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 @Plinz
The obvious concern for this would be a government trying to control people's opinions on the government by hiding/regulating anything critical of the government.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LeoWattenberg
A government can at least be elected. Is it less problematic if the church or groups of academically organized political activists or corporations decide about permissible opinions?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
private orgs have less power than the government. I think this exclusiveness is an inherent property of a network society. Anyone offering opinions that is disliked by the network will get excluded from the network. That said: I haven't read the Castells book on it yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Citybank could pick Obama’s cabinet. Obama could not pick Citybank’s board.
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.