Center for Humane Technology(humanetech.com) |
Center for Humane Technology(humanetech.com) |
Today many people have a super computer in their pocket, but 99% do nothing creative with this power. [1]
TV, Radio, Books we've always seen the potential to amplify humanity early in roll-out of the technology, but eventually settle on the lowest common denominator as human behavior gravitates towards self-indulgence and entertainment.
We should try to curb corporate abuses, but I don't expect a shift in how the masses use technology.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
But then my cynicism kicks in and I imagine them each spending days on facebook and watching cat videos.
> Today many people have a super computer in their pocket, but 99% do nothing creative with this power. [1]
That's apples to oranges.
Moreover people don't have computers in their pockets. They have smartphones to keep in touch, read the news, the feeds, listening to music and snapping photos. They don't see it as a computer because/and it's not marketed as such.
While it mentions uBlock in their list of recommended apps, it does not seem to give ad-blocking much importance with a dedicated description. At least in this list it seems less important than, e.g. "go grayscale". The countermeasures subpage does not even mention ads.
They might as well say "We are your betters and you should live how we think is best for you"
Maybe I like the YouTube feature that autostreams the next video. It's like they didn't even consider that maybe not everyone wants to live exactly their way.
They even go so far as "We are advising governments on smart policies and better user protections." Please save me from the Youtube autostreaming feature! Please save me from looking at my friends' selfies on Instagram.
Jesus Christ people.
Unfortunately by exploiting people's psychologies, what people want and what people do become very different things for some.
For example, it's currently not possible to turn off youtube's autoplay feature on some devices. This is a practice that could be deemed unethical.
Of course, as an adult, I can actively seek out forms of improving my self control and getting out of habit loops, but children are not educated in these subjects and need to seek them out themselves. They could be taught these subjects in school.
These are just some areas that governments could help with that could potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without infringing on what anyone wants to do with software.
Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next video? Are you serious?
Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?
Snapchat does add the metric of conversation streaks, but _that isnt the point_ and it's honestly not enough to keep me using it. I like snapchat cuz I like seeing people's faces or the random things that they are seeing.
This is a stupid initiative.
All we have is our life. Some people feel that they waste theirs on platforms like Snapchat and they're powerless to stop. I don't think that for those people this initiative is stupid.
This is reductive. The government should be involved in preventing practices that harm consumers. Some consumers would find that they can't help themselves from watching endless videos. And no, they should not be involved in whether it autoplays. They should be involved in allowing OPTIONS deciding whether it autoplays. This was just an example. Why should the government not help consumers who feel harmed in a way that would not impact others just because you wouldn't find a use for it?
"Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?"
This is also a reductive. I have only named one area the government should be involved in. I am not a statist. There is a clear harm caused by certain practices which exploit the behavioural instincts of humans. I think there is enough harm to warrant government involvement to protect consumers.
The fact that there is a gap between who people want to be and the choices they make is not a disputed fact.
Without it, we would have no concept of shame, motivation, or self improvement.
Further, it's not disputed that companies have now been studying and exploiting the mechanisms of human behavioural triggers for the better part of a century now (just look into the history of advertising strategies).
Outright banning is not what I would want, and I would hope that it isn't what anyone would want. It's about giving MORE people the freedom to use software how they want. Options to control their use of software should they need it. Education for children on these exploitation techniques in order to protect them from it. Not banning anything.