Excerpt from a recent post I made on the general topic:
Creating chaos can be easier than preventing it because it typically requires fewer resources and less effort in the short term. Chaos can arise from misinformation, lack of communication, or insufficient planning, and these factors can be easier to cultivate than to address. Preventing chaos requires more resources, planning, and coordination. It involves identifying potential problems and taking proactive steps to mitigate them before they spiral out of control. This can be challenging because it often requires a deep understanding of the underlying issues and the ability to take decisive action to address them.
Moreover, chaos can have a snowball effect, where small issues escalate quickly into larger ones, making it increasingly difficult to control the situation. In contrast, preventing chaos requires a sustained effort over time, which can be challenging to maintain.
Overall, preventing chaos requires more proactive effort and resources in the short term, but it can help avoid much greater costs and negative consequences in the long term.
My post is not all-together coherent, as I'm having trouble totally wrapping my head around all of this (as I suspect others are as well).
But I definitely see merit in some serious discussion about this. I'm a little too young to really have a sense of how things went down at the time, but the Internet itself didn't just happen without a lot of debate and policy, and I think we have to welcome this kind of discussion, and hope it leads to some healthy discussion at the government level (though that doesn't seem to be likely).
I'm not personally clear on the merits of a "pause" vs other courses of action, but I think it's a worthy discussion starter.
I think you're onto something with the chaos narrative, it aligns with the sentiment I've developed reflecting on the impact of social networking and mass connectivity
Spot on - social networking has had huge and far-reaching consequences (most prominently negative ones) which not many people foresaw at the time, back when Facebook introduced an innocuous-sounding platform allowing people to share their cat photos and the like with family & friends - I mean, what could possibly go wrong? ;-)
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation. However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Excerpt from a recent post I made on the general topic:
My post is not all-together coherent, as I'm having trouble totally wrapping my head around all of this (as I suspect others are as well).
But I definitely see merit in some serious discussion about this. I'm a little too young to really have a sense of how things went down at the time, but the Internet itself didn't just happen without a lot of debate and policy, and I think we have to welcome this kind of discussion, and hope it leads to some healthy discussion at the government level (though that doesn't seem to be likely).
I'm not personally clear on the merits of a "pause" vs other courses of action, but I think it's a worthy discussion starter.
"Creating chaos can be easier than preventing it..."
Sure. It generally is easier to break than to build; to become an 'agent of entropy', in a sense.
I think you're onto something with the chaos narrative, it aligns with the sentiment I've developed reflecting on the impact of social networking and mass connectivity
Spot on - social networking has had huge and far-reaching consequences (most prominently negative ones) which not many people foresaw at the time, back when Facebook introduced an innocuous-sounding platform allowing people to share their cat photos and the like with family & friends - I mean, what could possibly go wrong? ;-)
Social media is THE perfect example to look at with regards to “what can go wrong will go wrong.”
This seems like relevant precedent, albeit simpler times.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation. However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.