Brain_Thief

I swapped my smartphone for a $70 brick approximately a year ago and have zero regrets - I highly recommend that anyone curious give it a shot (though I'll note that I'm not 100% convinced yet that doing so is the best long-term move). I've been working to reduce the total parasitic load that I allow on my conscious mind and the impact of removing an always-on computer from my pocket has been palpable. For me, the cost / benefit analysis strongly favors eschewing a smartphone: cognitively I feel more refreshed, "present", and able to focus on tasks for longer without the phone present, financially I've transitioned from purchasing a multi-hundred dollar device every few years and paying ~$800-$1,000 a year for data to paying far less for a device that is very durable and reliable and not paying for data at all. After a year of having no on-the-go access to my email I am happy to say that the hourly mental impulse to check if I've gotten anything important has finally dissipated (it was surprisingly strong and persisted even into the sixth month mark). The price I pay for increased communications friction is negative in the final tabulation: for every new app I miss out on, every email that sits in my inbox a bit longer than it used to, and every text that I answer slowly and without emojis, I find that I am able to actually process information around me more carefully and thoroughly. It's also genuinely shocking to see the smartphone phenomenon from "outside" - with nothing to look at or play with, my attention tends to be on other people around me, and the fact of the matter is that nearly everyone I encounter is only half-present no matter where they are due to having a chunk of their mind constantly devoted to whatever is going on (or might be going on) on their phone's screen. Strange times.

A good extra bit of data to have. Your link to the Media Bias / Fact Check for the site states that it "is biased and uses loaded language especially in headlines" while not actually misreporting anything. It's an interesting and rather disturbing situation: how to define the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable levels of headline and conclusion sensationalizing w.r.t. providing an overall ranking of a source's "factualness"? There is presumably some level of sensationalizing that would undeniably transcend a hypothetical site's nominally-factual reporting to render its value as a socially-beneficial information source net negative. The hypothesis there would be that exposure to heavily-biased sensationalism over time might psychologically prime site readers to accept more and more extreme headlines as true, or that the sum total of the sensational headlines, while not directly deceiving the reader, might give him or her a false perception of reality along some specific axis of bias. However, I haven't studied the matter deeply and I have some reservations about this "gateway drug" theory. I wonder if any actual research has been done on this topic.

I wasn't previously aware of this website, but after reading the article and noticing its rather brash style I decided to take a look at the front page. Several headlines stand out to me, including "Wrinkled, white, and wrong — this is the face of the Democratic party", "Black lives matter, until they’re ended by black people", and "Project Fact: how scared should we really be of a no-deal Brexit?", as well as a few statements seemingly designed to emphasize the racial and social undertones of various national debates. An admittedly cursory skim of these articles leaves the impression that the site's theme is low-key outrage generation and the propagation of divisive talking points that tend in a somewhat novel rightward direction.

Although I agree with the premise of the featured article, I have to wonder if this site's intent is actually aligned with the notion of a harmonic western social order incorporating political cooperation and tolerance for diversity of thought and belief, or if it is yet another low-key radicalization / division vector designed to appeal to those who are too intelligent, educated, naturally docile, or otherwise moderate to be swayed by the more extreme purveyors of discord such as Brietbart, etc. In other words, the site seems to be right on the edge of dog-whistling without actually going over that line, and my instinct is to not upvote articles sourced from it.

I've got to agree with this statement. In my opinion, it's an absolute blessing (and an unavoidable evolutionary outcome) that there is still varying degrees of friction inherent to the process of commenting on many websites. Imagine if every person could throw their uninformed opinions about every topic into the common space with no hassle whatsoever, the signal to noise ratio would be positively devastated. In fact, the coupling of frictionless 1->N communication capacity with continual reinforcement of poisonous ego-centrism in advertising appears to be the precise recipe for the construction of FaceBook-style intellectual wastelands. The blunt fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people appear to have very little of value to contribute to the vast majority of discussions or processes, except perhaps in a passive role. This is not a judgement of value, merely a fact that should be considered from a societal vantage when the design of large information systems is undertaken so that ethical and socially-beneficial decisions can be made.

The concept of preventing a dilution of discourse and output quality by intentionally maintaining a degree of friction in the participation process is well-embodied by, e.g., the effort required to start contributing to certain critical open-source projects like the Linux kernel (think email-based communications, packaging processes, etc.). The notion of friction extends directly to aesthetics as well - consider the difference in discourse level that exists between HN, Reddit, FaceBook, and so on. There are many factors involved in the gradient, but it is worth noting that the aesthetic model employed by a system or product is perhaps the clearest external signal of that system's intended purpose. To that end, the dramatic "gameification" of relatively frictionless communication protocols appears to be incompatible with the idea of truth on a fundamental level. This also applies to the modern incarnation of popular US "news" organizations - think Fox's dramatic music and hyper-augmented hollywood-style visuals, or my personal favorite, CNN's "situation room".

The answer to this is so obvious that I almost have to assume that you're not asking in good faith, unless your purpose is to point out the flaws in our society's views on economics. Tech companies like the ones mentioned are known for primarily producing non-essential luxury goods like smartphones or B2B services. The pharma companies under discussion are in many cases producing drugs that people must take in order to live.

It seems that an ever-increasing number of basic behavioral decisions facing western populations have large abstract consequences and can be described by the basic shape:

A) Option that marginally (and in some cases significantly) increases personal convenience while incrementally undermining the long-term probability of western moral aspirations maturing to their full promise and forming the basis of a more human-centric global future.

or

B) Option that rejects the temptation of new gadgetry / marginal personal convenience improvements but that withholds some small amount of fuel from the growing moral conflagration. This option is increasingly associated with social circle friction.

This is perfectly exemplified, on a much less serious level than human organ harvesting and trade policy, by the Chrome vs. FireFox situation, or by the choice to use FaceBook.

There needs to be a realization that the current version of extreme economic policies governing large multi-national corporations like Google, FaceBook, Exxon, etc., are diametrically opposed to western moral aspirations w.r.t human rights, and are in fact fueling the demise of said aspirations. These corporations are not "American" or "Chinese" or "Other Nationality" in any way that matters for actual human beings, but exist as increasingly-autonomous global entities that are radically reshaping the geopolitical landscape and diverting increasing amounts of power to actors that have an open disdain for the human condition. People who oppose the current trends of inequality growth, corruption normalization, environmental exploitation, human rights abuses, and other deleterious effects of extreme capitalism don't seem to have an option other than to reject the consumerist culture / mindset that it's all built upon.

As a lifelong US citizen I have to say that, while I want the best for the Chinese people in every respect, I believe it is fairly obvious that any expansion of the Chinese government's power would be bad for the world (specifically w.r.t. human rights). Many people in this thread seem to be advocating for the abandonment of the West's moral aspirations based upon the idea that a censored Google being available in China is the best thing for Chinese citizens. To me, this perspective seems to be incorrect and and strangely myopic. If we accept the premise (and not everyone here will) that the moral aspirations of the west point toward a more human-centric and democratic global future than those of the Chinese government, then it follows that individuals concerned with the human condition must not support an expansion of Chinese government power in the name of short-term corporate profit. Essentially, anything that increases the efficiency of the Chinese government, or lessens the pain of government censorship, increases that government's power and its ability to enact its goals and is therefore a net negative both for Chinese citizens and for the world. Providing censorship-friendly versions of western technology to non-democratic countries may be in the short-term best interests of the subjugated populations of said countries (and other parties such as shareholders), but that strategy is undeniably in the long-term worst interests of the world and its peoples.

It seems fairly obvious that a right to privacy will have to be enshrined into the law at some point, if for no other reason than to preserve a diversity of thought and perspective in society. Unfortunately, it seems that no amount of individual tragedies will move the public toward useful regulations on certain issues due to emotional, cultural, and financial factors (see gun control) and it remains to be seen whether or not digital privacy is one such issue.