4 ms·

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Amezarak 8d ago
Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public harmony, not liberalism.
- _ink_ 8d ago
  Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.
  - Amezarak 8d ago
    Right. So instead, a central authority determines what is true or not and therefore what is allowed to be published. Easy - there’s clearly a neutral arbiter of truth we can all depend on! So the problem was never that the algorithm let people see content that was depressing and anxiety-inducing - that’s okay - but when it does so and it’s not true. How the goalposts move. You’re right back to what authoritarian states say and do, and diametrically opposed to what underpins liberal democracy: the idea that the demos decides what is true and good. That idea has lots of very obvious problems but we decided it was preferable to the other systems, one of which you are now advocating for. In a liberal democracy we all are responsible for persuading the people that lies are lies, not censoring them. If you believe that the Algorithm is just too powerful and you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas against people lying - well, you don’t believe in liberal democracy. You believe in an ideologically authoritarian state that tells you what’s true or not, and where people are not allowed to make free, (un)informed decisions.
- ModernMech 8d ago
  We're not talking about the government and authorities, we're talking about Facebook. The government showing people information that makes them anxious and depressed isn't the same as a for-profit entity intentionally tailoring individual feeds to maximize people's specific anxieties and depression because they discovered it generates billions of dollars, allowing their executives to live in opulent luxury floating on mega yachts. That whole thing isn't a part of liberal democracy.
  - Amezarak 8d ago
    OK, so who is deciding what information makes people “anxious and depressed” and therefore what Facebook is allowed to republish in feeds? Would it be reasonable for Facebook to censor all information about the climate emergency to protect people from feelings of anxiety and depression, even if they engage with it?

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Amezarak 8d ago

Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public harmony, not liberalism.

_ink_ 8d ago
Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.
- Amezarak 8d ago
  Right. So instead, a central authority determines what is true or not and therefore what is allowed to be published. Easy - there’s clearly a neutral arbiter of truth we can all depend on! So the problem was never that the algorithm let people see content that was depressing and anxiety-inducing - that’s okay - but when it does so and it’s not true. How the goalposts move. You’re right back to what authoritarian states say and do, and diametrically opposed to what underpins liberal democracy: the idea that the demos decides what is true and good. That idea has lots of very obvious problems but we decided it was preferable to the other systems, one of which you are now advocating for. In a liberal democracy we all are responsible for persuading the people that lies are lies, not censoring them. If you believe that the Algorithm is just too powerful and you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas against people lying - well, you don’t believe in liberal democracy. You believe in an ideologically authoritarian state that tells you what’s true or not, and where people are not allowed to make free, (un)informed decisions.
ModernMech 8d ago
We're not talking about the government and authorities, we're talking about Facebook. The government showing people information that makes them anxious and depressed isn't the same as a for-profit entity intentionally tailoring individual feeds to maximize people's specific anxieties and depression because they discovered it generates billions of dollars, allowing their executives to live in opulent luxury floating on mega yachts. That whole thing isn't a part of liberal democracy.
- Amezarak 8d ago
  OK, so who is deciding what information makes people “anxious and depressed” and therefore what Facebook is allowed to republish in feeds? Would it be reasonable for Facebook to censor all information about the climate emergency to protect people from feelings of anxiety and depression, even if they engage with it?