Show more

I wanted to write something about the cryptoart ("NFT") craze but I feel like there isn't much I can say that hasn't been said a dozen times already.

"As a society, we're carving out exceptions to a general standard of representativeness—choosing specific places where we remind each other that it's not allowed. The vast majority of the time, representativeness is not only rampant, it goes completely unnoticed... And it's drowning us."

"It’s Not What It Looks Like: Or, How The Representativeness Heuristic Is Ruining Every Fucking Thing" by Duncan Sabien

Conformity is a necessary evil in society, and often there is a debate between a side that does not recognize its necessity and another that does not recognize its evil.

I made this quip on my old Mastodon account (now defunct) but I think it's important enough to repeat (pending a longer blog post expanding on this idea).

The incident involving a certain food item at a certain event that took place two weeks ago is a prime example of the "PETA Principle" (as illustrated in ) in action: Controversial issues, those that can get many people on different sides involved, get talked about the most, as opposed to issues where people mostly agree. The incident was right on the edge of acceptability with some crucial factual disputes, making this whole thing ripe for arguments.

Facebook is deleting the face recognition-enabling faceprints of over 1 billion users worldwide. This is a testament to all the hard work activists have done to push back against this invasive technology.

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Fabricated Options" by Duncan_Sabien on Less Wrong

On "fabricated options," a type of wishful thinking which imagines choices without undesirable side effects or tradeoffs

In most cases I can bite my tongue because many of the specific proposals/campaigns are reasonable efforts at addressing inequity, but this sort of "rhetorical confusion" makes it difficult for me personally to fully participate in a lot of social-justice movements today.

Show thread

I'm willing to call systems that perpetuate existing biases "inequitable" ("inequity") because the idea of equity inherently involves existing social context.

Of course one might ask, "Well, why can't the concepts of bias and discrimination involve social context?" Well, they sure can; in fact, most uses of terms like "systemic [bias/X-ism]" seem to.

There's no point in arguing over definitions and I guess it's "just semantics" to a degree. But again, I think the distinction matters.

Show thread

I think a distinction needs to be made between social systems that introduce new forms of bias/discrimination and those that perpetuate existing forms. The former category is what I think of when it comes to terms like "bias," "discrimination," and the "X-isms." This is why the term " " in particular rubs me the wrong way: Pretty much every instance I have read about falls under latter category.

Maybe I should start using my Twitter account, just to follow relevant accounts (Not everyone has a Mastodon bridge lol)

"Maybe it’s expecting too much of the American people, but I wish the FDA could lean into this strategy. Grant drugs one-star, two-star, etc approvals... Then you could attach different legal rights and requirements to each of those."

"Adumbrations Of Aducanumab" from Astral Codex Ten

We have the right to a better digital future - a future where the ambitions of would-be monopolists and their shareholders take a back-seat to fairness, equity, and your right to self-determination.

The #ACCESSAct will help everyone that Big Tech has silenced - from BLM to Palestinians, Christian ministries to conservatives - create their online forums, with house rules that reflect their own values and needs.

"13 important points in the campus & K-12 'critical race theory' debate" by by Greg Lukianoff, Adam Goldstein, Bonnie Snyder and Ryne Weiss in "The Eternally Radical Idea"

(Side note: The replies to Lukianoff's Twitter thread on the article are a perfect demonstration of one of the reasons why I hate Twitter threads. I gave up trying to follow the discussion under each post. )

YouTube says this is due to a security update that was made for unlisted videos, but they clearly have the technical ability to preserve the URLs of old videos if they have an opt-out option.

"URIs don't change: people change them."

Show thread

is setting unlisted videos uploaded before 2017 to private unless the channel owner opts out.

If you have any old unlisted videos, please opt out ASAP so people can continue to access the videos at the same URLs!

I wonder how many these days still adhere to the classic model of providing downloadable audio files in an RSS/Web feed, rather than locking the audio behind streaming services and apps

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.