= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (215)
Here's a blog post about how everyone hates each other over politics more than before. Eliezer commented on it on Facebook, hypothesizing that it's a slow-growing effect of the Internet.
I cursed aloud when I read that comment, because I've had that exact idea and an accompanying sick feeling for a while now, and this is the first time I've seen it repeated.
(it's never a good sign when Eliezer Yudkowsky is the one to express your deepest fears about why everything's and everyone's brokenness is unstoppably accelerating)
I wish to read more about the "The Internet Is Why We Can't Have Even The Few Nice Things We Almost Kind Of Once Had" phenomenon — hopefully from someone who thinks there's a way easier than developing Friendly AI to put even one evil back in Pandora's Box, but that's probably wishful thinking, and I want to read about it in any case.
(Note: I'm aware that the entire LW-affiliated rationalist community writes about how things are broken, and desires to teach people to be less broken. But right now I'm looking specifically for things about how the Internet's massive boon to free speech is way more double-edged than was anticipated.)
Anyone have any good links?
Here's my diagnosis of the problem.
Before the internet: "Hey Bob, here's why you're wrong."
On the internet: "Hey everyone, here's my witty response to Bob, explaining why he's wrong and evil."
You can see how that kind of discussion would make people radicalized.
I've been thinking of an online discussion site based on exchanges of personal messages, which eventually get released to the public only if both participants agree. Maybe that would work. At least there would be no name-calling, because that's useless in a one-on-one setting.
It seems odd to me that you'd think that way. Surely, before the internet there was radio, television, newspapers, books, and numerous other ways to say "Hey everyone, here's why Bob is wrong and evil."
I suppose the internet might have had a more democratizing effect where ordinary people can broadcast their opinions to the world. But I'd be curious to know how much that actually matters. It seems to me that it's still the case that if you're a 'regular nobody', nothing you post on your facebook is going to have an impact beyond your immediate circle of friends. At the end of the day there's only a finite amount of supply of attention.
Maybe the internet has had a 'reallocation of attention' effect where people who used to recieve more attention previously (such as honest journalists) cannot reach as an wide audience as they could, and vice versa. But then, the question becomes: Who is getting more attention nowadays, and what effect are they having on people?
The difference is that now the Bobs can organize and start saying why clique of Alices in traditional media are the really evil ones. Of course, unlike the Bobs, the Alices isn't used to being called evil so they completely flip out and start going after everyone, even each other, who appears to show the slightest deviation from the perceived party line.
How about Twitter? That's where the problem is worst, and that's where people are constantly in "talking to the crowd" mode.