There seems to be a consensus now that the exposure to ideas, arguments and memes on youtube, facebook, google search and twitter must be carefully manipulated to make sure people don't elect the wrong politician or have the wrong idea about gay marriage. But why stop there?
-
Show this thread
-
Also, what is the metric of measuring the ethical benefits of manipulating the mental states of social media users away from self-directed exploration? If it is about quality of life/reduction of suffering, should we not be shadowbanning/delisting any praise of unhealthy food?
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
If the individual user has no agency over forming the correct beliefs when exposed to uncurated media sources, could we perhaps use machine learning to identify the delta of what a user thinks and what they should be thinking and play them the right feed to correct their beliefs?
8 replies 3 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @OortCloudAtlas
An uncurated media source is one where random people can post whatever they want, and others can read it if they want. Curation implies that an entity judges submissions and decides what gets displayed. Censorship means that entity is acting against the preferences of the reader.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Google and Twitter are not just curating, they are committed to withholding memetic content from people that actively want it if they think that this content may lead to undesirable opinions. That is standard practice in mass media, but a cultural shift for social media.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.