7 ms·

<<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government

<<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?

bamboozeell 3y ago
I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing. I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.
  - bamboozeell 3y ago
    What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does? >if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.
    - hfuyf65 3y ago
      <<What's so precious about "data"? No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher. < People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. < Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check? It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.
      - bamboozeell 3y ago
        >No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. Yet there are plenty of other ways to get "data", that until recently were the only ways to get data, that are relatively heavily censored and controlled. We didn't complain that libraries didn't give unfettered access to all information, or that we were not able to start a conversation with an aribtrary human. It's a crucial part of my argment that, thanks to the presentation of (hugely more) data on the internet, it's not possible for even the recipient to understand what's precious and what is not. Take a look around you at people consuming content on the internet. Is that "precious" data? >Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. Interesting take, given that the largely US-centric internet technolgies are being used to push a largely US-centric view of the world on the rest of the world. >Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? I would not be permitted, as an app developer where I live, to develop something like TikTok and allow kids of all ages free access to (in my opinion) mind poison. Again in my opinion, it's an insane state of things where we allow things we know are bad from external sources to be freely used and accessed. I also think this time will be remembered like we remember the late 1800s, where newly-discovered potent drugs were widely and legally distributed.

<<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?

bamboozeell 3y ago

I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".

hfuyf65 3y ago
In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing. I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.
- bamboozeell 3y ago
  What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does? >if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.
  - hfuyf65 3y ago
    <<What's so precious about "data"? No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher. < People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. < Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check? It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.
    - bamboozeell 3y ago
      >No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. Yet there are plenty of other ways to get "data", that until recently were the only ways to get data, that are relatively heavily censored and controlled. We didn't complain that libraries didn't give unfettered access to all information, or that we were not able to start a conversation with an aribtrary human. It's a crucial part of my argment that, thanks to the presentation of (hugely more) data on the internet, it's not possible for even the recipient to understand what's precious and what is not. Take a look around you at people consuming content on the internet. Is that "precious" data? >Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. Interesting take, given that the largely US-centric internet technolgies are being used to push a largely US-centric view of the world on the rest of the world. >Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? I would not be permitted, as an app developer where I live, to develop something like TikTok and allow kids of all ages free access to (in my opinion) mind poison. Again in my opinion, it's an insane state of things where we allow things we know are bad from external sources to be freely used and accessed. I also think this time will be remembered like we remember the late 1800s, where newly-discovered potent drugs were widely and legally distributed.