Wrong. It is a lack of access to information. Good luck trying to find something useful on the modern Internet.
Yes, in the mid-late 90s Internet was making people cleverer. Because we didn’t have kids, influencers, politicians and activists on the Internet. It was a source of technical information managed by technical specialists. It was a good time. And you destroyed it.
More specifically, the internet failed because society decided to dedicate an entire generation of the world’s most brilliant minds to the problem of ad optimization. This directly led to the modern clickbait/ragebait disinformation problem.
If we had just taken those same engineers and said to solve any other problem, it would’ve been done ages ago.
Wrong. Having been in group chats with people
I know are real and have been debunked consistently since 2020, it doesn’t matter. 80% of people pick their reality based on feels, and 30% are straight up fascists.
In the mid 90s the internet was composed primarily of the 20% of the pop who are capable of reflection.
In the 90s chat rooms/forums were a cesspool, just as they are today. But the web, while rough around the edges in terms of design/organization (hence the need for search engines) was great for information. Vast majority of websites had good intentions. That is not the case today.
Vibes based on my special interest in personalities/psychology as I’m on the other end of the scale and have been trying to figure out the feelers all my life.
Not discounting them either btw. But undoubtedly they have a blind spot for pish as how an argument makes them feel supersedes objectivity.
Debunking is fruitless. Even if you can prove something objectively as a lie and get them to admit it, it won’t change their wider ideology or make them question the source going forward. Can just be explained away and ignored.
People above average intelligence also overestimate the mentally capacity of the average person. They can’t evaluate information so what other choice do they have. Few weeks ago a friend tried to tell us smoking a vape was just smoking a battery. Not speaking figuratively. When pushed on this she said ‘look how small it is! you’re smoking the battery’. Explanations on how a battery heats the coil and vaporises the liquid were met with a blank stare. Can you imagine having that little understanding on how the world around you works? Blows my mind.
Yes, in the mid-late 90s Internet was making people cleverer. Because we didn’t have kids, influencers, politicians and activists on the Internet.
As a former child who was on the internet in the mid to late 90s, this is news to me ;p Come on, eternal September was in ‘93!
Activists on the internet are at least as old as Usenet, as well.
It kind of sounds like this is a list of people you don’t like using the internet, not people who actually made the internet worse (like business majors and programmers that turned every website into SEO mush).
Wrong. It is a lack of access to information. Good luck trying to find something useful on the modern Internet.
Yes, in the mid-late 90s Internet was making people cleverer. Because we didn’t have kids, influencers, politicians and activists on the Internet. It was a source of technical information managed by technical specialists. It was a good time. And you destroyed it.
this is a dumb take. the existence of wrong information doesn’t negate the existence of good information on the same medium. it’s like saying “i can’t improve my physical fitness because i can’t go to a gym,” while ignoring the possibility of bodyweight exercise at home. the access is there, people just don’t want to put in any work and want to blame something other than themselves.
so no, it’s not a lack of access to information that’s causing widespread stupidity. case in point: maga–how many of us have been outright shouting that trump is a conman, and here’s the literal proof–the information, which is good, is right there. and yet people still choose to death threaten dr. fauci because they “don’t like” the good information.
the existence of wrong information doesn’t negate the existence of good information on the same medium.
When there are no proper ways to sift through and structure that information, it kind of does, but your point overall is still not wrong, just this part I think misses part of the picture.
people just don’t want to put in any work and want to blame something other than themselves.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
case in point: maga–how many of us have been outright shouting that trump is a conman, and here’s the literal proof–the information, which is good, is right there. and yet people still choose to death threaten dr. fauci because they “don’t like” the good information.
That, however, very much stands. The original vision really, really thought that truth and quality would win out in a “marketplace of ideas”. However, narcissistic appeasement and a combination of humiliating and then making people feel powerful by proxy wins out, especially considering there is no guiding consensus.
Availability to information is important, and that includes making it possible to sift through the mountains of nonsense, including teaching how to spot nonsense. But on top of that, it requires a solid foundation for society, and a consensus to direct what is true and what not (science, functioning professional journalism, etc.) Otherwise, when there is no consensus guiding towards (but not setting completely in stone) “truth”, it will always be whatever is emotionally convenient from individual to individual - and the dynamics of the system will favour information that both panders to narcissistic self-affirmation (not necessarily positive emotions), as well as beating you down in a way that you crave those from your ego being made fragile to begin with.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
true, nothing can be that simple. it boils down to education imo, where people should be learning, beginning in childhood, how to make good decisions about what information can be considered plausible, and what is more likely to be agenda-driven propaganda. but as you said, we have to deal with a large and powerful group of puppetmasters who don’t want people questioning what they’re told and cutting the strings that make them work and toil day in and out because that could lead to people deciding to not produce X value while getting compensated with some ten thousandth of a percentage of X
Yeah, but it’s the equivalent of gyms opening a ficking McDonalds inside so you have to work out in the smell.
The thing is, while it might be good enough for some people to find information, people on average get distracted and scammed by the efforts to scam and distract people.
right, so if you want to argue propaganda, not access, is the cause of stupidity, that would be more valid than saying “people are stupid because they lack access to information.” the premise is wrong
Wrong. It is a lack of access to information. Good luck trying to find something useful on the modern Internet.
Yes, in the mid-late 90s Internet was making people cleverer. Because we didn’t have kids, influencers, politicians and activists on the Internet. It was a source of technical information managed by technical specialists. It was a good time. And you destroyed it.
Internet became bad when it got controlled by engagement seeking corporations.
More specifically, the internet failed because society decided to dedicate an entire generation of the world’s most brilliant minds to the problem of ad optimization. This directly led to the modern clickbait/ragebait disinformation problem.
If we had just taken those same engineers and said to solve any other problem, it would’ve been done ages ago.
I think the problem stems of the fact that google was convinced in 2000 that the internet needs to make money to keep being developed.
And that belief is primarily inspired by neoliberal belief that everything needs to make money.
However, information should be free. And so should the internet.
In a way… Nothing new under the sun
Wrong. Having been in group chats with people I know are real and have been debunked consistently since 2020, it doesn’t matter. 80% of people pick their reality based on feels, and 30% are straight up fascists.
In the mid 90s the internet was composed primarily of the 20% of the pop who are capable of reflection.
In the 90s chat rooms/forums were a cesspool, just as they are today. But the web, while rough around the edges in terms of design/organization (hence the need for search engines) was great for information. Vast majority of websites had good intentions. That is not the case today.
How did we determine the percentage based on feels?
It’s feels all the way down.
but thoughts all the way up. ;-)
Vibes are acceptable if they’re not taking priority over real data.
Vibes based on my special interest in personalities/psychology as I’m on the other end of the scale and have been trying to figure out the feelers all my life.
Not discounting them either btw. But undoubtedly they have a blind spot for pish as how an argument makes them feel supersedes objectivity.
Debunking is fruitless. Even if you can prove something objectively as a lie and get them to admit it, it won’t change their wider ideology or make them question the source going forward. Can just be explained away and ignored.
People above average intelligence also overestimate the mentally capacity of the average person. They can’t evaluate information so what other choice do they have. Few weeks ago a friend tried to tell us smoking a vape was just smoking a battery. Not speaking figuratively. When pushed on this she said ‘look how small it is! you’re smoking the battery’. Explanations on how a battery heats the coil and vaporises the liquid were met with a blank stare. Can you imagine having that little understanding on how the world around you works? Blows my mind.
As a former child who was on the internet in the mid to late 90s, this is news to me ;p Come on, eternal September was in ‘93!
Activists on the internet are at least as old as Usenet, as well.
It kind of sounds like this is a list of people you don’t like using the internet, not people who actually made the internet worse (like business majors and programmers that turned every website into SEO mush).
this is a dumb take. the existence of wrong information doesn’t negate the existence of good information on the same medium. it’s like saying “i can’t improve my physical fitness because i can’t go to a gym,” while ignoring the possibility of bodyweight exercise at home. the access is there, people just don’t want to put in any work and want to blame something other than themselves.
so no, it’s not a lack of access to information that’s causing widespread stupidity. case in point: maga–how many of us have been outright shouting that trump is a conman, and here’s the literal proof–the information, which is good, is right there. and yet people still choose to death threaten dr. fauci because they “don’t like” the good information.
When there are no proper ways to sift through and structure that information, it kind of does, but your point overall is still not wrong, just this part I think misses part of the picture.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
That, however, very much stands. The original vision really, really thought that truth and quality would win out in a “marketplace of ideas”. However, narcissistic appeasement and a combination of humiliating and then making people feel powerful by proxy wins out, especially considering there is no guiding consensus.
Availability to information is important, and that includes making it possible to sift through the mountains of nonsense, including teaching how to spot nonsense. But on top of that, it requires a solid foundation for society, and a consensus to direct what is true and what not (science, functioning professional journalism, etc.) Otherwise, when there is no consensus guiding towards (but not setting completely in stone) “truth”, it will always be whatever is emotionally convenient from individual to individual - and the dynamics of the system will favour information that both panders to narcissistic self-affirmation (not necessarily positive emotions), as well as beating you down in a way that you crave those from your ego being made fragile to begin with.
true, nothing can be that simple. it boils down to education imo, where people should be learning, beginning in childhood, how to make good decisions about what information can be considered plausible, and what is more likely to be agenda-driven propaganda. but as you said, we have to deal with a large and powerful group of puppetmasters who don’t want people questioning what they’re told and cutting the strings that make them work and toil day in and out because that could lead to people deciding to not produce X value while getting compensated with some ten thousandth of a percentage of X
Yeah, but it’s the equivalent of gyms opening a ficking McDonalds inside so you have to work out in the smell.
The thing is, while it might be good enough for some people to find information, people on average get distracted and scammed by the efforts to scam and distract people.
Propaganda works, that’s why they do it.
right, so if you want to argue propaganda, not access, is the cause of stupidity, that would be more valid than saying “people are stupid because they lack access to information.” the premise is wrong