Hey fediverse, I go by Dobry. I am Incredibly Online™️ and subsist almost entirely on information.
I'm relatively leftist in my politics, a strong believer in equal opportunities first and freedom second. Be prepared for lots of discussion on that front.
Very interested and excited about open and decentralized web infrastructure, please talk to me about this (and other things, but especially this)!
I mostly share content and links I find interesting, but also post my photography, analysis of current events, projects i'm working on, and horrible 3am thoughts that should never leave the confines of my id. Sorry not sorry.
Oh, and I crosspost from other silos, and am planning on automating this to some degree. I know some of you don't like that, so, a warning.
some of my interests:
So, there's this concept of "implicit feudalism" in online communities. Essentially, the vast majority of online communities - from old-school forums, to facebook groups, to large platforms like Twitter and Facebook themselves, even to fediverse instances - they're all run as dictatorships by default. It's built into the software - you'll have a top admin who has full, unconstrained power, they might delegate mods who have some limited powers, and anyone else has to listen to what these dictators and lords tell them. We talk about "federating" here in the fediverse, but each individual community - as far as I'm aware of - is a little dictatorship. A federation of dictatorships is not a free society, anymore than the UN, an international body composed of "liberal democracies" and authoritarian regimes is truly democratic. We need a way to start governing online communities through actual forms of democracy.
Well, this is useful. https://www.ufseeds.com/learning/planting-schedules/
open source clone of Instagram / Snapchat face detection filter https://filtrou.me/build-one-yourself/
"To live well—or just to live—individuals (including scientists) must accept much more [decision-relevant science] than they can ever hope to make sense of on their own."
Please rid yourself of this notion that you can somehow evaluate the science behind cancer or AIDS, behind climate change or nuclear power. That all we need is "critical thinking" or "media studies" to protect us from extremism, radicalization, false medicine, incorrect thinking.
"Will you carefully read and evaluate all the studies that inform your physician’s recommendation? If those studies refer, as they inevitably will, to previous ones the methods of which aren’t reproduced in those papers, will you read those, too? … will you enroll in a professional training program to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills? … will you redo the experiments—*all* of them…"
"Of course not. Because by the time you did those things, you’d be dead."
This notion, that you or I can evaluate the medical claims, is toxic. #DanKahan brilliantly illustrates this https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794799&download=yes:
"You learn next week that you have an endocrinological deficit that can be effectively treated but only if you submit to a regimen of daily medications. You certainly will do enough research to satisfy yourself—to satisfy any reasonable person in your situation—that this recommendation is sound before you undertake such treatment. But what will you do?" (cont.)
I'm a programmer. Most of my waking thinking moments are spent ironing out in excruciating detail how to actually do something that was easy to say in words. I combat "Shit's Easy Syndrome" every day (https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html).
None of these factions can construct a real convincing argument against its opponent. Viral beliefs, like real viruses, evolve under intense pressure—their inventors poured all their energy, creativity, and intellect in making these beliefs immune to easy argumentation.
Media literacy is *interesting* and *worth teaching* for intellectual reasons, along with abstract algebra and Faulkner. But it's not going to cause people to re-evaluate their sacred cows.
I've been privileged? to see radicalization in three places:
- trump people vs the rest
- ISIS recruiting & innoculation
- Hong Kong, pro- vs anti-police/Beijing
All six of these factions insist they're using critical thinking and meta-analysis, that they're seeing the other side's (invalid) arguments.
I am with #DanahBoyd's much less sanguine analysis in https://medium.com/@zephoria/a-few-responses-to-criticism-of-my-sxsw-edu-keynote-on-media-literacy-7eb2843fae22
"media literacy and critical thinking will be deployed as an assertion of authority over epistemology."
"I believe in empathy and building resilience… I relish people recognizing unconscious bias and grappling with the limits of their own mind. But I’m not at all convinced that asking people to strengthen their individual cognitive capacities will do a lot to address a complex systemic issue."
The following is false:
‘The only thing we can do is to improve our critical thinking & media literacy, & learn what we must be on guard against … we can learn tools to defend ourselves in this era of rapid falsehood. We need to marshal our ability to think critically‘ https://mobile.twitter.com/drg1985/status/1209049776773378048
Critical thinking, media literacy, etc. are very poor tools for defending against viral falsehoods.
It’s also awful & condescending to believe that viral believers lack critical thinking or are stupid.