Say anything critical about the externalities of a certain group’s actions, and you’ll be labeled an X-phobe, where X is said group.
Your reputation will be tarnished as an out-group heretic, as if that matters, since filter bubbles have splintered into ever-so-small pieces.
The irony is that the group doesn’t realize only an out-group member can comment on externalities.
If you “cancel” voices external to your filter bubble (well, filter them out), maybe you can feel psychologically safe 🙉 in thinking your actions are completely moral.
It’s worth noting that the group can be any group. I’ve seen this dynamic play out across various groups.
Name anything that exists in this world, and as long as a subreddit exists for it, you can bet someone’s been cancelled for voicing perfectly sane thoughts.
If the filter bubble is politically important, then your cancellation will have a real-world impact.
So, best to make a map of these filter bubbles that exist and steer clear of it.
Lest you accidentally step on the toes of a group you never knew existed.
But of course, since filter bubbles are oh-so-tiny (each consisting maybe <0.01% of the global population), unless they are politically important, you can safely ignore them.
In 2021, survival is learning which filter bubbles have captured politics and learning not to voice any public opinion about said filter bubbles.
It feels like pre-Enlightenment Europe, doesn’t it?
The replies on this thread are a good starting point as to the filter bubbles one should learn about.
If ignorance 🙉 is a worthwhile evolutionary trait, then filter bubble cancellations are the next evolution after censorship.
If free speech rights are a societal adaptation to censorship, then what is the equivalent adaptation to filter bubble cancellations?
When filter bubbles lead to feudal culture wars, the moral duty to point out what’s wrong with any filter bubble should be held sacred, like war journalists, medics, or diplomats.
Don’t cancel the truth-teller!
Groups must evolve the opposite of 🙉 to be epistemically healthy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Works in nascent fields like crypto where going full 🦍 degen might lead to total ruin, but total cynicism will cause you to miss out on gains or sentiment shifts
The key is: Even if you don’t agree with the direction things are developing, you can bet against your beliefs
Be comfortable betting against your beliefs, because it’s almost impossible that society will converge on a Schelling Point that is optimal for you or even optimal for society.
DAOs make it possible to coordinate globally, like an Internet-native limited-liability partnership.
But it seems to be incomplete: right now it depends on good faith & trust. What it’s lacking are legal concepts (liability, partnership, fiduciary duties, ownership)
If smart contracts execute on a “runtime”, legal contracts execute on a jurisdiction.
The key here is that the jurisdictions are *separate* from the contracts.
Aragon Courts are a good start.
I hear talk of DAOs replacing VC partnerships, or even firms.
But firms are not just a cap table and a governance structure (i.e. the board & shareholders), they exist in a larger context of a legal jurisdiction.
A fish needs water to swim in, a planet needs an atmosphere.
Not talking about financial leverage here, of course, but intellectual leverage.
What a small insight & a little code can do to change lives at a large scale.
But if it doesn’t fit into the OKR & investment thesis, good luck trying to do it.
Procrustean Bed?
Why so much of this “small insight & little code” lives on the fringes of the Web in open source software, small indie shops, and early startups (before GPs’ investment theses corrupts product strategy).
It’s not “coordination headwinds”, it’s the Principal-Agent Problem.
This “Gen Z is special” nonsense reminds me of the “Millennials are special” nonsense that I’d come across while growing up. Generational categories are arbitrary at best.
Every generation seems rebellious, naïve, “creative” etc when in fact it is just a product of youth.
So useless is the discourse about the “generations”, that you could look up stories about previous “generations”, when they were younger, and those descriptors would equally apply to the youth of today.
Such discourse is always (predictably) talked about in the same breath as – and misattributed to the influences of – the information technologies, media, and culture of the times.
@m1guelpf Totally. What smart contracts let us do is the “adjacent possible” from Bitcoin and so everything feels like novel mutations that haven’t found their footing yet. Give it time and problems will emerge for which these technologies will be a perfect fit.
@m1guelpf “Paradigm shift” is a bit of a hopeful prediction though, I don’t think technological shifts happen so linearly and can be predicted. We only see these shifts in hindsight.
Before iPhone native apps gained ground, for instance, everyone thought HTML5 apps would be the future.
@m1guelpf Right now, trying out web3 tech to see how they fit different domains *should* be encouraged, that’s how the technology finds its legs.
The “paradigm shift” you speak of comes after, when this knowledge is already discovered, and we mine the depths of it.