Conversation

Replying to
One reason I increasingly distrust waldenponders is that this simultaneous attribution of mastermind evilness AND bumbling incompetence to adversaries is a sign of cult-like and authoritarian thinking.
2
36
It's a recurrent theme in tech criticism, and I think driven by desire to create an enemy compelling enough to motivate true believers. It is much harder to simply treat them as just regular people running regular businesses, trying to make $. Bond villains are more fun.
1
18
Designers are as subject to emergent dynamics as users. But let's also talk about how any particular notion of "humanistic" values is highly specific and driven by a typically bad-faith assumed consensus. I am NOT likely to agree with you about what "humanistic values" are.
2
13
There are going to be a 1000 different ideas of "humanistic values" that platforms "should" conform to. How do we sort them out? Maybe we need *gasp* a systemic interaction model where all actors can contend? Sure, some have more agency than others. Welcome to humanity.
1
3
I'd rather trust my ability to surf the emergent behavior created by algorithms whose effects are only partly within the design-intention authority of owners, and figure out how to harmonize with it.
1
6
Don't forget: things like employment and ownership status matter far less than actual agency. A special interest group that uses shaming and pressure tactics to enforce a UI or data rights feature is just another group of engineers pushing their algorithms onto the rest of us.
1
9
The fact that they are on paper "solving" for something other than money or engagement does NOT mean they are morally superior, better at designing emergent effects, or actually capable of acting in the emergent best interests of everybody.
1
10
If the solution to "bad" algorithms is "good" algorithms by people who set themselves up as the arbiters of good and bad, we're right back where we started, having to decide whether or not we trust makers of algorithms. Checks and balances are nice, but there are no saints here.
2
12
This is what increasingly pisses me off: the presumptive, holier-than-thou patronizing assumption that "we know better than you who is good and evil, and let us, the good guys, play policeman and rein in the capitalists, the bad guys, who only want your $ and engagement"
5
15
Replying to
This makes complete sense, although I don't quite share the pissed-off reaction. All I’m truly, selfishly interested in is whether graph mind is going to help my kids live their best life or not. If it will, I feel good participating, cos I enjoy doing so! If not, I feel icky.
1
1
Replying to
And that's really all you need to navigate graph minds. It's not an alien superhuman monster that is mind-controlling you. You already have much of the agency required to manage your use of these services.
Replying to
For sure. I mean, I'm not afraid of being mind-controlled, simply of contributing IQ to a collective that is working away indifferently on a plane in which people truly don't/can't matter. Agency+power+idiotic indifference frightens me a little. That fear maybe misplaced here?
1
Replying to
I think the point that both you and the harsher critics are missing is that YOU have the opportunity to try and grok where the graph mind is headed and looking for ways to generatively participate. The indifference has 2 sides to it. If you genuinely see nothing there, walk away.
2
Show replies