Since everyone banning anything is exactly the same level of pointless are you also in favor of bringing back more asbestos, lead, and child labor as well? Or would you say that context matters, evidence matters, and critical thinking about the actual circumstances under discussion is often necessary?
The context provided by GP seems to be "media". I think there are some things about short-form video platforms that form a bit of a different argument than the traditional "new media bad" stance but just jumping into why chemical poisons and forced labor were bad isn't going to help drive that nuance.
It sounds like you're agreeing that context matters and just underlining my point for me. Comparing chemical poisons to media is every bit as ridiculous as comparing pre-algorithmic media to social media.. I think everyone who is interested in serious conversation with nuance already knows that.
Forgetting the adults in the room who still want to lean into all kinds of disingenuous what-aboutism for a moment, and just considering kids who are understandably self-interested in defense of their addictions.. really now. How could a generation of people who grew up wanting to be influencers actually be ignorant of the effectiveness of algorithmic manipulation? It's a contradiction. So why the insistence on some absurd comparison to old media? I'm all for nuance but there's not much of that to be had. I'd settle for a little reflection, sincerity, and logical consistency.
Yes, I'm agreeing with your (core) point through and through - the nuance came into play with the way you tried to argue the point. It sorta made sense if you already saw things the same way, otherwise it came across as completely ignoring the context GP provided to demand GP consider context without further example of why their context was incomplete. At the end of the day, a part saying "and this is why it's actually different in that context" is still unanswered and you're just telling them to ignore that.
The same is true of the second call. If we dismiss the need to explain why this case is different as just disingenuous what-aboutism to be ignored the argument is left as "if one takes this as problematic then it's clear how it'll be problematic to counter". There's still no persuasion of why it's differently problematic if you don't already see reasons why yourself, just the assertion it is if one thinks enough (which could be asserted about anything true or false).
I think the biggest things that make this problem unique from the media context GP provided are:
- The individualized and targeted nature of the algorithmic feed being a different type of influence concern than content for mass or group consumption.
- The above individualized nature leading into much stronger "echo chamber" polarization, especially when combined with the endless and always on nature of the feeds.
- The content itself is delivered in many more technological layers of dark patterns than traditional mass/group media ever carried.
The only argument I hear a lot which I exclude from my list is the quality/type of content. I think, if you remove the above problems, the content would really not be as different from typical content as we'd like to think. I know others disagree and say it's the short nature itself which is harmful but I don't think that's actually a new unique argument to why people are worried about this latest media trend.
