It raises the question what does or doesn't count as an addictive feed. I bet this doesn't specify any particular dark pattern or monetization model.
If we gave half a fuck about mental wellnes regarding mobile use, we would have addressed all this when it was particular to mobile games.
No, this is about our kids learning early how fucked society is, and how their own generation is being fed a pro-ownership-class indoctrination regimen before being appointed a string of dead-end toxic jobs.
Social media is how we learn about the genocide in Gaza, police officer-involved homicide rates, and unionization efforts. and that is why we want kids off social media.
As the Twilight Zone episode shows, this has been a known issue for a while. But we haven't yet seized the means of production even a century since the Great Depression.
The problem is our upper management are paranoid of time theft (even though its opposite, wage theft, costs the economy more money than all petty crime combined). And out of sheer paranoia, they're going to be susceptible to technological snake oil, especially of the sort that tightens the collars on labor and makes them that much more miserable.
That's not the point. The point is our industrialist and upper-management managers have tipped their hands. They have demonstrated beyond doubt that they'd totally replace their workforce if they could even when doing so means families or entire neighborhoods go hungry or are driven out of their homes.
And that includes creatives and experts. It even eventually includes, with a nod to The Brain Center at Whipple's, the upper management who aren't principle shareholders. The massive population correction at the end of capitalism is revealed at last.
Your own job is forfeit as soon as it becomes cheaper over a few years to automate your position.
Yes. Elon should approach his advertisers on bended knee -- after changing Twitter back to Twitter, and creating a proper moderation system that filters out neonazis and Russian AI Trump-bots.
Oh, George Washington rode the waves Abe Lincoln wore his hat with praise Thomas Jefferson, the sandy king, and Teddy Roosevelt, the beach-hiking thing Barrack Obama, surfing gracefully Historical presidents at the sea!
-- @hisvault.eth
I call shenanigans. We've had bullying when I was a kid in the 70s. Has anything been done about it? No. Why? Because dominance hierarchy is in among our school districts and administrators, and they like sports team lettermen over science nerds. This hadn't changed in the aughts. It's still the same, today. Even when kids come in with proof of violence (e.g. phone camera video) the question is why did you have a phone in school? not can we identify the dude curb-stomping kids three times smaller than him?
We had hungry kids in the 70s. Have we done anything about it? No. We try to set up school lunches, but then the programs get cancelled because socialism bad! So kids are going hungry thanks to ideology.
Are we yet teaching sexual consent (or how about consent in other places like work and TOS?) No. We're teaching abstinence-only education in 26 states with comprehensive sex ed mandated in three (the west coast). We're teaching girls they're like chewing gum, that is, one-use, and a sexual assault destroys their value. And we're teaching boys their sexuality isn't welcome until they can afford to put a ring on it and have a salary in place, driving them to become alt-right war boys for Immorten Joe. ( WITNESS ME! )
So how about dealing with kids who are homeless? In poverty? In the abusive foster-care system? Dealing with DV at home? Not a god damn thing. Kids need food, shelter, basic needs like clothing, playtime, time to bond with their family, time to socialize, stability at home. Until they have these things, any energy we spend not arranging to providing these things is failure of society to serve basic child welfare for the public.
Warning labels on social media will not feed hungry kids, or assure their place to sleep is safe and warm, and we have an outrageous number of kids for whom the latter set are the problem, not dangers of social media. Also warning labels that are not congruent with current scientific consensus only weaken the veracity of tobacco product labels.
ETA: That's not the best link. This search leads to a wider array of stories, and TD is pretty good about including sources within each article.
So, let California be a lesson to you: excessive PSA warnings of things that cause health problems (e.g. Known to the state of California to cause cancer ) leads to the public generally ignoring the PSA warnings.
Putting a warning on social media like the warning on tobacco products will weaken the efficacy -- and veracity -- of the labels already on tobacco products.
It's never the upper managent but they don't actually do anything but landlord. Lower managers are being replaced by bots that police the bottom rung workers.
Anyhow when AI was very not working right at all the ownership class were eager to replace creative workers even then, so we we've known for over a year or two they're gunning to end creative work and replace it with menial work.
I don't know what the Mahsa Amini moment is going to be to spark the general worker uprising, but news about the conditions being right comes in every day.
Um, to be fair, Descartes mostly agrees with you. (He later tries to finagle god and the rest of the world with some dubious logic, but that's challenged more often than the initial premise and first step.)
We sometimes have to clarify that LGBT+ folk aren't particularly virtuous, just people, and like the rest of the population suffers from its own share of internal bigotry. The lesbian community is no exception.
Lesbians range from really rather bisexual to staunchly misandrist and there are different gatekeeping checkpoints, where some don't count trans women as lesbians to others that don't want to date a woman who's ever been with a man (which makes for a really small dating pool).
But this kind of exclusion is not about who these women date, rather who they allow into their community and are allowed to come to their potlucks and tea parties. Generally communities that are progressive and have experienced external oppression and dehumanization are glad to be welcoming and inclusive. Mostly. And I think this includes the lesbian community.
From my experience. I'll get to how that's tricky.
I've found the lesbian circles I've engaged with have been even more inclusive than the general LGBT+ community. They're actually really good about including bisexuals and trans women that are into women. However, this is partly due to the anthropic principle: Even though I'm enby I still have [M] on my state ID, look like a dude and have male parts, and have been completely forthright about this even in online circles (e.g. r/actuallesbians) where no-one would ever know I was really a cat. But this means that I don't get invites to circles that are more restrictive, since I'd be high on the no-admittance list.
But inclusive lesbians are not super fond of less inclusive ones, especially since human sexuality can change over time. The closet has multiple doors, and when your best friend who invites you to all the get-togethers is a women-only transphobe second-wave feminist (this was a thing), and suddenly you've been taking an interest in a special guy, you're going to keep your bi-curiosity hidden from your friend (or stop being friends). And as per the whole thing of coming out, the point of the LGBT+ community is being able to be who you are, and being accepted and validated.
So when I see a lesbians dating app that is intentionally looking to draw transphobes, it reminds me of those conservative dating apps to hook up men in the white power movement with trad-wife minded women, which is to say it's good they're over there and not trying to date people over here that they're ultimately going to disappoint and hurt.
A fire axe works fine when you're in the same room with the AI. The presumption is the AI has figured out how to keep people out of its horcrux rooms when there isn't enough redundancy.
However the trouble with late game AI is it will figure out how to rewrite its own code, including eliminating kill switches.
A simple proof-of-concept example is explained in the Bobiverse: Book one We Are Legion (We Are Bob) ...and also in Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash; though in that case Hiro, a human, manipulates basilisk data without interacting with it directly.
Also as XKCD points out, long before this becomes an issue, we'll have to face human warlords with AI-controlled killer robot armies, and they will control the kill switch or remove it entirely.
