> “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”
That doesn't quite mesh with "reason, evidence and a scientific mindset". Finding fault with additional claims doesn't change that.
I find the changes Meta made, and the explicit examples they gave which groups to bash, abhorrent. But I also remember how the mainstream enforced all sorts of unhelpful things, so there was basically two big groups, Covid deniers running wild, and the people who didn't allow any criticism or questioning, who were using the outright Covid deniers as an excuse for that. While making ads about being asked by future generations to retell the story how they saved the world by staying at home. The arrogance and mindlessness was so thick you could cut it. It was all "you're with us or with the terrorists". That happened, trying to pretend it didn't would set us on the path of repeating stuff like that. Therefore, just no.
> That doesn't quite mesh with "reason, evidence and a scientific mindset". Finding fault with additional claims doesn't change that.
I agree. Honestly I think it was a real mistake for the WH to pressure Meta. Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is important.
But again, note how very little the current regime cares about the appearance of impropriety. The fact that Zuckerberg hasn't said a single thing about that is quite telling!
A lot of biases tend to be reflected in what people don't say, not what people do say. It is harder to hold people to account for omissions.
> there was basically two big groups, Covid deniers running wild, and the people who didn't allow any criticism or questioning, who were using the outright Covid deniers as an excuse for that. While making ads about being asked by future generations to retell the story how they saved the world by staying at home. The arrogance and mindlessness was so thick you could cut it. It was all "you're with us or with the terrorists".
The polarization on the issue was really bad, I agree. I was hoping that Operation Warp Speed would be a depolarizing event, but sadly that was not to be.
> note how very little the current regime cares about the appearance of impropriety
Yes, and I know it wasn't unfair treatment what "forced" them to get this way and do these things. They wanted to do them anyway.
For me it's not even about respecting certain principles so that you can demand them from people who don't like plurality (e.g. current US administration). It's just about the principles, nothing utilitarian. If one had to give up such principles to "win", then there is nothing to win anyway. Though I also think that intellectual honesty and tolerance, freedom and confidence etc. (not lip service to them) are really powerful. Something that can and does make people go "I want that for myself and the people around me".
And I think criticizing "one's own" isn't necessarily weakness, it doesn't have to lead to bickering and division. Just look at how you told someone off, and then I told you off, and now we're having this little conversation. Bad start, but better landing.
Mind you, I think some passion and having fun with the in-group, making some fun of other groups, can be fine. It's what people do when they do something together they believe in and are excited about. But some ironic distance, not unironically believing one's in-group to be "the" good guys, is also needed. And just generally thinking less in groups and labels first, and individuals and their opinions or arguments second, if at all.
Sorry for rambling, but also thanks for hearing me.
I agree. Where I start dooming is in realizing that incorrectness and simplistic modeling is a lot sexier than complexity. The world's now so much more complex than it ever has been, and we just haven't been able to keep up with it.
That doesn't quite mesh with "reason, evidence and a scientific mindset". Finding fault with additional claims doesn't change that.
I find the changes Meta made, and the explicit examples they gave which groups to bash, abhorrent. But I also remember how the mainstream enforced all sorts of unhelpful things, so there was basically two big groups, Covid deniers running wild, and the people who didn't allow any criticism or questioning, who were using the outright Covid deniers as an excuse for that. While making ads about being asked by future generations to retell the story how they saved the world by staying at home. The arrogance and mindlessness was so thick you could cut it. It was all "you're with us or with the terrorists". That happened, trying to pretend it didn't would set us on the path of repeating stuff like that. Therefore, just no.