No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
This is a suggestion with questionable morality BUT a new account with reasonable subscriptions might be a good solution. That being said, if my child was trying to patronize me about my conspiracy theories, I wouldn't like it, and would probably flip if they try to change my accounts.
Yeah the morality issue is the hard part for me... I've been entrusted by various people in the family to help them with their technology (and by virtue of that not mess with their technology in ways they wouldn't approve of), violating that trust to stop them from being exposed to manipulative content seems like doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Really? That seems far-fetched. Various people in the family specifically want you not to mess with their technology? ??
If the algorithm is causing somebody to become a danger to others and potentially themselves, I'd expect in their right state of mind, one would appreciate proactive intervention.
eg. archive.is/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/fox-news-brain-meet-the-families-torn-apart-by-toxic-cable-news
I think this is pretty much what it boils down to. Where do you draw the line between having the right to expose yourself to media that validates your world view and this media becoming a threat to you to a point where you require intervention?
I've seen lots of people discussion their family's Qanon casualties to recognize it's a legitimate problem, not to mention tragic in many cases, but I would still think twice before 'tricking' someone. What if she realizes what's happening and becomes more radicalized by this? I find that direct conversation, discussion, and confrontation work better; or at least that worked with family that believes in bullshit.
That being said, the harmful effects of being trapped in a bubble by an algorithm are not largely disputed.
Wondering if a qanon person would be offended at you deradicalise them seems like overthinking - it's certainly possible, but most likely fine to do anyway. The only cases where you'd think twice is if something similar has happened before and if this person has a pattern of falling into bad habits/cultish behaviour in the past. In which case you have a bigger problem on your hands or just a temporary one.
I guess despite them being Qanon, I still see and believe in the human in them, and their ultimate right to believe stupid shit. I don't think it's ever 'overthinking' when it comes to another human being's privacy and freedom. I actually think it's bizarre to quickly jump into this and decide to alter the subscriptions behind their back like they're a 2 year old child with not even perception to understand basic shit.
Nobody said this had to be an instant/quick reaction to anything. If you can see that somebody has 'chosen' to fall into a rabbithole and self destruct, becoming an angrier, more hateful (bigoted) and miserable person because of algorithms, dark patterns and unnatural infinite content spirals, I'd recognise that it isn't organic or human-made but in fact done for the profit motive of a large corporation, and do the obvious thing.
If you're on Lemmy because you hate billionaire interference in your life why allow it to psychologically infect your family far more insidiously on youtube?
Exactly, no one said that.
Well, you argued that it's 'bizarre to quickly jump' into it and interfere.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'll think twice before deciding something isn't for someone to the point where I'd have to interfere without their own knowledge and consent (as opposed to talking to them).
The problem with censorship is that one always assumes they are correct and the other person is deluded. In many cases, like this one, it could be true. In others, it's not. My point was to take caution when deciding something about someone's life.
Consider it from a different angle - if a techy Q-anon "fixed" the algorithm of someone whose device they had access to due to tech help. That person would rightfully be pissed off, even if the Q-anon tech nerd explained that it was for their own good and that they needed to be aware of this stuff etc.
Obviously that's materially different to the situation at hand, but my point is that telling someone that what you've done is necessary and good will probably only work after it's helped. Initially, they may still be resistant to the violation of trust.
If I think of how I would in that situation, I feel a strong flare of indignant anger that I could see possibly manifesting in a "I don't care about your reasons, you still shouldn't have messed with my stuff" way, and then fermenting into further ignorance. If I don't let the anger rise and instead sit with the discomfort, I find a bunch of shame - still feeling violated by the intervention, but sadly realising it was not just necessary, but actively good that it happened, so I could see sense. There's also some fear from not trusting my own perceptions and beliefs following the slide in reactionary thinking. That's a shitty bunch of feelings and I only think that's the path I'd be on because I'm unfortunately well experienced in being an awful person and doing the work to improve. I can definitely see how some people might instead double down on the anger route.
On a different scale of things, imagine if one of my friend who asked for tech help was hardcore addicted to a game like WoW, to the extent that it was affecting her life and wellbeing. Would it be acceptable for me to uninstall this and somehow block any attempts to reinstall? For me, the answer is no. This feels different to the Q-anon case, but I can't articulate why exactly
Better to be embarrassed temporarily than lose a decade of precious time with your family on stuff that makes you angry on the internet.
You're seeing a person who freely made choices here, perhaps like the gamer, but I see a victim of opportunists on youtube, who may have clicked on something thinking it was benign and unknowingly let autoplay and the recommendations algorithm fry their brain.
You probably think the gamer situation is different because they, unlike the boomer, are aware of what's happening and are stuck in a trap of their own making. And yes, in such a situation, I'd talk it out with them before I did anything since they're clearly (in some ways) more responsible for their addiction, even though iirc some people do have a psychological disposition that is more vulnerable that way.
edit: I want to clarify that I do care about privacy, it's just that in these cases of older angry relatives (many such cases), I prioritise mental health.
Maybe not so far fetched. I work in hospice, with the vast majority of the patients I see in their 75-95+yo range. While most have no interest in technology, it's not uncommon for the elderly to have "that grandchild" that helps everyone set up their cell phone, "get the Netflix to work," set up Ring doorbells, etc. I've even known some to ask their grandchild to help their equally elderly neighbor (who doesn't have any local family) with their new TV. It's a thing.
I reworded my comment to clarify (my original wording was a bit clumsy).
I don't really think they're a danger to others anymore than their policy positions in my option are harmful to some percentage of the population. i.e. they're not worried about indigenous populations invading and killing people with poison arrows, but they do buy into some of the anti-establishment doctors when it comes to issues like COVID vaccination.
It's kind of like "I don't think you're a great driver, but I don't think you're such a bad driver I should be trying to subvert your driving." Though it's a bit of a hard line to draw...
After watching a hospice patient cry because (according to her) the Dr interviewed on Fox News talked about how he doesn't do abortions anymore after performing a late term abortion where the mother went into labor and delivered the baby before he could kill it, so he cleaned up the baby and consoled it as he discussed with the parents their options on how to dispatch it after the fact. She was inconsolable. But in drinking Fox's Kool aid, it was the only channel she would watch.
For moral reasons I will take any opportunity to nudge the vulnerable away from the harm certain entities create.
I don't understand what happened in this story.
I think it's hard to have a universal morality. I wouldn't want my family forcing their moral judgements on me if the roles were reversed. e.g. I'm not a car guy, but my family members wouldn't (even if they could) make it so it only drives to "approved" locations.
Like the other commentor said, I think it's better to talk about these issues, though that too can be hard, I can't say I've made much visible traction.
Well, I assume neither you or I are psychologists that can determine what one person may or may not do. However these algorithms are confirmed to be dangerous left unchecked on a mass level - e.g. the genocide in Burma that occurred with the help of FB.
Ultimately if I had a relative in those shoes, I'd want to give them the opportunity to be the best person they can be, not a hateful, screen-addicted crazy person. These things literally change their personality in the worst cases. Not being proactive is cowardly/negligient on the part of the person with the power to do it imo.