• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You can’t restrain the bad without crippling the good

    That part. “People should…” is an impotent sentiment. How do you incentivize, or force, a regression to “sufficient” technology? How do you do so without affecting beneficial network technology?

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      By learning from the past. See, in your mind you’ve already established all technological advancement is beneficial.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Is your point limiting technological advancement always results in hindering the opportunity for good?

          If so, no, I haven’t. Unless you define good as anything that someone could find value in.

          Maybe what you’re missing is an example.

          Tim and Susie live right next to each other and have windows facing each other. Tim and Susie are 6. They talk everyday over a tin can and string. Susie had the idea from seeing it in a comic book and Tim went home and made the tin can string telephone. The best part of their day is meeting up at the window and yelling to each other as each talk into a tin can. One day Tim’s absentee father stops by for a visit and sees Tim and Susie preform their ritual. Tim’s dad runs to the store and gets them a pair of walky talkies.

          “Much better” Tim’s dad exclaims while throwing Tim’s tin cans in the trash. Tim and Susie think the walky talkies are neat and they run around for a day hiding behind bushes and seeing if they can find each other. Without the tin cans though they don’t have a reason to meet at the window everyday so they quickly forget why they ever had the ritual in the first place. Eventually ones batteries dies and it doesn’t even matter because they have long forgot their fun game.

          Tell me. How did the tin cans cripple the chance for good?

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Who does Tim’s father represent? What does him throwing the tin cans in the trash represent? How does this analogy represent the topic we’re discussing?

            If the tin cans are old but sufficient technology, then the proper analogy would see Tim and Susie discarding the tin cans themselves voluntarily because the walkie talkies do what they do but better. Maybe there are drawbacks too, but Tim and Susie made their choice. Maybe Jack and Jill down the street like the intimacy of tin cans better and decide not to get walkie talkies, that is also their choice.

            Maybe the window ritual is socially beneficial, but who enforces that, and how? Does Jack’s mom get walkie talkies banned? Now what about all the emergency responders who used walkie talkies to save lives? Just banned for children? Who decides who qualifies as a child, and what about the children in the country who’s houses are too far apart for tin cans?

            I’m not saying there are no benefits to simpler options, and obviously every person has the freedom to use the simplest technologies they wish, but we’re having a conversation about society not individual choice . I’m saying that there’s no practical way to incentivize or force them at a societal scale. Unless you can think of one which isn’t just Big Brother censoring the Internet, in which case I’m all ears.

            • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Just answer the question. Did Tim’s tin can stop the world from spinning? Did it have purpose? Was its replacement adequate?

              Tim’s dad represents Tim’s dad. Not everything is an analogy. Of course we can extrapolate it but I’m trying in the most simplest terms possible to make you see my point.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                If it’s not an analogy then… yes, the world continues spinning if kids talk with tin cans? I don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic of the societal effects of widespread use of algorithm-driven social media platforms. restraint with regards to the Internet?

                Edit: got this conversation confused with a similar one. My bad

                • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  … right, because that is what I was talking about in the first place. Societital effects of widespread use of algorithm-driven social media platforms. Pretty impossible w/ you.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    That’s on me, I’m also having an extremely similar conversation with someone else specifically about that

                    What you did say was:

                    I’m not saying there should be no internet. I am only saying maybe some restraint would be advantageous for everyone.

                    So what I meant to say In my last comment was:

                    What does any of that have to do with the restraint with regards to the Internet?