this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
279 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

60078 readers
3538 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A Child is advocating for a Back Surgeon who has made a General Call? Am I reading that right?

[–] AngryCommieKender 7 points 6 months ago

Took me several seconds to parse that sentence as well.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago (7 children)

“Childrens advocates “ have been backing the most egregiously unconstitutional, paternalistic, data broker friendly, moral panic, privacy dystopia bullshit bills around the country. “Childs advocates” are why we have anti pornography pearl clutching panopticon laws that require you to scan a government ID to jerk off. Fuck off with that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I agree with all of this.

But this is none of that. This is informing people that the evidence says that excessive social media use does harm, because most people genuinely don't understand the risks.

[–] Brewchin 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

s/country/world/: FTFY

"Think of the children" is somehow the gotcha for so many of the hard-of-thinking amongst us.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago (12 children)

Have those warning labels been shown to work like at all? We already have awareness saturation about just how awful cigarettes are for you.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Almost no one smokes in Australia because of them

[–] SupraMario 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol no, no one smokes anymore mainly because it's a taboo and a pack of cigs is so expensive it's basically impossible to do so on the regular.

The labels don't do shit.

[–] Thunderbird4 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

How do you think smoking went from something nearly everybody did to being taboo? Maybe the labels don’t do anything for the last 10% of the population who still smoke today, despite the taboo, but those labels played a big role in reinforcing public awareness of the health effects of smoking.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bakachu 5 points 6 months ago

With the government executing this message to our youth, I think they'll work as well as the anti-piracy ones back in the day.

You Wouldn't Steal a Car

[–] Kolrami 3 points 6 months ago

Warnings probably work better on products you're putting in your body. If you have blackened lungs on the cigarette packaging I can't imagine choosing to smoke.

On social media, you basically have to destroy my experience for me to stop using it in the same way. All effective options are terrible: ads, microtransactions, auto-playing unexpected sounds, nonresponsive interfaces.

[–] UnpluggedFridge 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

What do you mean by work? Do they stop everyone from doing stupid things? No. Do they have a measurable effect on behavior? Yes.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

John Perry Barlow was right

https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

Is there any hope at all left that governments might one day leave us on the Internet in peace?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mlg 5 points 6 months ago

I don't get why people think this idea is equivalent to stuff like internet access bans or COPPA, it's a warning label, not an "enter your ID" to access page.

They never banned cigarettes, but putting a giant warning on the box did help in vilifying cigarettes as very unhealthy and wrong.

I doubt it'll go anywhere in this age of government, but its exactly the type of thing I would have gone for if I were tasked with solving a societal issue. It's smart because it has no real effect on access, so social media companies would have a harder time fighting it, but it also gives a big bloody warning which does have a substantial psychological impact on users.

iirc someone did something similar with a very simple "are you sure?" app that gave a prompt asking if you were sure you wanted to post something or send a text. Just having a single prompt was enough for many people to reconsider their stupid text or comment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Yeah, because that worked so well with tracking popups.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Typical teen (and often preteen) response to be told to not do anything by adults: Say, "Yeah, right," and go off and do it anyway. Even if you block them outright, they'll find a way around it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

“Just look at what you’re grandparents are into…”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rsuri 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Let he who has to deal with that friend who constantly sends blatantly false Xits to them throw the first stone. Honestly I feel like every social media post that makes a factual representation should come with a big flashing warning "THIS IS ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE, LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU REPEAT IT YOU DUMMY!"

And I'm only like 10% joking. Given the success of language models it should be moderately trivial to train one to recognize when a factual statement is made and apply the above warning. It's not even the children and teens I'm worried about. The people who seem to have the most trouble handling this are the adults.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that language models are effective lie detectors, it's very widely known that LLMs have no concept of truth and hallucinate constantly.

And that's before we even get into inherent biases and moral judgements required for any form of truth detection.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind 4 points 6 months ago

Given the success of language models it should be moderately trivial to train one to recognize when a factual statement is made and apply the above warning.

Is it??? Because I feel like context is a real weak point for bots and ai to figure out.

Hell, it feels like half the HUMANS don't know whats factually true. Is the covid vaccine a society saving development which saved the lives of millions? Or is it full of bill gates mind control computer chips to rule over the portion of society dumb enough to get the vaccine willingly?

Who's to say?

[–] alienanimals 1 points 6 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›