







If something has a lot of very bad externalities, and just the ones we know about are visibly, obviously causing major damage to important physical, social and informational ecosystems around us, then “lots of people want it” just isn’t a compelling argument.
Ingmar Rentzhog (@ingmar.wsocial.eu)
Criticism and scrutiny are welcome. But why so much hostility? Why assume the worst about our motives? I honestly don’t understand. If we share the goal of better social media, let’s talk about how to get there.
Thinking about other industries like we think about data centers shows how impoverished the debate is
Clumsy, arbitrary environmental ideas ignore the incredible complexity of the systems modern society depends on

Persuasion: Empirical Evidence
We provide a selective survey of empirical evidence on the effects as well as the drivers of persuasive communication. We consider persuasion directed at consumers, voters, donors, and investors. We organize our review around four questions. First, to what extent does persuasion affect the behavior of each of these groups? Second, what models best capture the response to persuasive communication? Third, what are persuaders' incentives, and what limits their ability to distort communications? Finally, what evidence exists on the way persuasion affects equilibrium outcomes in economics and politics?

interfluidity » The great game of global public goods provision
War is bad. Excuses should not be made for it. All sides should work to end this and every war as quickly as possible and shift to modes of bargaining and competition that are not profoundly destructive.
interfluidity » Consensus not censorship
We’ve become obsessed over the past few years with the problem of misinformation. And for good reason. “Flood the zone with shit” is now standard operating procedure for a variety of interests and factions. Groups who pretend to be above that kind of thing let confirmation bias do the same work, elevating conjectures they find convenient to believe far beyond the evidentiary basis for believing them, and transmuting concurrence among prestigious groups whose biases are aligned into “authority” to which they demand deferrence. Casual information consumers become divided into two camps, the “do your own research” types who imagine, mistakenly, that they are capable of seeing through all this (and so succumb to their own confirmation bias), and those who more accurately understand that they cannot reliably distinguish truth from bullshit (and so opt out of democratic deliberation with a shrug, other than perhaps to vote for the candidates whose political party they distrust less).
What's Wrong With This Idea?
One of my favorite questions is: “What’s wrong with this idea?” It drives the conversation away from why the idea is great, and toward finding its flaws. That is invaluable in technology.

Facts and Myths about Misperceptions
Misperceptions threaten to warp mass opinion and public policy on controversial issues in politics, science, and health. What explains the prevalence and persistence of these false and unsupported beliefs, which seem to be genuinely held by many people? Though limits on cognitive resources and attention play an important role, many of the most destructive misperceptions arise in domains where individuals have weak incentives to hold accurate beliefs and strong directional motivations to endorse beliefs that are consistent with a group identity such as partisanship. These tendencies are often exploited by elites who frequently create and amplify misperceptions to influence elections and public policy. Though evidence is lacking for claims of a “post-truth” era, changes in the speed with which false information travels and the extent to which it can find receptive audiences require new approaches to counter misinformation. Reducing the propagation and influence of false claims will require further efforts to inoculate people in advance of exposure (for example, media literacy), debunk false claims that are already salient or widespread (for example, fact-checking), reduce the prevalence of low-quality information (for example, changing social media algorithms), and discourage elites from promoting false information (for example, strengthening reputational sanctions).
The Internet Ideology: Why We Are Allowed to Hate Silicon Valley
It knows how to talk about tools but is barely capable of talking about social, political, and economic systems that these tools enable and disable, amplify and pacify. Why the “digital debate” leads us astray.

Bias, Skew, and Search Engines Are Sufficient to Explain Online Toxicity
America's Digital Demand Threatens Black Communities with More Pollution
The collective costs of artificial intelligence and data centers are disproportionately harming Black households.

Anatomy of an internet argument
Social media isn't toxic, most people just haven't figured out the game (yet)

I can see a whole lot of people agreeing with this. Kinda the same with open source in general, but few open source projects are social protocols seeking widespread adoption. It's a particular flavor of narrative disconnection from reality we have to bridge out of to get out of our own way.
⠁⠀⠀⠀⠠
Every @proto developer sounds like this to me:
Every time I make the (correct) statement that social media use is not universally bad for teenagers, or state that the best consensus is that it's beneficial-to-neutral for many and any negative effects are a small subset of teenagers, people demand citations (and then refuse to believe them, sigh)
Same argument was made about smartphones (“expensive, elitist, not accessible to most of the world”). Now most of the world has smartphones. Why? Economies of scale and learning curves. You have to start with the easy part of the adoption curve before you can reach the hard part of adoption curve.
David Zipper
Robotaxis create serious problems in big, dense cities, but they’d be a godsend in small towns and rural areas—huge swaths of America that the AV industry is ignoring. My latest, in Bloomberg (gift link) 🧵
I am disappointed by the fact that so many seem tempted to share a "nonrigorous", unserious attempt at quantifying fraud in science because it passes some silly vibe check ("I asked others and they agree"). So in the name of good science, we're ready to produce bad science as a rhetorical tool.