TBF Zoomers and Alphas look to be inheriting that tech illiteracy
To me it seems that the most effective regulations are to ban the use of black box algorithms in content presentation, create a tiered list of required security standards to be licensed to handle different kinds of sensitive information, nationalize the telecom lines and force all them to share those lines and compete equally in all markets except if they’re a municipal telecom, require social networks to federate via a unified social networking protocol to break the monopoly of “it’s where my friends are”, require multi factor authentication to prevent mass botting, and to require services above a certain number of active users to provide an ad-free version for an equal value to the average advertising profit per user.
Also data agnostic advertising
Zoomers and Alphas
There is an entire generation of manosphere-style alphas on the way? can’t we skip alpha and go from genZ to genB or generation beta?
All hail President Rogan.
I’ve been thinking, what if votes were weighted by age? Young and old votes get weighted less
Who decides the weight of each age’s vote?
The old already in power of course
The sad part is I disagree with most of what you just said. I guess part of the issue is no one can agree on things.
IMO most laws should be at the level of goals, and the agencies implementing them should get down and dirty with how that should be achieved. So the upthread comment would be appropriate for whatever agency is tasked with implementing a last stating “social networks may not cause user lock in”.
TBF Zoomers and Alphas look to be inheriting that tech illiteracy
It’s because GenZ/Alpha has grown up in a world where technology just works. They’ve never had to troubleshoot drivers, or reinstall their OS after improperly shutting their computer down. Plus 90% of their tech use is on mobile, which is constantly in the annual update cycle and constantly backed up to the cloud. So if the tech ever stops working, they can just replace it with the newest model, sync their new phone to the cloud, and it’s as if they never had any issues.
And this isn’t a bad thing. But it means that they’ve never had to develop those troubleshooting skills.
The main problem is I think the younger zoomers and the gen alpha were all brought up on touchscreens and smartphones. I am not saying the older gen zvis that much better but I do know that when I was growing up smartphones started becoming more prevalent when I was in my teens so at least me and my peers I believe are much better on the tech literacy.
Really they should have made a bigger effort to make touch screen controls more 1 to 1 with mouse and keyboard controls
How do you envision that? I don’t thibk I completely understand what you mean, how can they be 1 to 1?
Say an action which acts as a double click or right click, making software more directly compatible from phone to computer, nixing the app model in favor of more traditional .exe programs, more traditional directory access, command line interface access, make it a traditional computer in your pocket basically
There’s this too: https://youtu.be/z-Gi5mEFSq8?si=HuvQfd49XjqhmulK
1 hr presentation on why mass screening (eg EU’s anti-CSAM “chat control”) can never work unless there is a way to know the real answer, which there nearly never is
Idk about that last one, but this seems like an ok approach otherwise.
Does the TikTok have access to your home wifi network?
That one made me cringe hard when I first heard it.
In all seriousness: yes. Any app or even website can scan your local network and attempt to access other devices. This is apparent in the fact that dedicated network scanner apps like Fing don’t require any permissions to scan your network, therefore any app can if it wanted to.
Offtopic but here’s some resources:
https://github.com/ashishb/android-security-awesome
Considering the discussion here around tech literacy, I’d like to share this insight: technology access is not technology literacy.
Many, many years ago, we could conflate the two and did so freely. Say, back before 2010 or so. Nowadays, everyone has a very powerful computing device in their pocket, but not everyone fully comprehends how it works. And unfortunately, concepts like digital securtiy, digital rights management, digital privacy, and so on, are still squarely in the literacy camp.
I can’t say for sure what proportion of the population is in the full comprehension group, but I suspect it’s still in the minority.
Automobiles are a great analogue of this: we’re 100 years in and everyone is (still) not a mechanic, nor do they make decisions like one.
Even with access to the entire internet, search engines, discussion forums, etc. it’s still tough to move the needle on politically charged IT issues. Education and awareness are key to solving all this. Generational differences and exposure to technology at different points in its evolution are not, and never will be, enough.
It’s a series of tubes.
I mean ultimately, at that point in time, as far as describing the physical infrastructure of underground telecomm lines… its not an entirely innacurate description.
It leaves out the entire concept of software and DNS and everything about how websites and IP protocols and such actually work but uh… there at least actually are a series of tubes, lol.
it’s a truck and I’ll die on this hill
I mean, yeah, but also, even younger politicians are clueless. Have you seen Boebert or MTG?
You just made me wonder if AOC made a Mastodon account, or if I just haven’t seen anything from her recently.
My second to youngest brother is technically illiterate. Meanwhile my eldest brother is very technically literate and both are completely different generation (younger than boomer) but of the conservative mindset .
my youngest brother is technically literate and liberal. He’s of the same generation as the illiterate brother.
A does not equal B. These kind of fallacy arguments of ‘how generations be’ really need to stop.
What are you talking about? Dinner of these senators can barely string together a thought. Can they email? They certainly can’t foresee the societal implications of AI, it’s impact, how it works. How can they offer oversight?
You just described several of my relatives of the younger generation . Just cuz a person was born in the technical era does not make them a technical genius.
I hope they wouldn’t oversee technology or anything else they dont understand. The are billions of people but qualified to be a senator. I’m happy you know some
Which is an issue if their job is regulating tbe use of that technology, wouldn’t you say?
If that were the entire argument, yes. But I see you’re desperately dodging the ageism part of the discussion here. You are fooling no one.
Lol no. I never said anything ageist and neither did you in your comment. You said, you know people who are tech illiterate as well and I said wouldnt that be a problem if their job was regulating technology? The point I was making was that someone uneducated and unfamiliar with current tech, shouldnt be making laws about it. You even suggested that they were of the “tech generation” or something like that, how is anything I said even remotely ageist at all? Also, “desperately dodging” lmao you kind of seem like an idiot.
This comment made no sense. Go back to eating the walls. Bye.
And we keep electing them.
Hard to elect good people when you don’t get good options.
Neither of the main parties have transparent and tamperproof primaries and one of the few things they consistently agree on is keeping third parties and independent candidates out of power whenever possible.
It does provide good cringe content watching the senate chamber questioning about anything modern tech.
Absolutely
The American parties don’t need to spend any effort suppressing third parties, the constitution does that for them. First past the post always leads to two parties.
Suppose Bernie Sanders went independent and campaigned for president, and he got half of the votes that the democratic party would have got otherwise. If that happened, the Republicans could win with as little as 40% of the vote. Even if 60% of people were leftist, if 30% vote democrat and 30% vote bernie, then Trump still wins. It’s always in your best interest to have as few parties on your side as possible, and that means there can only be two parties.
In an instant runoff system, I can vote for the communist party first, the legalise weed party second, and the moderate left party third. If the communists and stoners don’t get enough votes, my votes will still go to the moderates and stop the reactionaries from winning. That means it’s safe for me to vote third party. A luxury Americans don’t have.
The American parties don’t need to spend any effort suppressing third parties, the constitution does that for them
They still legislate to make their advantage even greater.
For example, they set eligibility requirements that are trivial to multi billion dollar private corporations such as themselves, but difficult to insurmountable to anyone running for a third party or as independents.
Hell, some states including California, Colorado and Illinois may even make ballot access for third parties and independent candidates contingent on approval from establishment party members!
I completely agree with you on eliminating fptp voting, but I much prefer STAR voting to instant runoff.
What advantages does STAR have that instant runoff doesn’t?
With the 0-5 star ranking that lets you rank more than one candidate the same if you want to, results are much more likely to accurately reflect the priorities of voters than straight ranking that doesn’t.
If for example I give the far left candidate 5 stars, the center-left candidate 3 stars and both the centrist and the center-right candidate 2 stars, then the result of that round will more accurately reflect my priorities than if I had to rank two choices I (dis)like equally differently.
If I give the communist party 5 stars and the moderates 1 star, I’m still giving the moderates points that might cause them to enter the final when the communists could have won. In order to give the communists the absolute best chance of winning, I should give everyone else 0 stars. This is a bad idea if the reactionaries are in a decent place to win, but if I think the parties I hate are definitely going to lose, I should vote dishonesty. If everyone does this, it might cost us all the election.
In instant runoff, I don’t have to worry about dishonesty or strategic voting. I just put my second preference second, and there’s no way it can hurt my first preference. I vote for the way I actually feel.
Yeah, that’s not actually how it works… You don’t get to see and react to everyone else’s ballots and if you’re not voting honestly, you’re fucking yourself and others like you.
Which is something you can do on purpose with eqaul ease in instant runoff and run a greater risk of the spoiler effect happening without you meaning to. Much smaller than with fptp, but still greater than with STAR.
tbh a lot of it is probably malice too
I think the issue is everyone is willing to tell them what they are doing wrong but no one knows what we need to do right.
Meanwhile millenials and genz: still using chrome …
…“Alexa play my fav mix with the disco lights plz k thnx.”
why should either of those things be illegal?
I think the joke is people still use services with known privacy issues because it’s 1. Convenient, and 2. Already in their spheres of use
Who said anything about legality? I’m responding to a poorly thought-out, ageist meme about not understanding implications when all generations are making this mistake very regularly.
oh I thought you were saying - because the meme is about regulating technology- that those things should be regulated.
deleted by creator
