Skip to main content

The Social Dilemma - Sounds to me like a medical problem.

 If you're not familiar with the plot of docudrama "The Social Dilemma", go watch it now. If you haven't seen it, the short summary is the following: Social network sites get paid for you to watch their ads. The more ads they get you to see, the more they get paid. Their entire capitalistic inc3entive is to make you watch more of their ads. They work very, very, very hard to make this come true. They're really good at it. They suck you in and keep you doom-scrolling as long as they can. They don't care if it's bad for  your health, they want those ad dollars. They want to increase their feed's 'stickiness.' They want your attention and they'll get it any way they can. 

And how do they get it? The don't create their own content... they entice you to scroll for content you've 'signed up' for. Content that your friends publish. Content that your favorite authors publish. Content that other famous people publish. That seems reasonable. Show me my subscribed content and show me some ads... seems just like TV. But no! The Social Networks are much more insidious. You don't actually get what you signed up for. They attempt to charge famous people money to show their published posts to their followers. In other words, wringing the audience for money from both ends... charging to show published musing, and charging for and showing ads to the audience. 

This is only a bad side effect that penalizes famous people, and people who want to hear what they are saying. The Social Networks actually hide the feeds you've subscribed to from you and try to raise money from the publishers to show it to you. But wait, it's even worse. Not only are they screwing you by hiding what you've subscribed to, they're also inserting random pseudo-ads to see if you want to subscribe, to keep you interested in scrolling and to steal your attention from anything but watching their ads. They purposefully manipulate your feed to keep you glued to the screen.

There's serious, refereed, peer-reviewed scientific papers published that show that this maniplulation of your stream is injurious to your health.

I'll say that again: Social Network feeds have been proven to be injurious to your health.

It's time they were regulated [1] , way past time.

But wait, you ask, how can  you regulate feed algorithms? On what basis? There's some very obvious ones. First, these ideas are applicable to all Artificial Intelligence algorithms that interact with humans. It's way past time to control these amoral capitalistic killer robots that rob you of your attention, your money and your health. 

  1. It's not okay for an AI algorithm to be biased by race, religion or any other category protected by law. The AI algorithm must prove it is unbiased before it's predictions are used. It's the law. We need to enforce it.
  2. You should not be allowed to practice medicine without a license. These AI algorithms have more affect on your life than prescription drugs. They should be regulated as prescriptions drugs. You should not be allowed to apply these recommendations unless your physician agrees that they are beneficial to you. No more letting the Social Networks prescribe dangerous medicine.
  3. If not as a drug, at least these AI algorithms should be regulated as Medical Devices. They are software systems meant to affect your mental health. They need to prove they are safe.
  4. Finally, as a medical treatment, only a physician can prescribe a medical treatment. 
  5. Another option is to regulate them as an addictive drug. A drug that is more harmful to the population than alcohol, nicotine, cocaine or other highly addictive drugs. If you deal in one of these drugs without guaranteeing it's purity, under a doctor's care, you go to jail.
  6. The last resort is that we should treat these feeds as intellectual food that must be regulated and have proven safety like we do for GMO foods. They must be regulated, transparent (what did you filter? what did you add? why did you do it?), registered and reviewed.
It's way past time we regulate Social Networks; before they regulate us into oblivion.

Thanks for reading

[1] There was another article I tweeted about that wanted to regulate big tech and gave some of the same reasons. Here's a similar series in Time: that agree the best way to regulate Big Tech is to use the Section 230 protection as a trade for public health concerns. Otherwise, Section 230 might just disappear? This is the use of power for the good of the people. Progressivism. 


Popular posts from this blog

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of modern ethics

The Settlement of the War between Science and Religion . Why the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are More Important than you realize. These two documents provide the foundation of the Grand Moral Compromise between Religion and Science that allowed the Industrial Revolution to progress by defining the morals and ethics of governments and their relationship with the people. The only moral and ethical form of government is declared to be a Lawful Democracy with Religious  Freedom . These two documents define why this is from first postulates and dictate the method to form a government. The Grand Moral Compromise was defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights : it is the agreement that abolished the crime of heresy in return for freedom of all religions , including science , the harbinger of truth . Only about half [G] of the world has agreed to this  Grand Moral Compromise , the rest are still at war with themselv

Hilbert space has no physical extent or extent in time. Quantum wave functions live in Hilbert space.

Hilbert space has no physical extent or extent in time. Quantum wave functions live in Hilbert space. This means that when you change a parameter in Hilbert space it changes everywhere at the same time. Every single entangled wave function now sees the same modified Hilbert space at the same time. The changes in Hilbert space are transmitted at infinite speed, apparently (It's actually worse than that: if you set up the experiment correctly you can get the Hilbert space to affect particles in the past. Yes, you can change the distribution of measurements on an entangled particle by making another measurement in the future, after the first particle is gone, absorbed in a detector. [1]) It really is like Einstein said: if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you just haven't been paying attention enough! Quantum mechanical wave functions are weirder than anyone thought they were and they were plenty weird before. Einstein, et al. defined how physical theories work,

Republicans vs. Democrats. It's not conservatives vs. liberals, it's authoritarians vs. progressives.

It's Authoritarians (Royalty lovers - L'estate, c'est moi) vs. Progressives (All men are created equal) Republicans are more Authoritarian than Conservative. Conservatives want to pick an imaginary time in the past and declare it to be perfect. Authoritarians have a Father figure complex. Whatever the Father says is right. Anything else is immoral. [1]  So even though there is a streak of Conservatism in the Republican party, it's not really the basis of their morality. Their morality is handed to them by their Father, whatever he says is moral. To disagree with him is immoral. Pretty simple, easy for people who are too tired to think for themselves. In contrast, the moral authority of Democrats comes from their Progressive, American ideals. Progressives believe in the Declaration of Independence: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness All men are created equal The people agree on how they will be governed No Royal authority is accepted No one is above