
Nate Cull
Yep! It's an obvious assumption to make.
Though, arguably the existence of cheap cellphone video is leading to things like protests against police brutality, because it's very easy to make and post a video that enrages huge numbers of people.
Downside: It's also very easy to make and post many other kinds of videos on many other subjects that enrage huge numbers of people.
I feel like a safe reading is that "there is both good and bad coming from mass connectivity". At the same time.
0303
@natecull yes! And, if we break it down, it is up the each and every person and how they choose to use the media and what kind of media.
But to be honest, I would have liked a more tolerant, respectful, loving human raceβ¦.
Doc Edward Morbius ββ
@natecull Given enough eyeballs, all content is shallow.
Nate Cull
So because of that, I've never really put much faith in the idea of "the Internet will magically make us better".
But I did hope that it would at least give us some tools to help improve ourselves.
Sometimes I get scared and think that we're throwing those tools away or making them radioactive; that we're closing off a short window of cheap and easy self-improvement before a long dark period of pain descends.
But maybe that fear is misplaced.
0303
I think the tools, to help improve ourselves, are out there and the Internet is a great tool itself to spread them to all the people, that are out there, searching for improvement π
But on other days, I feel more fearful and negative π
Well, it is great that I am not alone at least π
Chirp! is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Chirp! content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.