You say "we" knew but the vast majority of people don't. It's not exactly common knowledge among people I know so it's unsurprising a title for general audiences uses it as a hook.
Scandinavians and historians? This study did not reveal anything which was not taught in school in Sweden in the 90s when I grew up. I guess useful to verify what we knew with even more sources, but there was no new discovery here.
There's a decent amount of non-profit news. I read NPR a lot and donate to them and Propublica. I think one of the big issues is advertising so news you actually pay for is a lot less likely to clickbait you.
There's something "Very HN" to see a comment in a discussion about literal political censorship of the news media pointing out the horrifying hypocrisy in one of those media sources running... something sort of like advertisement.
Is this what kids mean when they tell people to touch grass? My generation would accuse you of having lost the plot.
Being forced to run advertisements because one political party in particular decided being unbeholden to corporate interests is a dangerous thing for a news organization to be.
The issue with quibbling over impact is my experience is that people end up doing neither. I recently started a Master's in ecology so I don't have a good idea of what's cost effective right now but I know the field is pretty shockingly underfunded (both for general research and conservation projects). I learned the "fun" fact recently that bird populations in the US are down ~30% in the last 55 years.
A fair assessment. Doing nothing is not the answer to the risk of doing the wrong thing. It's probably worth some time spent on due diligence when selecting groups to donate to, regardless.
I'm always surprised that papers don't include some "chat" apps as social media. I don't see Discord mentioned in this paper but I use it almost identically to how I used Facebook in like 2010 and at least among people I know that's very common. I think the use cases from more traditional "social media" has migrated a lot back to chat apps and those still provide a lot of value and are more widely used than ever.
Terminology shifted somewhere along the lines, because the nature of sites like Facebook changed. These sites were called "social networking" in the early days, since they connected people. These sites are called "social media" these days, which I assume is a reflection that the top-down nature of these sites are much more like traditional print/radio/television media.
The treatment of chat applications, online forums, etc. as social media has always felt strange to me for that reason. While the companies that offer those services may control the platform, control of interactions is limited to moderation and the content of those interactions is rarely created by a commercial interest.
Yeah, it's too bad. Apparently it only performs well in certain languages: "The model is natively multilingual, achieving strong transcription performance in 13 languages, including English, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese, Russian, German, Japanese, Korean, Italian, and Dutch"
So HN can't do this because I don't think it tracks all clicks but I've been of the opinion for a while that most social media should have the option for posts to not allow people to comment unless they've actually clicked on the link.
like the rest of simple solutions to complex problems suggested by otherwise (seemingly) intelligent people on HN, it simply wouldn't work. do you really not see why?
Are you talking about that people could just click on the link then not actually read it? The thing is that clicking on the link then closing is serves as both a slight barrier to entry targeted at the people who comment without reading and also a reminder that there is an actual article to comment on. It's not going to fix discourse but the theory behind it is to be a slight nudge to get people who don't click to at least consider reading the article (or just not comment) while being an invisible change to people who actually read the article. It's not meant to be a magic fix, it's just some something I would want (though I'm biased since I click on links so there's no downside to me).
I think I've seen sites trying to track outbound clicks recently, has prefetching made that impossible? I don't know the implementation but I've seen the browser sending requests that track clicks while investigating other stuff (idk whether it's working accurately though).
Edit: to be clear, it's not like I've researched this proposal since I don't work for social media companies. It's just a feature I wish I could have on my posts.
There's sadly forced labor within the 'western bubble', too. My experience from working in tech is the bubble is mostly a small set upper middle class people.
As a human it's not like you meet that many people so I think necessarily we have a very myopic view of how the world is. I mean hell, I often don't even know what people I see regularly are going through, there are people I talked to regularly that had severely abusive relationships or were going through a serious illness and it took a while for me to figure out.
You talk about how solar is getting really cheap but electricity costs are actually rising significantly for most people I know (I've had to help friends pay electricity bills recently). I don't know how much of this is data centers but electricity prices are a major worry for a lot of normal people and you can't just handwave it away with "we know how to generate electricity" (there are also other worries like water usage in some areas). I don't hate data centers but the hate for them is based on them seeming to exacerbate what's already a serious worry to people already struggling to afford electricity.
But if electricity prices go up, doesn’t that motivate new generation? Like, it is pretty common to see prices go up, then supply increase, then prices go down.
I'm not an expert but I know that new electric capacity takes a while and often a lot of investment (both in generation but also people forget all the other infrastructure necessary to get it to the right place, new transmission lines especially have been a problem) so both of those factors seem to have kept it high for at least some amount of time and also it's not even guaranteed they will since price increases seem to have been surprisingly sticky across a lot of stuff recently. Also, not to be too glib, but try the "prices will eventually go back down" argument on people who have to make the decision between paying for electricity or food this month and you'll see how well that argument goes over. Financial issues are pretty immediate to the large swaths of American living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Is there a reason you seem to view conscience and confronting facts as seemingly opposed things? Also it seems to me like morality and conscience seem important to argue about, with facts just being part of that argument.
I think that someone interested in discussing facts would not write the phrase "immoral technofascist life". If I took the discussion at face value, I might respond asking for examples of how e.g. Dario Amodei is a "technofascist", but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.
Haha, my experience is people making those sorts of pronouncements will argue literally anything so I definitely wouldn't assume they are uninterested in arguing facts. Though I agree though that arguing with some people is obtuse and you arguing with the original post seems one of those cases.
More my confusion is the person I was responding to complaining about people arguing morality, which seems incredibly important to discuss. Lack of facts obviously makes discussions bad but there's definitely not some dichotomy with discussing morality (at least not with the people I know. My issue has not nearly been as much with people arguing morality, which is often my more productive arguments, and more people with a fundamentally incompatible view on what the facts are).
No see “facts” are what I use to support my worldview, and what you’ve supplied are arguments, and I can discard your arguments through debate, especially because I believe that they’re founded on your feelings (like a silly “conscience”).
When I see the word “facts” used like this, I feel there’s a parallel to the way the word “respect” is used abusively, as outlined in this Tumblr post that has stuck with me for years:
> Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”
> and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
> and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.
The word “facts” can be used abusively, as in “My facts prove my worldview, your “facts” are arguments based on emotion.”
Larry and David Ellison have been buying media outlets and those media outlets have started spiking (or delaying, editing, etc) stories that look bad for Trump. It's not that you don't have access at all, it's that these specific platforms are starting to suppress it.
> It's not that you don't have access at all, it's that these specific platforms are starting to suppress it.
This is the notable example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_CECOT
And it got a Streisand Effect from the attempted scuttling. That doesn't change what they were trying to do, it just means they're not always executing perfectly.
In the long run, they bought out some dying legacy media in CBS and social media has a short half-life. Nobody's saying they're geniuses but it's clear what they're trying to do.
The fact it was released a month later and only after large internal and external pressure (including a Canadian station just airing it anyway since it was already complete and ready to air) is the problem. These large fights are the sign of a huge change in how it's run, which includes a purposeful political shift. Changes at an organization are slow (all of us software engineers should know this by now) but this is going to be a continual battle and there isn't going to be this fight for every story. We can't see everything an organization is doing as CBS is mostly opaque but from these few public fights (also previous work by these people) we can tell a lot
Nice of you to delete their first sentence which includes "delay". Which is what happened if you read the wikipedia article instead of holding water for propagandists, e.g., Bari Weiss.
reply