The word "moderation" is loaded, for sure. Twitter accepts propositions that are matters of preference and propositions that are matters of facts or evidence. To determine if a proposition is in the latter category, they would need to make decisions about breadth to incorporate all the relevant evidence and implications of the evidence. Someone might post a message like "The Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective." Are six cases of Parsonage-Turner Syndrome considered sufficient counter evidence to that claim? It depends on how one defines safe -- if someone has a very narrow lens on "safe and effective" (they happen to know someone in this small cohort) then they may claim there are being unfairly moderated, even though their claim lacks breadth. In contrast, if one posted a message saying that vaccination for COVID-19 could turn out to be painful if you have a particular set of genetic mutations and some baseline inflammation, and cited the background literature, that makes it clear one is making a narrow claim. Breadth is about what variables go into a function, whereas depth is about what the function is. Some functions need to be exactly right to be useful, like a password checker or an algorithm for directing a medical radiation beam. Others can be more/less truthy. "Moderation" the way Glen and Dave were using it is different from filtering for correctness, it is filtering against a strong preference like a fetish or a high dosage of a drug. Such conservatives do what they did before; they avoid novelty even if a proposal has high depth. They believe that there is wisdom in the crowd because there is a crowd and not an empty room.
I don't know what a "free speech absolutist" believes exactly. I've noticed Nextdoor sometimes discourages overtly political remarks. It will filter with remarks like "Do you really mean to say it that way?" I guess I could be mad about that, but to me it seems like even with the advice is not quite correct, it is easy to work around. If someone can't take a little time to trick the program, maybe they don't really need to speak? -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics I was literally listening to a news report on Musk's announcements about Twitter and Open-Source and discussions of the problems of "properly" moderating a town-square with algorithms. Back on my power-law hobby-horse, it seems like this applies to the depth/breadth, the specialist/generalist, and the severity of moderating "truthiness" vs "power"? On 4/14/22 3:50 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Reaction was to the apparent suggestion that moderation would lead to more > breadth, and that would lead to better outcomes. > Too many chiefs and not enough Indians? No confidence in any particular > capability? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 2:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive > heuristics > > Hm. IDK. In a parallel universes world, generalists are higher order than > specialists, operating over multiple worlds. So there seems to be a > controversy about whether higher orders increase or decrease the degrees of > freedom. If the existence of generalists increases the DoF, then you might > want more generalists. > > On 4/14/22 14:31, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I meant that a depth-first understanding of the world may be as informative >> and useful as a breadth-first understanding of the world. >> Specialists tend to be rewarded more than generalists, and with billions of >> people, generalists do sort of seem redundant. Ideally one can compute a >> bound that says when digging can stop. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:55 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >> heuristics >> >> Kinda depends. The book Alien Information Theory argues that DMT literally >> takes you to a different universe (based on Wheeler's and others theories >> that the universe is fundamentally information and brought about by >> observation of quantum events). He suggests putting yourself on a DMT drip >> to you will remain in that alternate universe permanently. He makes the >> observation, "to your friends you will appear to be dead." >> >> So that is one I would not do "completely" unless I was on my deathbed and >> had nothing to lose. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> Everything once, but not once, completely? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 12:07 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >>> heuristics >>> >>> My philosophy: ((everything) (once) then in moderation if it suits >>> you) not sure of parentheses, been a long time since Algebra I >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 8:05 AM, glen wrote: >>>> I certainly hope I'm not winning you over, accidentally or otherwise. >>>> Your use of the word "fetish" is spot-on, in that such paraphilia >>>> is, ultimately, unhealthy >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias> ... I guess >>>> barring the "everything in moderation" principle [⛧]. >>>> >>>> In fact, to be "won over" implies imprisonment, convicted to one's >>>> convictions. However, I also think it's unhealthy to, say, be so >>>> Luddite that you prefer "natural immunity" to vaccination ... or >>>> prefer your wood burning fireplace to natural gas heat ... or to >>>> demand to "talk to a person" rather than interacting with the phone >>>> tree. That hyper-traditionalism is *also* an unhealthy fetish and >>>> it's why, despite my conservatism, the neoreactionaries are so repulsive >>>> to me. >>>> As a conservative, I constantly find myself defending the Now >>>> against the fetishists of both the Yesterday and Tomorrow. Does >>>> that mean I have a Now fetish? Maybe. But it's more like a reaction >>>> to the non-Now fetishes around me. >>>> >>>> >>>> [⛧] The interpretation of "everything in moderation" depends on >>>> where you put the parentheses. (Everything) (in moderation) implies >>>> you >>>> *should* do just a little bit of everything ... a little sky diving ... >>>> a little body modification ... a little Christianity ... a little >>>> crack cocaine, etc. But (Everything in moderation) implies that >>>> whatever it is you choose to do should be in moderation. >>>> >>>> On 4/13/22 12:05, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>> I think you are (accidentally?) winning me over to the >>>>> post/trans-humanist fetish. Just your talk of "play" and realizing how >>>>> much I *already* play with automatons in the form of (see driving >>>>> anecdotes) other drivers and roadway systems and (smart or dumb) >>>>> traffic-lights, etc and bureaucracies. I admit to always being taken in >>>>> by (modern) science fiction stories with robot/android - human >>>>> relationships... playing what might amount to a continuous, infinite game >>>>> of Turing Test with them. The same kind of "play" I currently engage in >>>>> with dogs, cats, horses, watercourses, etc. As a good animist, I can't >>>>> see how I could reject the opportunity to "Play" with machine >>>>> intelligences! >>>>> >>>>> When I get a full-body prosthetic to make up for my slowly failing >>>>> organic musculo-skeletal system, I will probably find great enjoyment in >>>>> "playing" with it the way I currently "play" with my bicycle and other >>>>> vehicles, testing (softly these days) their performance envelope and >>>>> response modes. >>>>> >>>>> Jump cut to Ridley in her Space-Mining-Waldo-Exoskeleton with or >>>>> without an Alien opponent. > -- > Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
