Conversation

You can do all the gnarly stuff but give users more control. Social networks should have advanced screeners, filters, sort, grouping, scoring based on web of trust, etc.

Even if you give users control, there still would be a default setting, right? I only care about what that default is. The defaults are what matter.

For broader society? You can’t save them from themselves. If your liquor store doesn’t sell cigarettes, it’s going out of business. Best you can do is give people better filters to avoid wasting time looking at the stuff they don’t want.

I don't like the idea turning over control of the commons to whomever can make the most addictive products, imposing a collective cost they don't have to bear themselves. It just becomes a race to exploit the public.

It’s the opium of our time. We can ban it, or we can massively upgrade education, create safe viewing sites, social rehab facilities, misinfo reprogramming therapy. I agree it has a high, externalized cost. Where do you draw the line? What about video games?

Video games aren't determining the outcome of elections. Every time the communication medium of the day changes, the sort of people we elect to office changes radically. Introduction of TV was a classic example with the Nixon v Kennedy debate. Trump is the social media example.

IMO, it comes back to education. Nothing you need to know to deal with this stuff is mandatory in school or even college. People are not taught how to think. It’s a massive (intentional?) failure. Keep people dumb. We should be treating the cause and the symptoms will go away.

No doubt. We need to overhaul education. But we could fix education tomorrow and still suffer from today's poor system for 20+ more years. I worry about the next 5-10 years :-/

Replying to