I like this. I probably won't read the book because the points I'm understanding from this interview are basically what I already think, but I do wish that more people were exposed to these ideas....
I like this. I probably won't read the book because the points I'm understanding from this interview are basically what I already think, but I do wish that more people were exposed to these ideas.
I liked this quote in particular:
My philosophy of why social media are so terrible is just basic economics. And I’m not sure that counts as philosophy — though there is lively debate about that. And so it’s the economics that underlies the addiction, and the addiction that results from nothing more than gamification. In the end, “likes” are points, “likes” are the same as getting free guides, or whatever, even if you’ve moved on to the kind of video game that is less focused on hand-eye coordination, and more focused on, say, slow strategic maneuvering. It’s still “debate-themed” rather than debate. And this is a real problem because there’s no other game in town.
It's still important to understand that even if the state of social media is essentially simulacra of debate, it still feels real enough to change people's minds. And that's what's absolutely crazy about the state of online conversation; you know that you're not going to change the mind of the person you're debating, but you have to debate them or risk the passers-by assimilating falsehoods as knowledge.
And I think Smith is right to blame this on economics. The places that epitomize this kind of conversations are the large platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and anything else with hundreds of thousands of concurrent users, and it's easy to see the line between engagement and monetization; they wouldn't make as much money if they had to care about genuine debate. There are smaller platforms where legitimate discourse is valued, but unfortunately because they are such small players it's hard even within them to find people who are openly willing to change their mind if presented with a better argument.
I think what’s even worse is that the styles of discourse adapted to the “debate simulation” in social media are pretty habit forming. So you often see people bringing that way of interacting with...
I think what’s even worse is that the styles of discourse adapted to the “debate simulation” in social media are pretty habit forming. So you often see people bringing that way of interacting with them even in places that aren’t so gamified. Like I can pretty much spot when a person spend a lot of time on Reddit or Twitter by how they discuss things, cope with disagreement, or what kinds of examples and references they drop.
So there’s no escaping it. Even if you try to build a healthy space you’re not starting from zero you have to fight against the tide.
Many have diagnosed these symptoms and proposed policy solutions, but few have done the hard work of rummaging around in the internet’s history to find the roots of the problems — and almost none have taken a truly long view. In The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is, Justin E. H. Smith, a philosopher and historian of science, argues that we’ve been much too narrow-minded in our understanding of the internet. In presenting a longue durée history, he challenges our assumptions about what the internet is and what we’re doing when we’re on it. Only by understanding the internet’s long history — by understanding the circumstances in which the internet’s many parts were conceived — can we, he claims, take back control of our lives and shape the internet in a way more conducive to human flourishing.
I like this. I probably won't read the book because the points I'm understanding from this interview are basically what I already think, but I do wish that more people were exposed to these ideas.
I liked this quote in particular:
It's still important to understand that even if the state of social media is essentially simulacra of debate, it still feels real enough to change people's minds. And that's what's absolutely crazy about the state of online conversation; you know that you're not going to change the mind of the person you're debating, but you have to debate them or risk the passers-by assimilating falsehoods as knowledge.
And I think Smith is right to blame this on economics. The places that epitomize this kind of conversations are the large platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and anything else with hundreds of thousands of concurrent users, and it's easy to see the line between engagement and monetization; they wouldn't make as much money if they had to care about genuine debate. There are smaller platforms where legitimate discourse is valued, but unfortunately because they are such small players it's hard even within them to find people who are openly willing to change their mind if presented with a better argument.
I think what’s even worse is that the styles of discourse adapted to the “debate simulation” in social media are pretty habit forming. So you often see people bringing that way of interacting with them even in places that aren’t so gamified. Like I can pretty much spot when a person spend a lot of time on Reddit or Twitter by how they discuss things, cope with disagreement, or what kinds of examples and references they drop.
So there’s no escaping it. Even if you try to build a healthy space you’re not starting from zero you have to fight against the tide.