Why Conspiracy Theories?

[Clinamenic]

This is so on the nose,

I must not have gotten to this part so far, but it does seem in line with what points are being made.

 

[version]

It feels like she's talking about a Trump supporter and they just changed the name from Trump to Bernie to further discredit the left and get a dig in because everyone already knows where they stand on Trump.

 

[Clinamenic]

She is insisting on more governmental presence here, and she seems to have the support of those who may otherwise generally oppose heightened governmental presence.

 

[version]

She's a Google spy sent to take down a rival!

 

[version]

(I doubt it, but the number of mentions of Google in that passage cracks me up.)

 

[Clinamenic]

Could be true, for all I know, but for the time being I doubt it too.

But I’m more interested in the points she is making, and how actionable here ideas are.

They seem to be feasible and even dialectical. She even just suggested that tighter regulation could make Facebook more profitable, in terms of user retention, if the platform was made less toxic and predator-driven.

 

[Clinamenic]

I mean the earlier big tech antitrust hearing was serious, but that seems like a slap on the wrist compared to what these senators seem to be supporting here.

 

[Clinamenic]

Also I haven’t heard congresspeople talk about other national security threats with the same disdain as with how they discuss Zuckerberg.

But it doesn’t seem like an anti-Facebook rally per se, more a rally of establishing better mechanisms for oversight over algorithms.

One of the senators, Lummis, mentioned how they were considering declaring Facebook a utility, a sort of commons or something.

 

[sufi]

One of the senators, Lummis, mentioned how they were considering declaring Facebook a utility, a sort of commons or something.

that's Corbynism: Nationalise facebook

 

[Clinamenic]

This hearing, if what was learned is acted upon, may be more historically consequential than the Jan. 6 insurrection.

I’d like to think about it more, but that feels true in terms of systematic pivot points.

 

[version]

She even just suggested that tighter regulation could make Facebook more profitable, in terms of user retention, if the platform was made less toxic and predator-driven.

Wouldn't this contradict the claim that negative emotions generate the most interactions online?

 

[Clinamenic]

I think it’s goes a long way how savvy she is in terms of suggesting bureaucratic points of departure, e.g establishing some commission to work with Facebook to define its means of compliance.

 

[Clinamenic]

Wouldn't this contradict the claim that negative emotions generate the most interactions online?

She cited some point about this test/prototype layer of Facebook that had less toxicity-screening mechanisms, which results in the users spending less time on it.

But if we are talking about where our attention is naturally drawn to, or where our attention can be conditioned to be drawn to, then yes my understanding is that controversial content (like that German word for deriving pleasure from other people’s misfortune) is more lucrative in terms of sustained user presence.

but it could be that that is more of a short term effect, and that long term a more regulated information environment may empirically result in greater mental health of users, which may or may not result in better long term profit for Facebook.

 

[Clinamenic]

Frances has me hyped.

 

[Clinamenic]

And yes I was genuinely touched by this hearing, and impressed by her ambition and insight.

 

[Clinamenic]

Strange how I now consider her a public figure despite her not holding a public office. She just seems so cut out for it.

 

[Clinamenic]

But alas, I must put my passions aside. Zeal is a danger, one I think she, too, faces.

That is, these efforts could end up implementing further means by which federal actors can exploit the trust bestowed in them by internet users.

 

[luka]

Strange how I now consider her a public figure despite her not holding a public office. She just seems so cut out for it.

its cos she is a trained actress playing a role she has been coached for extensively and reading a well rehearsed script. its not a human being in the normal sense

 

[Clinamenic]

Oh Luka!
[queue laugh track]

 

[version]

Strange how I now consider her a public figure despite her not holding a public office. She just seems so cut out for it.

I feel like I'm reading you liveblog a successful attempt to condition you.