this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
342 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
87733 readers
3578 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Social media has the power to do so much good: connecting people across the globe, enabling the sharing of information across language barriers and in circumvention of government censorship, and more. But because the world is run by greedy power-hungry pigs, we can't have social media without it being exploited to the furthest extent possible in the name of profit. The mental health of the public is not even a secondary concern - it is completely disregarded in favor of squeezing further growth out of a saturated market for a service that should be both simple and free.
Before all that - and you are right on your take - there is a more basic flaw that affects social media: people do not know how to act properly.
The anonimity emboldens the small minds that use it to mistreat, slander and ridicule others and spread lies and rumours.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions - social media will remain what it is: a cesspool where the worst of our species destils into a refined poison.
They do, in communities where rules exist and are enforced. Anonymity may lead some people to feel more emboldened to act out, but when handled properly I believe the vast majority of them will just settle down and either learn how to participate in good faith or find somewhere else to be. The bad behavior patterns we see in some places are, in my opinion, the result of insufficient social norms and enforcement thereof. This is also a situation capitalists will foster, because it drives engagement and inflates content.
So you already understand that this is a problem that only exists in places where bad actors are given license to continue acting out.
If I didn't understood there is already a problem of bad actors, I wouldn't have approached your reply. And deny it in any way would be bad faith from me.
What I feel the need to underscore is that individuals make and influence groups and even the most progressively thought out environment is open to being corrupted if any individual present there lacks, in any way, the self awareness that their attitude is damaging.
It's not the group that needs to regulate the individual; the regulation needs to arise from the individual themselves, in the first place. And most individuals lack that hard individual sense of responsability.
See: Manna by Marshall Brain. In his Australia project they simply install a centrally controlled "cutoff switch" - when people are out of line their conscious brain gets switched over to a virtual reality where they can live out their fantasies while their bodies report to detention until their brain decides it wants to join "the real world" again.
That doesn't work. The average individual is too hedonistic to refrain from any pleasureable or self reinforcing loop. It's been a cautionary tale in stories since ancient times.
There's no shortage of people. If the "real world" people all get along with reasonable consensus on what "individual freedoms" mean, and some (hopefully small) percentage of those people decide they'd rather live in an alternate reality where they trample the rights of others, instead of incarceration / punishment / inadequate efforts at rehabilitation, transferring those people's consciousness to a virtual reality where they can "be themselves" would seem to me to be a far better use of their individual spirit than trying to break it or simply terminating it. Maybe most of them never rehabilitate - that's o.k. Of course, this is feeding right into a prequel for Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population's mind. It does not solve any problem.
The inherent problem with freedom in a society is when one person's exercise of their freedom takes away from another person's freedom. Absolute freedom only exists in a society of one person (and, by extension: the more people we have in a resource/space constrained society, the less free we all must be to share the common resources and space.)
If you don't "get rid" of the problematic - what's your option? Just shrug and ignore them when they rape, murder, pillage and destroy? If you "rehabilitate" the problematic, how is that respecting their freedom?
Back in "the Australia Project" (Manna story) - the development of the overall project was kind of vague, but implied access to a lot more "space" in which people could choose to live with others in ways that each group chose to be "acceptable society." If you are more at home in one society than another, you are free to migrate. If a particular society chose to cap its size at 200, or 2000, or however many members, you were free to organize another modeled on it... The key aspect of behavior was: respect. Whatever the size of your social interaction: 2 million down to 2 people - respect the others in that society within the boundaries of local societal norms. The availability of virtual reality expanded the available "living space" many orders of magnitude.
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
And I am going to repeat my real-politik question to you explicitly:
What's your grand non-punishment solution for members of society who actively harm other members of society? What to do with those who are non-compliant with "freedom requires and demands constraint"?
I considered it to be implicit that society would do everything reasonable and appropriate to "solve" the problems of individuals engaged in destructive behavior, but experience has shown: the best efforts in these areas still fail to achieve 100% success. Certainly current societies all over the world (the U.S. especially) could try harder and do better, but 100% success has been historically elusive all over the world.
And should the entire human race be confined to a single society? Irrespective of our present predicament of cheap instant global communication I would submit: no, there is no one answer for how people should live in society. The one "basic human right" I would proffer to a universal collection of human societies is that: when someone wants to leave one society, they should be free to do so into any other society which is willing to accept them. No society should be under obligation to accept all applicants, but all societies should be required to let people leave whenever they want to, to wherever will willingly accept them.
It sounds like you're both missing the core concept here: Freedom is responsibility. Responsibility for one's self and actions. If someone is refusing to take responsibility for themselves, they are lacking self control and are not free in the first place. They are beholden to animal impulses. You get me? By not taking responsibility for their actions they are disqualifying themselves from freedom regardless of whether they're physically arrested and incarcerated. We need to stop pretending that everyone just has freedom as an intrinsic quality instead of it being a right to which they are entitled.
Yes, it is. And responsibility is the opportunity to fail to live up to that responsibility, and then what?
I get you: tell yourself they're "just animals" so you can cage them without a guilty conscious.
There are a lot of flaws in the U.S. foundational documents, but "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness for all" is a concept I think worth defending.
Actually, no. Quite the opposite. Treat them like people who have chosen to abrogate their responsibility as humans in order to fulfill animal impulses. I'm definitely not okay with putting people in cages. Irresponsible or not, they're still people.
Great, so these people who you're not okay with putting in cages, the ones that go out and kill other people (for drama's sake), or just really grief society with constant home burglaries, maybe some drug addictions driving that, maybe assaulting people to avoid arrest, maybe "accidentally" killing someone with that gun they use to threaten the cashiers - no cages for them, either? I 100% agree, they're still people, they deserve the best possible shot at becoming better integrated members of society, rehab programs instead of incarceration when appropriate and all that, but even with the amazing money saving rehabilitation rate of psych counselling for drug convictions (which a friend of ours does for a living), they're still far from 100%. Our courts throw too many under the jail for no good reason, wasting their lives and costing the community far more money than the shot at rehab they deserve, but at some point, rehab isn't working for some of them - then what?
Of course there are literally thousands of other "common" anti-social behaviors that eventually rise to the level of incarceration as well...
It's disturbing to me how you can think of no other thing for me to mean than that I want to either murder criminals or let them commit murder. This discussion is over.
Last word: you're the one who brought up murdering criminals - I just suggested you needed to equate them to animals in your head so you could justify caging them like animals.
Criminals commit murder, about 400,000 officially recognized / classified murders per year, much higher than that in reality of course, but 400K/8B is 1/20,000 per year, more like 1/400 lifetime, average, globally, just the official ones not the overlooked ones in war zones or lawless / uninvestigated situations. It's not a problem that can be ignored or written off as insignificant.
Sounds like a society that exists only because it tramples the rights of others. Nah, fuck that.
When television started it had all the same potentials you mention in your first sentence, but by far its main use has been to convince people to buy crap they don't need with money they don't have. And that's how it is now with the internet.
That may be true, but TV also brought me Star Trek TNG, Captain Planet, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and many others that instilled values in me that are core to who I am today. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of progress, and keep working to put our tools to better use.
I get that - I had my favorite shows too that were important in me becoming who I am. But before TV people had been developing good values for thousands of years, without degrading their attention spans or other mental functions, and in the 75 or so years of its history I really don't see any evidence that the industry is working toward putting it to any better use.
Okay, so? That doesn't prove TV doesn't help with that. We got along wiping our asses with sticks just fine before toilet paper, I'm sure.
I literally just explained how, and you agreed with it. Are you sure you're having the conversation you think you are?
Everyone has TV shows they like - this doesn't in any way imply that the television industry is working toward making better use of it. It just means television has never been "all bad". Whatever fight you're looking for, I'm not interested.
The industry is not a monolith. It's up to individuals and individual organizations to use TV for whatever purpose they choose. People like Mr. Rogers chose to turn television into an instrument to teach children about life and how to live it, about themselves and others, how we're different and alike. To look at that and still be mad because every other individual or organization that ever went on air didn't do the same thing is just mind-blowingly out of touch with reality.
Shit, I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point. Get blocked then, I guess.
But where's the motivation? How do you join the $10B club "doing so much good"? That would take soooo much longer than just being evil, evil is easy, evil is profitable, and evil can masquerade as good long enough to cash out to a level where you can hire lawyers good enough to never worry about being prosecuted for being evil.
Where's the structural societal incentive to "do so much good", and why would we need it? We are social animals, most of us are hardwired for altruism, we'll do good without expectation of compensation, so our "great society" has chosen to just use those base human instincts to "do good enough" and meanwhile reward the rare psychopaths with wealth and power - because: it's a dog eat dog world out there, if our dogs aren't eating theirs, theirs will eat ours.
That's a great question. There are some college courses that can help you answer that. The short answer is "because in terms of the flourishing of an entire species, cooperation trumps competition, but it's a recent evolution and doesn't come naturally to everyone". If we are to flourish and advance instead of strangling ourselves in the crib, we need to stop tolerating the kinds of selfish behaviors that prove detrimental to every society that permits them.
The "why would we need it" question was intended as rhetorical.
I feel that as society grows orders of magnitude larger, these overall detrimental selfish behaviors keep resurfacing as advantages in special niches where they flourish, with the potential as you say to strangle us in the crib.
There's also the looming spectre of mandatory birth control, if the magically predicted end of population growth doesn't happen we're going to have to do something to lessen our resource demands on the planet, because we're already significantly degrading it far more than previous generations with 1/4th and less of our current population which simultaneously made much lower per-capita resource demands...