Entries tagged 'cat:Opinion'

It's possible to convince somebody of something with the right (form of) argument. Entry created on 2024-07-09 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: #100DaysToOffload (41) Beliefs (2) Communication (3) Conspiracy Narratives (1) Conversation (2) Corona (12) Opinion (9) Science (6) Thinking (3) Languages used: en (248)

There is this thing that I've noticed happen when I'm speaking about something I've heard or read about but don't feel like an expert on. I believe that one should not spread information unless one truely understands it as well as how the information was gathered, what knowledge it builds on, what relevance and meaning it has in the context it likely will be applied in by the person who receives the information, and a few other principles that are hardly possible to honour every time. Those principles cannot be applied to everday conversations like smalltalk, without eliminating the interaction. (That's another topic, though.) So I don't apply them in general conversations with colleagues and customers and often overlook them in conversations with friends and other peers. So it is almost inevitable that I at some point say something I'm not 99.99% sure is correct the way I present it. It happens a lot with "interesting facts" and "what most people don't know". What happens then is that I feel in the wrong to some degree - because I have not made absolutely sure that I'm neither wrong nor going to be misunderstood - while the person I'm speaking to (if they see me as a peer, take me serious and are listening to me) takes what I say as new information and fits in into what they already know and believe. They don't know about the tiny feeling of guilt that I have. So I am regularly surprised when I speak to someone and seem to influence their set of beliefs inadvertently.

How to convince somebody of something is quite a complicated question psychologically. I've read enough about it to know that and to know that I'm not interested in learning how to do it in any professional way (or with style). But there are some interesting aspects to know about how easily people can change their mind in some situations and how tough it is to make somebody change their mind in others.

There was an experiment done that is often referred to in social media sometimes as an interesting bit of knowledgle and sometimes as an argument of an almost political nature, hinting at the stubbernness or irrationality of people with different beliefs (usually beliefs that deverge from the widely accepted set of scientific knowdlege). The simplified conclusion of this study is often presented as this: Presenting a person with a firm belief evidence that their belief is factually wrong makes it even stronger (see Backfire Effect). The conclusion that people draw from this sometimes is: Arguing rationally with somebody with an irrational belief will have the opposite from the intended effect. That is not usually true, though. Not only are cases where that happened rare even in the study that is referred to, the effect could also not be replicated when several researchers tried.

Sometimes I come across a person and learn of a belief of theirs that I find problematic for some reason or another. An extremist attitude to societies basic questions, fascist ideas formulated into political demands, a conspiracy narrative that results in hostile behaviour, things like that. These are usually beliefs with a large foundation that was built over years if not decades and they are often embedded in a world view that justifies and explains anything that might appear to others to oppose ethical code or the reasoning behind the belief. But "often" is not "always". And even if those things are the case is the assumption that simple, rational arguments won't have a positive effect is an erroneous one that is made too quickly. Yes, it seems like a hard undertaking to craft responses that take the opposite of your own beliefs into account properly, not as the hallucination of the enemy camp but as an equal to your own opinion. It also feels like the work necessary to formulate a response that foresees all the expectable counter-arguments and to answer all the antagonistical follow-up questions. That's the things I expect to be confronted with after objecting to something somebody said in a conversation. Correctly so. But if forging a plan to optimally convince the opponent to abandon a belief of theirs is not what I want to do, then it's not necessary to put that much work into it. You can just respond honestly with a simple thought and even end the conversation if it becomes too cumbersome. When a topic has an emotional component, it's easy to forget that keeping this on the level of a regular conversation with no expectation that it will have any meaning to anybody other than passing time.

The insight that I keep having and intend to remember in applicable situations more often is that it is not necessary but possible to convince somebody to take on a different view on something. My mind is not short of explanations and explanation attempts from opposite viewpoints and I'm ready to share them with others to encourage a broadening of their thinking. If it's my own view, a belief based on my own experience, I'm often more reluctant to share it if it opposes somebody else's belief. But it is worth it. Provided both conversing parties bring forth the necessary trust to take other's assertions seriously, a calm, rational objection is far better than cutting the topic short. The latter can easily have the same effect as saying something like "Oh, you're one of those." Derogatory remarks should be avoided just like dismissing a concern, be it ever so irrational. Ignoring an argument for being too absurd or discrediting a source without a reason, talking down or being in any way not as respectful as you would like to be treated yourself in an emotional discussion will not get you closer to invoking insight nor to learning something useful yourself. Those aren't new ideas. The realisation that is, as a conscious insight, new to me, is that I'm far more likely to influence somebody's thinking than I assumed. If a respectful discussion can't be maintained for after small talk got out of the area of the mundane, I don't need to maintain it any longer. One sincere offer of a different view on something is better than none, and better than one with a snarky remark about anti-science belief systems appended, which will likely not make your conversational partner want to think about any of what you said. Say something positive and let it sink it. The hours and even night after you talked can do a lot for making a new idea a familiar one that can or needs to be integrated with ones world view.

I will not continue to give tips on how to convince people of anything. That's not what this entry was supposed to be about. And I'm not experienced enough to give good tips. But I want to leave a book referral here. I can't recommend it, because I haven't read it. But it appears to me that Lee McIntyre knows what he's talking about in his book "How to Talk to a Science Denier". I conclude that from what he says in book introduction (YT, IV.

Comment via email

Entry created on 2024-07-05 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: #100DaysToOffload (41) Cars (1) Driving (1) Opinion (9) Stress (1) Languages used: en (248)

Here's a controversal conviction that I've developed over the past couple of years: Humans are not able to operate a car savely at road speeds. Ergo, humans should not be allowed to drive.

I drive a lot in my current job. I may not be the best of drivers for many reasons but I tend to accept and abide by the rules if in doubt (and in general, because that's what rules are for). I've learned to save gas and breaks by coasting just right. I've learned to adjust my speed not only to road conditions but also to amount and type of traffic. I don't use apps that warn of speed cameras or police check points because I don't have to. I drive sensibly. I'm not payed more if I get to the customer earlier. I gain quality of life if I drive calmly and defensively. By the measurements that I learned in driving school, I'm a relatively good driver. In practice, when I share a road with other drivers, in the real world, I don't think I can count as a good driver though.

Most people seem to make their own rules for the road and assume that everybody will drive by their rules. They drive 5 km/h over, 10 km/h over, 20 km/h over. They assume a right to overtake because they chose to drive 50 km/h over the limit. They expect you to jump a red light if it's been red for less than two seconds. They assume right of way if no sign reminds them of the rules. Not everybody does all of those things. Most people try to respect the rules as they are put down by law (maybe except driving 5 km/h over). But some people, sometimes, follow their own rules, which is when everybody who doesn't gets in their way. That is often argued to be aproblem of "those drivers" being selfish, stupid and/or respectless. But the truth is likely that all of the people who sometimes drive according to their own rules do so because they are convinced that it's the right thing to do. In fact sometimes drivers spend thousands of Euros to argue in court that their own rules where the right ones to follow as opposed to the ones written down in the relevant law. They get angry and frustrated at people who strictly respect the official rules as the other way around. Of course I'm simplifying a lot here to make my point. I'm not describing any particular example for that reason. But I reckon most people don't break rules and make it harder for others on purpose. Two exceptions: Some people sometimes do have the intention to harm others and try to do so by driving a car. And people sometimes spontaniously decicde to provoke other drivers after they felt provoked or feel like somebody should do something about the behaviour of another driver. I can't say anything about the first exception. That's not the topic of this entry. The second exception I'll come back to later when I talk about stress.

So, when driving intend to drive sensibly according to the rules they deem the correct set, and still clash with other drivers, as it constantly happens on busy reads, that means that either simply setting up rules and hoping that everybody will follow them as well as possible isn't enough or that people are always going to make their own rules. I think the latter is close to the trouth considering the amount of work that goes into trying to make people abide by the defined rules (teaching classes, enforcing physically, convincing by extra signs, commercials, punishment, …).

It is so common for drivers to breaks the rules that certain rules are expected to be broken by the vast majority of drivers most of the time. Driving below or at the speed limit is a very easy way to tease other traffic participants. Driving 100 or 80 km/h in the rain where that is required by law is seen as traffic obstruction by most people. Not stopping at a stop sign in a driving test will immediately revoke your chance of getting a licence. But stopping at a stop sign after you got your license tells others that you're a bad driver or an ass. Hardly anybody ever does it. Good driving doesn't only come down to following the rules like I may have made it sound just now. But the fact that despite all the investments some people see the rules as something that should be generally followed and others drive with the assumption that some rules obviously will and should not be followed creates a constant conflict that seems almost impossible to resolve. Maybe truely impossible as long as so many so different infdividuals control cars on the same road.

Another thing, probably the more important one when it comes to explaining why I believe that humans can not drive cars acceptably well, is how hostile male drivers become when driving under stress. And people are stressed. Working full while also having a life is regularly stressful and I don't need to list the range of hundrets of reason why people get overly stressed every day. It's a point that's often made: People chance character when driving a car. They are capable of atrocious thoughts when driving under stress. They are easy to develop hate at other road participants without being able to communicate much with them. It's a known problem. Men build up rage while driving unless they do some really stupid thing. Knowing about your own tendency to react that way to other drivers being on the same road you're going on doesn't prevent you from reacting with anger to repeated small inconsistancies in other drivers behaviours. And with contempt at people who make up their own rules and ignore your rule set. And with hate to manouvers that you see as an indication of a respectless attitude in other drivers. And with rage at the constant occurance of such situations.

Of course rage is not a constant state while driving. And you might say that, all in all, it does seem to work out relatively well because people aren't having accidents every other day. Accidents with injuries are rare with modern cars. But I think that tens of millions of injuries and more than a million deaths per year (WHO report) are about 100 % more than it should be. Above that though, I think that the hostility and trauma that driving under stress generates constantly, whether you are one of the agressive ones or one who swollows without externalising your anger, is enough reason to prohibit humans from driving cars at speeds abover 20 km/h. But of course that is unrealistic. Too late, after humans have been driving cars since they exist.

The common assumption seems to be that this problem will solve itself when selfdriving cars become a common reality and over the then following 20 years most cars will be replaced with ones that don't require a human driver anymore. Only poor people will drive themselves, and later only vintage car enthusiasts. But That's still science fiction. Closer than ever, yes. But not a reality that is here yet, and possibly not even on the horizon.

The solution is simple: Make driving illegal. Force people to find other ways of getting where they need to go. People have to walk more, drive bikes and if they want to ride carriages with horsed more often and for more practical reasons than nowadays. The economy will collapse from the sudden change what's possible at short notice. But the problem that people drive badly will be solved.

Comment via email

My Further Experience With (Trying To) Use Astro Slide As My Main Phone Entry created on 2023-02-25 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Android (4) Batteries (6) Camera (2) Computer (76) Crowdfunding (4) Displays (5) Hardware (15) Opinion (9) PDAs (2) Planet Computers (2) Languages used: en (248)

This entry is referencing the entry 'Planet Computers' Astro Slide'.

After having owened and used both previous PDAs by Planet Computers (the Gemini PDA and the Cosmo Communicator), I partly knew what to expect from their new modal, the Astro Slide. I knew it wouldn't be a robust, top-notch state-of-the-art smartphone. Planet Computers makes devices for a pretty small niche and needs to sell these devices for a reasonable price despite their low quantity. After having used it as my main phone, I've come to the comclusion that there are reasosn to be disappointed by the outcome of the device anyway.

I've written about my initial impressions of the device. This entry just adds what further experiences I made while using the device as my main phone for ~42 days. tl;dr: I'm still disappointed.

The build quality is relatively low. But I underestimated and/or misremembered how annoying those buttons with no pressure point whatsoever are. Thy aren't even protuding, nor do they have a different color or texture from their surrounding. That means every times I want to turn on the screen of the phone without opening it, I have to either stumble around the edge of the device with my finger for a while, or I need to have a close-up look at the side of the device to locate the button, then fumble around with my finger for just a little while. That turns of the touch-screen. But unlocking it by using the touch-screen doesn't always work. Sometimes the touch-screen just doesn't seem to be in the mood to respiond to being touched in certain places. I also forgot how annoying it is to have a phone without working adaptive sc reen brightness. I have to turn of the brightness way up, above a sensible poiunt, to make sure it's readable in sun-light. Sometimes, adaptive screen brightness just turns it to 0 for a while, which effectively means it turns off the screen. I guess there's a reason why automatic screen brightness is turned off by default.

The screen is okay, but not very bright, hardly readable in direct sunlight. Colors aren't very accurate. And sometimes contrast and colors shift as if some filtwer was applied, for no reason. The speakers are small and not very loud, lack low frequencies completely (no bass). The headphone output is prone to CPU noise while the screen is turned on. The fingerprint reader is so unreliable it's best treated as if it didn't exist. It's useless. The sliding mechanism feels surprisingly sturdy. I didn't break it yet. But I'm sure something will break or come apart soon, as it was the case with my previous Planet Computer PDAs. The software isn't much better. Ecven though there are security updates available and a notification makes sure to permanently inform me of that fact, no updates can be loaded. The OTA update is fundamentally broken. Apparently Planet Computers didn't think it would be a necessary feature to be able to update Android!

I don't know if it's the Mediatek chipset that the device uses (Maybe Android support for that chipset really is that bad.) but using Android on the Astro Slide is just as buggy on the Astro Slide as it was on previous Planet Computers PDAs. Some apps aren't available for the platform. After every time Android boots some internal app whose function isn't clear to me crashes. Sometimes notifications disappear for no reason. Sometimes a notification sound plays for no reason. Sometimes the screen turns off and locks for no reason. Sometimes the device reboots for no apparent reason. It can be said that Android does run on it. But it's not the experience one expects from a system that is supposed to be native to and ships with a device.

The camera quality is just beyond embarassing. The sensor was obviously chosen by number of megapixels and price only. It's been a long time since I've seen such smushy and noisy pictures even from a <100€ phone. Battery life isn't as good as you might expect from a clunky devoce like this. My Google Pixel 4a with not even half of the battery capacity, despite being over four years old and in daily use, lasts longer than the Astro Slide with (very roghty and estimated) similar use.

When backing the Indiegogo project, my intention was to use the Astro Slide as a small Debian laptop for my packet. A mobile machine for SSH, FTP, some web stuff and for texting. It would have replaced its predecessor, the Cosmo Communicator, in that role. But Planet Computers stopped supporting any OS other than Google Android. Not only is there no official buld of any Linux distribution, the package mirror that used to provide DEBs for the Cosmo Communicator also quietly diasppeared. There doesn't seem enough interest in the device in the Sailfish community. Maybe some Linux support will come from users at some point. But I don't see any on the horizon.

With the previous Planet Computers PDA, the Cosmo Communicator, I had a fallback use case: an occasional PDA for SSH stuff while travelling, sometimes a tiny fileserver at events. But lacking availability of any non-googley OS, I feel compelled to ask: What is the Astro Slide for? I, personally, don't seem to have a suitable use case for it.

Comment via email

Analogue, Digital, Meaninglessness Entry created on 2022-03-12 (edited 2022-07-21) Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Analogue (1) Digital (1) Language (7) Opinion (9) Peeves (2) Languages used: en (248)

((Oh, I forgot to fill this one with a content part until now.))

Yeah, I have some peeves about the use of language. I don't think it's just being unable to accept that language changes. I get and accept that. I use words and phrases that wouldn't have made any sense and sometimes noticeably aren't understood by earlier generations. I use nouns as verbs. I use abbreviations where it isn't necessary because it sounds more hip or carries the right (e.g. ironic) undertone. I sometimes use sentence structured that weren't accepted as being correct when I was in school. I use words that, without context, have a different meaning from what I intend them to mean because the stand in a context that I expect my listener to accept as giving the term a different meaning or connotation. I use the singular them and other things many people find wrong. And I don't mind if other people are doing the same things. What I think unnecessarily changing a language by using it wrongly is using a word to mean something it doesn't mean and has never meant because the speaker is confusing the work with another, similar one. It's misspelling a word because the author assumes that spelling doesn't matter. It's placing a comma in a sentence because it looks better, not because it belongs there. It's mixing up and combining proverbs or other expressions as if they didn't have any meaning. It's using a word that has meaning as a filling word, or just because it sounds good, and expecting the listener to know that the speaker didn't mean that (despite saying it). I don't always speak and write in my first language and I know other's are using languages that are fairly new or very new to them.

In other words: I mostly consider it wrong use of language to use a phrase or word to say something else than what almost all or all speakers of that language had already accepted that phrase or word to mean. I don't mind people writing "tho" instead of "though" or "thats" instead of "that's" (although a "its" can hinder my reading flow). But writing "would of" instead of "would have" or "would've" is a really bad habit. "Would" and "of" have a meaning. And while my mind tries to figure out what the author is trying to say by using those words before coming to the conclusion that they aren't, my brain could have processed three more sentences instead. I don't mind it when people only use lower case letters. But switching case every other letter is just inconsiderate to the reader. I don't care how wrong you spell the word "figuratively". But if you spell it "literally" (which literally means the opposite) then you're just using the wrong word.

One of these mistakes (according to me) that has made it into the daily usage is "analogue". That word has completely changed it's meaning, which I find fascinating. I mean, there are worse examples of words having their meaning changed over time by being used differently than before. But this one appears relevant to me because by being used with its new meaning it conveys less information that the words that already existed before "analogue" was used in this way. I suppose it started with "digital". Digital: of or relating to the fingers or toes. Okay, that's an even more original meaning that what I mean here. "Digital" has been used in electronics for a long time to describe data that is recorded or displayed in a form of a countable number of steps. The digital clock displays the time in distinguishable steps of 60 minutes per hour (and 60 seconds per minute if it has a seconds display). There is no in-between. The analogue clock ("analogue" being used as a sort of opposite of "digital" here) on the other hand (picture a sundial here) only always shows the exact representation of now, which may be between two seconds, between femtoseconds, between whatever digital (/countable) unit you make up. Every moment in time has an analogue on the sundial.

So saying a recording (be it a cardiogram or a piece of music) is analogue or digital means exactly that. It's either stored as sound waves on an analogue medium or by storing numbers from a limited predefined range on a digital medium. That's why it's sometimes said that analogue audio recordings sound better than digital recordings.

So, what does that have to do with the internet and mass-communication? As far as I can figure out nothing except vague connotations in one area or another. Implied associations relying on context that ranges from "how this person has used the term before on this channel" to "what has been discussed on other channels on which the person using the term has read and participated in over the recent years" (which listeners can't or at least shouldn't be expected to know). "Digitally" is often used to mean "something related to or involving electronic devices", or "using technologies that are capable of mass-communication", or just "in a modern way in which it hasn't commonly be done in the past". But it can also just mean "digitally", in which case "machine-readable" can also be implied but not said. Without explanation and/or a large lot of context, it's usually impossible to know what's actually meant by the word. "In person", "on paper", "using a device not connected to the internet", "similar to something else" - those are all meanings for which the word "analogue" is used today. Sometimes, the user of the word really doesn't know what they want to say, except that it's somehow related to not being online, not using modern communication services. I suppose then it can be the right word to convey "something with electronics and the internet". But in all cases where I read and head the word used, I wish the speaker or author would be more specific and let me know what they actually mean. "Digital communication" seems to include messages of any format that are sent over social network platforms, audio messages that are uploaded to a remote computer and downloaded from there by another computer, and text messages regardless of the medium that is used as long as it's electronic. The same audio message spoken through a phone (which first digitizes it and then sends it over the same wires using the same internet protocol and the same server infrastructure than the rest of the internet does) is not considered digital. A fax is digital, but excluded by the modern usage of digital. A digital message written on paper is also not considered digital.

Why change the meaning of the words? What's the advantage? Isn't this always confusing and obfuscating?

Comment via email

Political Correctness Entry created on 2022-01-16 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Debate (1) Discussion (1) Language (7) Opinion (9) Political Correctness (1) Politics (5) Thoughts (72) Languages used: en (248)

When I first realised that the disagreements about political correctness aren't just yet another sign of political camps having opposite views about societal coexistence and interactions but rather a debate in which proponents and opponents of political correctness are situated in the same communities, I was a bit confused. When I realised that free thinkers and rationalists repeatedly spoke out against political correctness as a whole and against individual examples of it as well as recent developments in western societies that I view as positive, I was surprised. This year I have finally heard enough to get me to look into why that is. More than a few times I have heard people whose world view I share or whose opinions I value either condemn political correctness or rant about something that in their depiction went wrong or is going wrong because of political correctness. But they seemed to assume that the reader/listener/dialogue partner is on the same page and didn't go into detail or defend that view enough to make me understand it. Ultimately it was the hate in the sound Stephen Fry's voice that made me search for the cause of the clash of opinions between his and mine.

My view on the topic has always been a bit simple but nonetheless felt mature to me. It's not like I've never read or thought about political correctness and relating topics before. Simply put, I don't see a good reason to do something incorrectly on purpose. There are many reasons to be politically incorrect apart from sheer self-purpose and intentional offence. Ignorance, a lack of awareness, understanding or time to think about matters like this and other human imperfections are all very widespread and understandable causes for political incorrectness. But they aren't good reasons to be incorrect. I'm trying to write this without using any examples because I fear that it would make me go way too far down into detail. So, in short: When making a conscious decision to do something one way or the other, one should, all other things being equal, ideally, always choose the one that, to their knowledge, has the least potential to cause offence, oppress or support existing inequality. Yes, I know. But I said in short. Let's keep it at that for now.

What I found when I looked into this debate was, well, first of all a lack of a definition in almost every case, which makes debating on it a lot less efficient and more prone to misunderstandings, leading to misrepresentations and wrong assumptions of other's opinions and thus a lack of a result of the whole debate. But trying to look past that, I got the feeling that the motivations for rejecting what I perceive as positive progression through political correctness are often rooted in a fundamental dislike for change. I should be able to relate to this even more than I do as it is. But I don't see this as a rational argument against political correctness. And it isn't used as one. It's just what I assume behind many cul-de-sacs in discussions because no clear, rational reason is given. Even people with a well-deserved reputation of being rational thinkers create the impression of arguing out of personal offence (at which point the opponent often points out the irony of the one arguing for the freedom of offence being the one who is offended by rational arguments, which usually leads the discussion to leave the path that looks like it could lead to useful insight).

But there is one argument that I hadn't really taken into account before: The claim that it just doesn't work. Empirically, what did political correctness bring us directly? How much progress was caused or influenced by it? And how much hate, tribalism and radicalisation has it caused and still causes it on the right? I don't know. But that is an interesting part of this discussion. I don't think I have anything useful to contribute to this. So I'll leave these questions entirely unanswered before reading more.

Comment via email

All Those Bike Attachements Entry created on 2022-01-16 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Bicycles (1) Electronics (15) Opinion (9) Projects (40) Languages used: en (248) Topics: Projects → Ideas (8)

I think bicycle accessaries are of these things that developed over time past the point where it would have been sensible to rethink how things are done. I think it would make sense the rethink how all those bike attachments are integrated.

A bicycle without any attachments is already nice. It can be used without them and none of the things are necessary all the time. So it can make sense to have them detachable. But probably most people use their bike mainly for one thing - transportation, mountain-biking, sports - and need the same combination of attachments most times the bike is used. (Minus the lights when it's not dark.) I think it's rather peculiar that people buy, attach and use all these extras without questioning the crowded state of their bicycle frame. Let me list the things that I find useful myself.

Bell (*)
Front light (*)
Back light (*)
Phone/GPS holder
Phone charger
Action camera
Remote for indicators (in helmet or jacket/shirt)
Horn

(*): required by law when driving on the street

So, in this configuration, when you get back from riding your bike, you have to turn off the front light, turn off the back light, turn off the helmet indicator, turn off the indicator remote, check the charge of the front light, the back light, the phone charger, the GPS, the helmet, the helmet control, the horn and the action cam, detach the things that need charging, bring them in the house and plug them in for charging one after another. You may also have an electronic lock, additional front lights, a breaking light, the remote control for the breaking light and a headlamp. Half of them still have a micro USB port and none of the batteries last for dozens of rides (unless you ride mostly when it isn't dark). Sure, that comes with the benefit of having these devices, people seem to think. But they don't do all of this when they get out of their car. Because it wouldn't make sense to have a separate battery for every electronic device in a modern car. Neither does it make sense on a bike.

It would be nice to have a central battery for everything on my bike and a single on/off switch. But I don't use it enough to see me investing in building it myself. Because if I'd do it, I'd want it to be safe and secure in any weather, look good and not be too clunky or heavy. So I'd have to invest time.

Comment via email

The Web Sucks Entry created on 2021-12-25 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Opinion (9) Rants (3) World Wide Web (10) Languages used: en (248)

Not all of it. But definitely most of the world wide web sucks. I recently stumbled upon a blog post that puts many of my thoughts about the modern web into words well and that I'd like to share:

The Web Sucks by Chucho.

25 years ago I imagined what would be possible if I had access to the internet. 20 years ago we were excited about and enjoyed the possibilities of the web It was better than imagined. 15 years ago we were excited about so much more interesting and useful content, "Web 2.0" and the new possibilities that really started to become useful tools in everyday life. 10 years ago pretty much everbody was online, it had become too crowded but we knew where to go, which browser extensions to install and what to filter for a good experience. 5 years ago I started to realise how fucked the web had actually become.

It happened so slowly that it felt normal. But eventually the vast vast majority of content on the web was and still is commercial websites that mainly serve a purpose other than educate the reader, share experience, knowledge or other content. Almost all of the sites that appear or claim to exist for spreading information contain more paid content than actual content. It has long become impossible to filter out the pieces of the web with a less-than-creditable intent. I think way back when you considered to install an ad blocker for the first time, that's when a major line was crossed. It became so much worse so quickly that I can hardly remember how benign a large potion of the web was years ealier.

More people than ever share content in good faith on the internet today. But even this urge to share experiences, be it for the gratification of an urge to present the author's thoughts and feelings (like this entry) or for altruistic reasons for a greater good, is commercialised and directed into channels optimised for profit maximisation. You can't even access most of it without signing a legal contract that you definitely don't understand (because specialised legal experts aren't even sure how to interpret many of the most important parts) with one of the subjectively most evil companies in the history of mankind.

No wonder many people try to abandon the web as much as it is still possible (which is becoming less and less). No wonder the Gemini project was founded with built in feature contraints and has their users argue and decide against implementing basic features into the protocol that would help make browsing the gemini space a more comfortable experience. From the technological view, openness to new festures, the extendibility of the protocol, has made the mess the web is today possible.

Of cource I'm ignoring many things here the modern web enables and that I use and choose to continue to use. I'm still wondering wether any of it is worth the trouble. From relatively small trouble, like megabytes of at best useless Javascript to larger trouble, like huge companies using AI-created algorithms that have never been evaluated for anything but how much money they potentially could produce when put to use, and intentional policy choices, pressing most of humankind to produce less helpful but more profiting content and, more and more commonly, intentionally harmful content on a scale science is starting to realise is impairing quality of life, empathy and may even have notable bad impacts on international politics.

Seriously, what are we ~~doing~~ allowing to be done with this technology?

Comment via email

Real Life Entry created on 2021-12-05 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Language (7) Opinion (9) Peeves (2) Real Life (1) Society (2) Thoughts (72) Trolls (2) Languages used: en (248)

Of all the things people do wrong in the usage of language, this is probably my pet peeve. Maybe because I believe that I can reasonably argue against it.

People use the term "real life" ("IRL" and, very similarly, "real world") as if it would mean the opposite of "online" or "over the internet" or "using some electronic medium". Hereafter I will call this the wrong usage of the term. It is done so often and regularly that it actually does mean one of these things. Before I describe what I think the problem with it is, let me try to explain what I'm talking about, exactly. Both of those words (real and life) have meanings on their own and using them together is absolutely in line with those individual meanings. I don't find it absurd to expect that the phrase means "the life that is actually true, as opposed to fictional". In fact, I consider it better to expect this meaning because not only did this meaning exist first, it also continues to be used. "The real world" is used meaning the opposite of a virtual world. I suppose the internet was considered to be a virtual world in the beginning and assume that that's where the wrong usage of "real world" stems from.

The main problem that I see is that when people regularly and naturally apply the wrong usage, the notion that the internet is not part of the real world, the real life, is reinforced, which I fear may influence the perception and the expectation that what happens on the internet does not have the same meaning or effects on life as things that happen without the internet playing a major role. In some ways they are (e.g. greater possible audience on social media than on a soapbox), but not in the way the use of "real world" as the opposite implies.

A conversation in a chat room can be much more real than a conversation offline. E-Mails, their meaning and effects on the world aren't less real than those of letter written or printed on paper. A confession over a video chat platform is not unreal compared to a confession over a telephone call, which is not unreal compared to a confession given in close physical proximity, just different. A threat posted in a Whatsapp group doesn't have less impact than a thread yelled at a schoolyard or under four eyes.

I imagine that the more this wrong usage is ignored the more its wrong implications get internalised by society and individuals. I wouldn't go so far to assume that there is a relavant relation between the wrong usage of "real life" and "real world" and the prevalence of "cyberbullying", online harassment and other extreme forms of modern trollship. But I also don't think the possibility that language influences the thinking and by that extension the actions of humans should be overlooked. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some connection to be found. But I don't know of any research on this nor would I expect to find any.

Comment via email