[FRIAM] the slow red-pill

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

I wouldn't call it "subliminal". I went through a similar process as I moved from TX to NM to CA to OR, gradually becoming more liberal the whole while, but quite *aware* of my transformation. I suspect something similar happens with the consumers of these progressive(ly radicalizing) campaigns. Sure, grandpa may not be that conscious of *how* radicalized he's becoming, but to assert that grandpa is totally unaware of his radicalization would be overly simplistic ... just like most of us are very aware of the increase in the acceptability of porn, or nerds, or violence in the media.

It would be more appropriate, I think, to assert that whatever progression we're led through is *accepted* by us. Grandpa *wants* to be radicalized by Fox News. The existence of Fox News simply makes his desire somewhat acceptable ... like Pieter constantly trying to get us to watch Brett Weinstein videos. Pieter *wants* to be radicalized. Brett simply helps him do so. >8^D

Re: Volokh's hypothesis: I agree with you. He's simply trying to treat the *legal* situation without committing to the full fauna-flora in which it lives, which is why the Matthias article is relevant.

I have a rebuttal to the Matthias argument that I purposefully did not link to, just in case my trawl led to an interesting catch. (Know 10 things, say 9.) And although Frankenstein's monster is a good start, it pales in comparison to the modern questions of explainable/interpretable AI and *ethical* AI. Can we *read through* an algorithm to effectively blame an algorithm's author? Or, if not the author, the post-authorship *user* of the author's product? Or, as a postmodernist might argue, should we take the author's product as a stigmergic naturfact and treat the author and her artifact as *excused* ... they were only being creative ... as with gun manufacturers ... the blame lies with the user of the artifact. Algorithms don't kill people. People kill people!


On 7/15/21 10:32 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> glen -
>> There’s a new tactic for exposing you to radical content online: the ‘slow red-pill’
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/15/theres-a-new-tactic-for-exposing-you-to-radical-content-online-the-slow-red-pill
> A modern application of "subliminal advertising" and "desensitization" I
> think?   As I moved in my life from Red/Libertarian circles to
> Blue/Green circles I noticed the subliminals and the desensitization in
> my *new* circles but had to be pretty far from the *old* circles to
> realize theirs were fraught in the same way.   I still cringe when my
> Blue/Green friends try to slip things past my filters, but I am more
> conscious by circumstance of the phenomena.   Red Rants these days seem
> to be *nothing but* attempts to normalize absurd things.   I suppose it
> might be part of a "great renormalization"?   Moderate Conservatives
> (and perhaps Liberals if they join forces) may find that simply steering
> clear of the radicalizing techniques will win them the attention, if not
> allegiance of a population who are under extreme political adrenal fatigue?
>>
>> "There is no content moderation solution for a political problem."
> I think this is a central point.  
>> Related content:
>>
>> Common Carrier Status as Quid Pro Quo for § 230(c)(1) Immunity
>> https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/15/common-carrier-status-as-quid-pro-quo-for-%c2%a7-230c1-immunity/
> I think this exposes the historical context/embedding well, but not sure
> if it fully covers the space that we are now exploring.  I would guess
> that media-studies researchers are all over this question in the
> abstract.   It seems as if the soft/social sciences have adopted a lot
> of quantitative methods whilst learning (or inviting in) mathematics.  
> What is the appropriate basis space for studying the dynamics of social
> media (companies, consumers, producers, exploiters/gamers)?
>> The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata
>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10676-004-3422-1
> 
> I believe Mary Shelley coined an interesting character and let him play
> out his nature in a somewhat allegorical setting some 200 years ago.  
> The genre that emerged in its  pattern is elaborate, but perhaps yet out
> of date.
> 
> DaveW has lectured on the topic of Asimov's Robots and their ethics.
> 
> Some interesting outliers in the genre include:
> 
> Jack Williamson's Humanoids:
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands
> 
> and Stanislaus Lem's Medieval/Fairy-Tale highly anthropomorphic
> cybernetic creatures:
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad
> 
> What might be the "new questions" that have emerged in the last 20-40
> years with the Global Internet and significant adoption?
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain#History

> 

-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ