> We should keep talking about the issues and improving things, but don't throw out the baby with bathwater.
Yeah, I wonder what solution people propose that claim that Wikipedia is 'hijacked' or 'compromised' and pushing agendas?
While Wikipedia is not perfect, it is the best encyclopedia we currently have, mostly due to collective efforts and maintainers that care about the state of Wikipedia. I would even say that it is a good thing that there is this transparency, that states and capital are trying to influence Wikipedia because then you know that you may take some articles with a grain of salt or can actively push against it.
Every alternative to Wikipedia that I have seen so far is one that claims to be more truthful than the original, but in the end these are platforms that push agendas without the transparency and attempt to further obscure power relations under the pretext of truth.
Every alternative to Wikipedia will have to solve the problems that Wikipedia already has to be a better alternative. However, I do think these are fundamental unsolvable problems
and everyone who claims to have solved this is part of a power struggle over who defines what is considered true.
More transparency around the admins and the hierarchy above it would be a good start, as would some kind of countervailing pressure to the ballooning of meta rules (bylaws). For instance:
- Oppose the "Super Mario" effect: if admins do something ordinary users would get banned for, they get banned too, they don't just lose their admin title.
- Implement restrictions on Arb Com to make it worthy of its "supreme court" moniker. Provide prior notice, allow representation, access to evidence ahead of the case, and require the Arb Com to disclose the logic of any automated scripts they use for mass judging (e.g. counting proportion of edits being reverts, or that counts every change to a reference as "reference vandalism"). Grant defendants the ability to force the Committee's judgment to be disclosed to the public, with PII redacted if necessary.
- Require that precedent be recorded for unclear meta rules: what counts as a violation of e.g. canvassing? When do reversions become evidence or proof of "ownership"?
- Create an independent appeals body for Arb Com decisions. Like the Arb Com itself, the logic or source code for any scripts they use to aid their decisions, should be public. Ideally, choose the independent appeals body by different means than the Arb Com itself is chosen, e.g. by random selection of users with a certain activity level, independent of the ordinary admin track.
- Grant all users the right to be forgotten (courtesy vanishing), not just users in good standing, so that users bullied off the platform can remove their proverbial stockade.
- Create a mechanism that forces rules to be refactored or reduced in scope. Just spitballing, one possible way might be to limit the growth of any given WP: page per unit time, require negative growth for some of them, or in some way reward editors who reduce their extent.
There may be fundamental unsolvable problems, but that doesn't mean the current system can't be improved.
It is a great example of the shaping of opinions the OP claims Wikipedia suffers from. It is a textbook example of the way the detractors of Wikipedia comport themselves.
Accuse the site of of exactly what you’re doing at this exact moment.
>In both of these cases (and in others), the harms are there for children and adults, but it’s only children who get banned.
>I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults.
>If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful or for geopolitical reasons, fine. But ban it universally; if we’re not willing to do that, stop pretending that a child-only ban is principled. A child-only ban is what you do when you want to do something but can’t think of anything better to do, and you don’t want to impact voters.
There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users, especially children and adolescents. Even Meta has kept a study on this topic under wraps. What OP is doing here is putting adults and children on the same level and saying that what applies to children must also apply to adults. The difference, however, is that we as adults have a responsibility toward children. Children enjoy special protection in society and, for good reason, are subject to limited criminal liability. We do this because we assume that children belong to a vulnerable and easily influenced group, and lack the mental and moral maturity to adequately assess their actions. We assume that adults have the necessary mental and moral maturity to adequately assess the consequences of their own actions, which is why they are granted more rights but also more responsibilities than children. OP does not reveal any contradiction or other ‘gotcha’ moment here, unless he generally takes issue with the relationship of responsibility between adults and adolescents.
> There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users
Yes, but the point of the article is compared to what.
I feel negative after 15 minutes on twitter (depending on the topic, of course), but I feel far less negative than if I'd tried getting similar info from legacy sources (10x slower, and with 10x the suits, lipstick, and ads).
The point isn't that social media are supposed to make users feel good, but that they're important information tools - a window to the world - and the alternatives - ignorance or less diverse more bloated sources - aren't the answer.
The solution isn't banning; it's the same as what we do with every single other useful but potentially dangerous thing: fires, pools, beaches.. - education. Perhaps secondary school could have modules for how to responsibly use social media, set and manage expectations/anxiety, when to use it (some people recommend not before sleep etc).
Banning only removes upside and delays downside. Education lessens/removes downside altogether with full upside.
It is broadly accepted that you cannot educate a toddler or even young child to expect them to be able to self control all the time due to lack of brain development (frontal cortex or what have you).
But what if a significant portion or maybe even all humans’ brains never get to the point where all supernormal stimuli can be educated against, and it is just an inherent mechanical weakness?
Is that not just slippery slope? If supernormal stimuli are broadcast across a population and we are helpless to prevent mind control then sure we should probably ban that. If the argument then is “yes but that’s exactly what TikTok is”. Well the US did actually manage to muster the political will to ban that for everyone. Of course it’s not being enforced because of reasons but it does seem like if the population believes they are being mind controlled the will is there.
Yes, this is a classic example of a programmer (or data scientist in this case) believing their expertise in one areas generalises to topics which they don't fully understand.
The great thing about the internet for now is that anyone can chime in, but anytime you find yourself wiring something like "I don't see why", it may be time for a deeper dive to see if the why is well founded.
Essentially, gatekeeping. Places that are hard to access without the knowledge or special software, places that are invite-only, places that need special hardware...
Or places with a terminally uncool reputation. I'm still on Tumblr, and it's actually quite nice these days, mostly because "everyone knows" that Tumblr is passé, so all the clout-chasers, spammers and angry political discoursers abandoned it. It's nice living, under the radar.
Or a place that can influence a captive audience. Bots have been known to play a part in convincing people of one thing over another via the comments section. No direct money to be made there but shifting opinions can lead to sales, eventually. Or prevent sales for your competitors.
I don't doubt this, however, the question is if AI will do this in our life-time. The industrialization has led to prosperity in the long term, but initially it led primarily to the proletarianization of the people. Are you willing to accept a devaluation of your skills and a decline in your prosperity so that in 50 to 100 years there is a chance that AI will lead to a better future?
Some people will answer without being asked. The most we will get out of that is that the word "saboteur" will get a more modern synonym (not sure what it will be, but the inventor of cheap EMP granades will have the biggest say in that). The future will, of course, steamroll over such answers, as it always did, but we'll all feel the bumps on the way.
> I think Bavaria developed their own Linux distro instead of using an established one
Yes, with all their configs, packages and certifications that were needed. Not really a problem.
> It failed horrendously
Because Microsoft came in, promised to relocate their HQ to Munich, and surprise, it was decided to come back to Windows. This was after reports found that although it took longer than expected, adoption was widespread (only a small minority of desktops remained on Windows for the few Windows specific apps they had), things were working well, user happyness was good, stability was good, and tons of taxpayer money had been saved.
> Well yes, but that doesn't mean we want EU surveillance to replace it.
I agree, but what choice do we have? If we look at the way things are going, we see that the US is expanding its surveillance apparatus, China is expanding its surveillance apparatus, Russia is expanding its surveillance apparatus and the EU is following suit. Or at least is trying to, because previous attempts to implement surveillance policies have tended to reveal the incompetence of our representatives. Even leaving the EU is no guarantee that we will not become a surveillance state, as seen in the UK.
The only way to circumvent surveillance is to create and use communication channels where the government nor companies have any influence.
> Congress has become a radical leftist politics playground
Which is fucking based. Being a radical leftist should be normalized even more and people like you need to be driven out of _every_ fucking public space.
> But his politics centers around the moral failings of the West so I think yes, if he was involved in the sexual exploitation of trafficked children, then this would devalue his criticism of the morality of the Western political system.
Why would it devalue his criticism assuming he was right?
Moral arguments for me don’t stand alone like a mathematical proof or scientific findings which can be examined as some sort of platonic form.
Morality arguments are social and contextual. That 2+2 is 4 won’t change and captures some sort of eternal truth while what is deemed moral is constantly changing over time and differs across different societies and social groupings.
So morality arguments require and appeal to a particular shared sense of right and wrong. If Chomsky was guilty of sexually abusing children, then I do not share his moral foundation and so his appeals to morality arguments do not convince me.
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with Chomsky on specific points.
It’s about the validity and strength of his arguments. I could continue to agree with Chomsky on some point but now dismissing his argument.
Or if I was undecided about how to judge something in terms of morality, then yes, if Chomsky was proven to have sexually abused trafficked children, I might skip consulting Chomsky on the matter.
To be honest, I don’t know where you’re trying to go with this line. It feels like you think you have some “gotcha” you feel ready to spring and will keep asking these opaque questions until you think you see an opportunity.
Why not just lay out your argument transparently and I can engage?
Or state exactly what it is about my claim that appeals to morality made by immoral people are less convincing than those made by moral people that you disagree with? Forgot about Chomsky - it has nothing specifically to do with him.
Yeah, I wonder what solution people propose that claim that Wikipedia is 'hijacked' or 'compromised' and pushing agendas? While Wikipedia is not perfect, it is the best encyclopedia we currently have, mostly due to collective efforts and maintainers that care about the state of Wikipedia. I would even say that it is a good thing that there is this transparency, that states and capital are trying to influence Wikipedia because then you know that you may take some articles with a grain of salt or can actively push against it. Every alternative to Wikipedia that I have seen so far is one that claims to be more truthful than the original, but in the end these are platforms that push agendas without the transparency and attempt to further obscure power relations under the pretext of truth.
Every alternative to Wikipedia will have to solve the problems that Wikipedia already has to be a better alternative. However, I do think these are fundamental unsolvable problems and everyone who claims to have solved this is part of a power struggle over who defines what is considered true.
reply