Exactly. Where is the line between "curation" (or "moderation" in discussions) and "censorship"? If the line is subjective, how do we handle disagreements on that?
Even supposed objective measurements such as "Is this factually true?" can fail because we aren't omniscient, we learn new things and realize what was "true" yesterday is actually false, and sometimes an authority keeps telling us something is "true" and anyone who dissents is "moderated" and "curated" into effective silence.
I would trust Reporters Without Borders more than most, but maybe that's because their biases align with mine and I don't object to their censorship.
Without bias and interpretation omniscients is required. A human mind does not have the luxury of knowing everything. We have limited compute power, and limited time. Furthermore our systems only have capabilities for limited data. We have to filter against junk or our systems get overwhelmed, but deciding what is junk is also a bias.
The best we can do is state our biases, and design our systems to reflect or biases properly. If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases.
That one reality is what I call thermodynamic truth. Now any time someone brings up thermodynamics other statements like arrow of time show up and other issues with informational incompleteness become problems.
Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on the device that exploded where killed, so we only have second hand information on what they where doing. The fire was especially intense so the device expected of causing the explosion was melted completely and only mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so other forms of entropy have been involved on information on the metals used in the machine.
There is no simple model of reality that can tell you what occurred with certainty in situations like this. The additional entropy from the fire creates a situation where many possible input situations lead to the same output situation.
We see this kind of entropy in social situations. The game of telephone is a good example of this. You start with "X5W1" and end up with "EXU1" after a few steps and everyone along the way would tell you thats exactly what they heard.
>Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias, which is really stretching the term
Not stretching the term at all. Biases exist at all levels, physical processes and mental processes, human and inhuman.
> Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on the device that exploded where killed, so we only have second hand information on what they where doing. The fire was especially intense so the device expected of causing the explosion was melted completely and only mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so other forms of entropy have been involved on information on the metals used in the machine.
If I cover an apple with a cup before you have time to look at it, the apple does not disappear nor is there any alternate reality with pear under the cup. It's just a blank space in your knowledge, which you are free to fill with any bias-free probabilistic model.
If you put an atom in a molecular cup and look away, does it stay there? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, yay quantum weirdness.
But even in your example you couldn't even give me an example of a complex system, and instead had to give a simple system that works deterministically and still makes lots of assumptions. Like, how long did you cover the apple with a cup for? If it's a moment the apple will be there. If it's a much longer time maybe when you remove the cup the dessicated rotten remains of an apple come out. Or maybe there was a bug in the apple so when you remove the cup you no longer have an apple, but a bunch of bugs and a pile of feces.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against determinism. If you knew all states of the matter that went into the cup (well and of the universe) you could most likely accurately predict what was going to be in the cup regardless of what time you look in the cup again. Unfortunately for us humans we're stuck in a universe governed by the uncertainty principle. We can't know at the quantum level, and at the macro level there are enough chaotic actions that predictions of complex systems quickly fall apart. There is only the most probable outcome, with the random chance a less likely outcome could occur.
> If you put an atom in a molecular cup and look away, does it stay there? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, yay quantum weirdness.
You are overthinking it. In case of quantum effects, the whole quantum system, including all its parallel states and uncertainties, is part of the single shared reality.
Likewise. I would guess this to be an issue with vocabulary. So more of a "Yes, but ..." then a "No!"
I would argue that reality isnt influenced by the existence or absence of an accurate human-friendly reality model. Thats only relevant for human interaction with reality (which you are talking about), the bias doesnt actually influence reality itself.
While you wont archive a complete model, there is a baseline reality that is indifferent to human bias and understanding. You could simplify the argument as gravity neither being being a social construct nor requiring a complete unbiased reality model to screw with you.
edit: Unless its an actual disagreement, in which case we are arguing Solipsism? So the biased perception actually creating reality. In which case we got to an impasse, if you are creating reality through biased perception, there is no reason to assume you arent also creating me the same way.
Eh, this couples back into 'what is reality' and at which scale are we talking about.
I believe there is an objective causality based reality at the lowest levels of existence. The arrow of time moves forward. And over the entire system entropy increases.
But as you put systems on top of systems, especially in life, subjective thinking can modify local reality at a macro level. That is the subjective experience of a human can lead them to an idea, that they then manufacture into an object becoming objective reality that object then modifies the experienced reality of those around them both subjectively and objectively. The fundamental structure of the universe does not change in this scenario, but human knowledge is expanded and we have a better view all possible states the universe can be objectively manipulated into.
I already largely agreed. Yes, how we think, our models, influences how we act. And how we act influences an existing reality thats too complex to model completely. With the risk of erroneously over relying on ones model as you described.
However, any greater impact of perspective or intention on reality then through your actions gets you to magic and probability lines.
https://www.specularium.org/wizardry
Which still dont disregard the existence of one reality in the moment, just the ability to act in a way to navigate the possible futures.
I only mention it because the existence of one reality unrelated to perspective comes with safety concerns unrelated to intention. Misunderstanding how you influence reality carries risks. Its how the worse in "better or worse results for your reality model" can also look. Your reality model deteriorating too far by overvaluing your perspective due to cognitive bias.
> Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias,
Yes.
> which is really stretching the term.
No.
There is an objective reality which we can only perceive subjective. We then get together as groups and agree upon what we're going to call "true", building upon what we've previously agreed was "true". This is bias.
But not all agreed "true" are equally accurate! Not all biases are as subjective as others.
So we can (and IMO should) recognize that we're all biased and we're all subjectively interpreting the objective reality, without embracing some kind of fatalism or post-modern idea that all subjective interpretations are equally valid.
While we can only perceive subjectively, reality is more then just an agreement. Once biased perspective collides with reality, reality wins. There being no hope of getting an objective reality model doesnt change that. Looking at your last paragraph, i dont think you disagree.
Life itself is a biased perspective that, at least temporarily, changes the objective environment around it.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is the number of future potential states is maximized by living and more so by thinking creatures then the future potential state dictated by purely physical interactions such as gravity or chemical bonding. Life can selectively spend energy in one place to reduce the entropy in another place.
Lets look at this in a past/present view. In the past if you got a bad cut, you could die, and maybe if you prayed just the right way or put the right plant you'd avoid the infection and you might not die. Now, we know if you use clean water on wounds and use antibiotics that you and drastically reduce, but not eliminate the risk of infection.
Our view of the problem and solution space massively increased thereby changing how we measured what we thought was true.
If reality can only be perceived through a subjective lens, then that is the only reality there is. Reality as something independent of any observer is just a fantasy. And if you think about it, it's actually meaningless.
Repeatable observations typically simplify assumptions to achieve stability in face of combinatorial explosions. We gain statistical insight on the probability something is true in particular conditions, not that something is an absolute truth.
For example, if you take someone in the medical sciences when it comes to pharmaceutical treatment if they don't tell you there are wide ranging statistical truths that are difficult to apply to individuals, then they are a bad scientist.
Systems complexity leads to subjectivity due to feedback loops inside the system itself. Think of deeply nested IF statements customized for a particular application, but no one bothers to give you the source code.
I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I disagree in practice because of this:
> If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases.
Those who create alternatives are attacked, chased, banned, deplatformed. Even if a webhost is happy to work with you, the credit card network may not be or their bank may ban them.
Not that the signal doesn't find a way - the good work of Anna's archive and all that - but it's not just "go build your own platform". It becomes "fight at every turn for your basic existence".
The existence of society demands this in practice. This is how humanity has worked at least since the beginning of agriculture, and likely long before that. Step out of line too far, and someone caves your head in. At best we can hope for is that the rock holder is accepting, and not a fascist.
You will find that it is impossible to create a society that does not exist in this manner. Since a society that accepts everybody also means it accepts people that don't accept everyone by means of violence, hence destroying a society that accepts everyone.
You're conflating actual violence and "viewpoints I dislike".
Yes every society will resort to vigilantism to protect itself in the absence of a policing power.
But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence - though that excuse is often used.
It's a form of denial, of shutting down uncomfortable debate. It's an ideological sort of end, like a dictator who has a pathological need to execute his critics. The "inner ring" of acceptable opinions grows ever smaller - it has to. It's not about making the world better, it's about attacking outsiders and the beast always needs new outsiders.
>But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence -
It's about causing violence. It's no different than "You happened to say something against our religious book, don't do it again or you'll get hurt".
Outsiders are a useful target because sometimes they are also the monster. This is the effect of existing in a reality with uncertainty. Accept everyone uncritically and you may be attacked by those you accept, this leads to fear, that fear is then manipulated by those that want power. There is no solution here, there is only the attempt to balance between malicious outsiders and malicious insiders.
The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also fails under governments and corporations who pay thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to eradicate ideas.
The problem isn't Capitalism. In Capitalism we can simply buy our services and anyone who can fund can play.
What is happening when a bank refuses to do business with someone, when App stores ban a twitter clone and prevent sideloading, is not Capitalism. It's ideological. It's about service to an end outside just capital.
Capitalism is the only system that freedom of speech can exist under. No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a freedom of speech concept - it is contrary to a centralized government. Such systems can not even handle mild political dissent and must (both in the theoretical and practical) literally kill or exile anyone pushing against the central authority.
Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable.
>Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable.
Eh, that depends. The US in particular like to 'two party' problems. Capitalism loves two sides in problems, but that is very problematic if a problem is multi-polar and not bi-polar.
You're also confusing socialist/communist with authoritarian. Capitalist systems are completely fine with being authoritarian if its profitable.
>Facts are facts, though omission of facts is also an issue.
Because you are a human, the 'facts' you acknowledge are anthropomorphic. We align our filtering of facts to the scales at which humans and society operates. When we change the scale of what we consider to be fact, then quite often what we consider to be a fact is really just an interpretation of events based on the perspective of the observer. Reality exists in a state of thermodynamic truth, that is if we could reverse the arrow of time you arrive at exactly one state at whichever slice of time.
"Facts" as told by humans do not work this way the vast majority of the time. They are incomplete observations of a system using incomplete information. Time reversal of human facts can lead to situations where multiple starting states can lead to the same factual finding. Causality is uncertain without searching for even more facts, those facts which have been lost to thermodynamic scattering, leading us back to interpretation.
Bias is absolutely necessary to operate on a human scale.
> Bias is only necessary for editorialization or conjecture regarding another's intent.
I'm gonna assume you're taking a hard science approach to bias, then:
It is statistically non-plausible to observe all facts in the universe, so the facts you can observe suffer from the selection bias fact sampling error.
Bias is required in any useful model of the universe to explain the difference between the expected and the observed.
Even assuming a non-plausible, accurate model with no biases whatsoever, such model is very likely to require high variance to encompass all fact observations and models with too much variance are useless.
However, you don't need "many angles". Those are too few. You need all the angles.
Reaching conclusions without observing all the interactions, from all angles, in the entirety of the universe existence is, by definition, biased, so, almost all conclusions reached before the universe ends are biased.
Even supposed objective measurements such as "Is this factually true?" can fail because we aren't omniscient, we learn new things and realize what was "true" yesterday is actually false, and sometimes an authority keeps telling us something is "true" and anyone who dissents is "moderated" and "curated" into effective silence.
I would trust Reporters Without Borders more than most, but maybe that's because their biases align with mine and I don't object to their censorship.