Exactly. It's a pretty small number of people who are this terrible. Thinking of it in evolutionary terms creates a sense of fatalism. If you look globally since the invention of agriculture, it's very clear that a) humans are extremely flexible, and b) culture matters hugely to how societies turn out.
Culture is something we inherit, but it's something we can change. If we want things to be less fucked up for the next generation, we can do that. As many before us have.
I was one of Twitter's first 500 users. Later, I worked at Twitter on anti-abuse. I was a big fan. But I quit using it after Musk's takeover because I didn't want to be supporting somebody who's awful in a half-dozen ways that have only become more obvious. [1] And X reflects that.
I'm not the OP, but anybody honestly wanting to know why people think good humans should not use Twitter does not have far to look.
Elon Musk is racist to the type of people who would require me to sign a statement supporting their systematically racist hiring quota if I want to do some physics research.
Which is kind of ironic. I remember realizing that they called it nitter for specifically horrible reasons after finding the online git web panel with the source code which was called "gitler" (hitler in russian for anyone who speaks it). Can't find it now but 4 or 5 years ago it's hard to forget. It even had some kind of nazi anime theme.
4-5 years ago is also about when Kanye West started to go insane, posted the raelian swastika/star of david hybrid on twitter and elon said something like "this is not love" and banned him, which to me explains the motivations for nitter coming up in the first place
Great dogwhistle dodging there but man that shit is stupid as fuck and if you're here to wash over facts all I can say is get stuffed. Elon is actively pandering to nazis in Germany, the whole tactic of normalizing hate is gross
“Everyone always wants to go back in time so they can kill Hitler. But I’d be afraid if they sent me back in time I’d get just caught under the spell of his beautiful fucking eyes. Knowing me I might even join the party!” -Norm
Do you measure anything about complexity or brevity? I'm currently working on importing some LLM code and it's 5-10x bigger than it should be for the actual needs.
One of my open questions is how much that increases over time. It could be that is a constant. But it also could be that, say, coding agents will infer false needs from the excess code/docs and elaborate further.
I wouldn't say no impact, but a trailing impact. They understood the cultural changes demanding new ways for people to status signal and maintain connections with friends & family.
That's what I mean about reversing cause and effect. There are larger causes (see my other comment below) that Facebook was innovative to take advantage of.
fair enough, but among the movement between around 1970-2020 -- what were the top 3 factors in degradation of communities? would facebook be in the top 3?
I don't understand why that matters. We can't act in 1970. We can act today. So we should be looking at biggest current problems and the highest-ROI fixes.
taking action requires understanding the leading factors that lead to the decline. If you only see one train car , you won't know that the engine needs to be alerted to stop 2 miles down the track.
Society depends upon having generation after generation of healthy members. That has never been a time when individual parents were sufficient to solve all the problems there. And even that were possible, directing all the attention on them acts to absolve Meta of all responsibility for their own actions.
If we're going to promote a policy of personal responsibility, let's at least look at all the persons involved.
I'm ok with generic people struggling with that. But anybody covering tech or business should be able to work effectively with the numbers at hand. Anything less is journalistic malpractice.
There's arguably more journalistic malpractice going on than actual journalism.
Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.
Unfortunately, it really depends who you consider a journalist. With internet advertising destroying journalism as a revenue source, as anyone can really say anything about who they are
I started using DuckDB last year and I loved it. Small, focused, crackling with competence, no bullshit. I think what I liked about it had a lot to do with it being made by a small group of technical people who weren't interested in "maximizing share holder value" (that is, maximizing executive promotions and bonuses).
Maybe this will be the rare case where founders survive corporate shenanigans and keep on doing their thing. But I'm bummed, as I've heard that optimism many more times than I've seen it happen.
Natural selection is demonstrably not working. It only takes one look at a newspaper to see that thoughtlessness and stupidity are doing better than ever.
I think the internet is pretty great, but it's a major factor in that rise in at least 3 ways:
* Previously, an important check on fools was social consequences. Now they have an endless supply of people to bother. Spammers were the first to exploit that, but now it's endemic.
* Algorithmic weighting toward the reaction-generating (versus, say thoughtful, measured, responsible, accurate, helpful, kind) has rewarded idiocy and awfulness with attention and money. We're all now living in a reality TV show.
* As those behaviors become a major percentage of what people, especially young people, see, they become normalized. Otherwise people think being a thoughtless jackass is just how to get by in the world.
We are strongly in need of firm politeness, of militant decency. Without it, things will get "naturally" worse.
It's a land grab. Right now none of them have a dominant position. Much better to get mind share and market share now. They can always squeeze the value chain later. And whoever wins surely will.
Culture is something we inherit, but it's something we can change. If we want things to be less fucked up for the next generation, we can do that. As many before us have.
reply