Daniel, thanks for this post. I follow your blog for science and technology news, but this post wes very good as well.
From my personal perspective, although I largely agree with you on the echo chambers, I’m asking you to consider who is trying to ban the speech they disagree with, today? Living in Canada, are you familiar with terms ‘de-platforming’ and ‘hate speech’?
although I largely agree with you on the echo chambers, I’m asking you to consider who is trying to ban the speech they disagree with, today? Living in Canada, are you familiar with terms ‘de-platforming’ and ‘hate speech’?
I am not encouraging you to follow Nazis or Islamist terrorists. Not that it is would be intrinsically wrong, but I suspect that it could get very tiresome. Hateful people are not fun.
The ‘hate speech’ laws, at least in Canada, cover really fringe cases. They basically do not exist in the US.
I think that ‘de-platforming’ is ultimately self-defeating. The ACLU agrees with me. I am not super concerned by it, I just don’t think it does what people think it does. So let me take an example. UofT prof. Peterson was prevented from talking at McMaster (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-president-calls-for-commitment-to-academic-freedom-after-derailed-debate-1.4036099). Fine. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Peterson is hateful (not a statement I am making). Peterson’s videos have been viewed millions of times on YouTube. He is funded by donations. He has a tenured job. Assuming that you are trying to silence Peterson with good reasons (not a statement I am making), what do you think his ‘de-platforming’ achieved? Nothing. Nothing at all.
All this does is to reinforce bubbles. You ought to listen to Peterson, Chomsky, and so forth. Critically, of course.
I often not agree with you, but not in this case. Personally, I keep a couple a right winger in my facebook feed just for that. This also bring lefties in contact to them.
Bubble is less an issue in twitter and it is easy to get into a though bubble by accident by making a innocent remark.
I think the point is also to follow people who make sense from the other side. Why (sensible) people don’t follow the other side is, they don’t really find such people in their vicinity? Like, how would I go about finding someone who has opposing views as me but isn’t talking utter bs or just sharing meme’s. Which kinda zeroes on to what you talked about, having technologies which harnesses this open type interaction than what we have now
Davidsays:
I’m interested on how political bubbles would lower empathy. You don’t address it directly and I find it’s an interesting hypothesis.
Jonathan Taylorsays:
Interesting post – I would agree with you overall. I am a contrarian living (largely) with people who are conventional left-liberals, and I find it frustrating that they think the mainstream liberal media represent reality in its entirety. They also tend to join groups and read internet postings that confirm their beliefs, ignoring and dismissing anyone who dares to disagree. I suppose the inverse is likely true of conservatives, though I know so few that I can’t be sure.
I found it curious that you disabled commentary on your most controversial post this month: the take-down of James Damore. Seems a little like you’re falling into the very trap you describe in this posting: the desire not to find oneself the subject of strong disagreement. Perhaps this is just human nature.
Seems a little like you’re falling into the very trap you describe in this posting: the desire not to find oneself the subject of strong disagreement. Perhaps this is just human nature.
Please feel free to elaborate on what causes you to “strongly disagree” with this earlier blog post where I explain that Damore needed to be fired.
Daniel, thanks for this post. I follow your blog for science and technology news, but this post wes very good as well.
From my personal perspective, although I largely agree with you on the echo chambers, I’m asking you to consider who is trying to ban the speech they disagree with, today? Living in Canada, are you familiar with terms ‘de-platforming’ and ‘hate speech’?
Best, Jamie
although I largely agree with you on the echo chambers, I’m asking you to consider who is trying to ban the speech they disagree with, today? Living in Canada, are you familiar with terms ‘de-platforming’ and ‘hate speech’?
I am not encouraging you to follow Nazis or Islamist terrorists. Not that it is would be intrinsically wrong, but I suspect that it could get very tiresome. Hateful people are not fun.
The ‘hate speech’ laws, at least in Canada, cover really fringe cases. They basically do not exist in the US.
I think that ‘de-platforming’ is ultimately self-defeating. The ACLU agrees with me. I am not super concerned by it, I just don’t think it does what people think it does. So let me take an example. UofT prof. Peterson was prevented from talking at McMaster (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-president-calls-for-commitment-to-academic-freedom-after-derailed-debate-1.4036099). Fine. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Peterson is hateful (not a statement I am making). Peterson’s videos have been viewed millions of times on YouTube. He is funded by donations. He has a tenured job. Assuming that you are trying to silence Peterson with good reasons (not a statement I am making), what do you think his ‘de-platforming’ achieved? Nothing. Nothing at all.
All this does is to reinforce bubbles. You ought to listen to Peterson, Chomsky, and so forth. Critically, of course.
Don’t narrow down to your niche.
I often not agree with you, but not in this case. Personally, I keep a couple a right winger in my facebook feed just for that. This also bring lefties in contact to them.
Bubble is less an issue in twitter and it is easy to get into a though bubble by accident by making a innocent remark.
I often not agree with you
… so you ought to keep reading me!
I think the point is also to follow people who make sense from the other side. Why (sensible) people don’t follow the other side is, they don’t really find such people in their vicinity? Like, how would I go about finding someone who has opposing views as me but isn’t talking utter bs or just sharing meme’s. Which kinda zeroes on to what you talked about, having technologies which harnesses this open type interaction than what we have now
I’m interested on how political bubbles would lower empathy. You don’t address it directly and I find it’s an interesting hypothesis.
Interesting post – I would agree with you overall. I am a contrarian living (largely) with people who are conventional left-liberals, and I find it frustrating that they think the mainstream liberal media represent reality in its entirety. They also tend to join groups and read internet postings that confirm their beliefs, ignoring and dismissing anyone who dares to disagree. I suppose the inverse is likely true of conservatives, though I know so few that I can’t be sure.
I found it curious that you disabled commentary on your most controversial post this month: the take-down of James Damore. Seems a little like you’re falling into the very trap you describe in this posting: the desire not to find oneself the subject of strong disagreement. Perhaps this is just human nature.
Jonathan refers to this post:
https://lemire.me/blog/2017/08/18/damore-google-my-thoughts/
I don’t view it as controversial.
Please feel free to elaborate on what causes you to “strongly disagree” with this earlier blog post where I explain that Damore needed to be fired.
I’m not exactly hard to reach.