[robbrown451]

I don't see how the things he discusses have to do with empathy in Silicon Valley. Driverless trucks, for instance, have nothing to do with empathy and a lot to do with simple economics. Someone is going to build them if they can make a buck doing it, and empathy isn't going to somehow stop that.

On the other hand, I do think companies like Facebook and Google and the news sites (or whoever makes their comment systems) can do a lot about "the impact of their algorithms and their ability to shape popular sentiment in our society," as he alludes to in the article but fails to explore in any depth.

What if there were simply richer tools for users to rate things? For instance, to tag a post as "+1 nuanced" or "-3 overly divisive" or "-2 unsupported by evidence" or "-3 inappropriately political" or "-5 bigoted", and then have algorithms (and user interfaces) that deal with this additional information in ways that actually are effective while also being careful not to discourage those who don't like getting downvoted? (e.g. only show downvotes to users a month after they appear so the user is less likely to emotionally respond, but still gets feedback as to why their microphone is getting the volume turned down)

Then of course give users tools to control what they see....e.g. hide (or suppress) divisive political content, etc.

There are any number of things that can be done to tone down the hateful divisive rhetoric that pervades online social spaces, and lets the insightful, nuanced content float to the top. Is anyone doing this? Are they even experimenting with it? Are they so scared that users will run away if there are too many options? (you know, you can always put them behind a "show all ratings options" setting that by default is off)

This isn't censorship, this is just putting into place things that have in place in the real world for millennia, but that disappear in naive approaches to bringing conversations online. It won't be perfect initially, but it can at least be a lot better.

[talideon]

> I don't see how the things he discusses have to do with empathy in Silicon Valley. Driverless trucks, for instance, have nothing to do with empathy and a lot to do with simple economics. Someone is going to build them if they can make a buck doing it, and empathy isn't going to somehow stop that.

But whether or not you consider what happens to the people who used to drive those trucks and what they, their families, and their communities are going to do when they no longer have work has everything to do with empathy.

[robbrown451]

Ok, tell me what good it is going to do to consider those things. Are you suggesting that if we all collectively decide that building such things hurts people, no one will build them? And that such an idea is remotely realistic?

[talideon]

> Ok, tell me what good it is going to do to consider those things.

Well, assuming you're American, you can look at the decline of Detroit to see what happens when you don't think of these things. Or Wales and the North of England, if you're from the UK.

> Are you suggesting that if we all collectively decide that building such things hurts people, no one will build them?

No, I'm suggesting that we consider the implications of what we're creating and try to ensure that, even as we build them, we ensure that we don't damage whole swathes of society in doing so. But that's just me, and it might just be that I'm a bleeding heart. All progress comes with its benefits and its downsides, and if you think rendering people unemployed without giving them an alternative means of supporting themselves is OK and/or shouldn't be part of the calculus of how progress is made, then that's your decision.

[mercer]

Another option would be to commit to setting aside some of the profits for a fund of some kind to address the externalities in whichever way seems most effective at reducing the negative effects. I'm not saying I expect a company to do this, but why can it not be considered an option?

[rescripting]

Because in a competitive marketplace the company that doesn't do that has an edge over one that does.

I don't think it's Silicon Valley that lacks empathy, I think it's the system that rewards profits and growth over anything else...

[mercer]

We're still humans within this system, and there are a number of examples of companies that do things differently and stay in business.

To be clear, I agree with what you're saying as an observation of how things work much of the time. I also don't think Silicon Valley is any better or worse than the rest of the 'system' (honestly I don't know).

But generally speaking I'm inclined to believe that 'this is just how things are' is one of the main reason why things don't change. Things don't have to be the way they are and it takes individuals working within (as well as outside) the systems that are in place to change this.

[revscat]

> don't see how the things he discusses have to do with empathy in Silicon Valley. Driverless trucks, for instance, have nothing to do with empathy and a lot to do with simple economics. Someone is going to build them if they can make a buck doing it, and empathy isn't going to somehow stop that.

The lack of empathy displayed here is exactly the problem. Appealing to economic justifications does nothing to help the communities devastated by automation. So long as they are ignored, or met with a callous response of "get a new job", then a source of anger and resentment will remain and propagate.

[rhodri]

> Someone is going to build them if they can make a buck doing it, and empathy isn't going to somehow stop that.

the problem is that we are all chasing that buck, rather than imagining what that buck could do

> What if there were simply richer tools for users to rate things?

they would be abused by those with underdeveloped empathy to marginalise views that threatened them. emotional problems require emotional solutions.

[robbrown451]

> the problem is that we are all chasing that buck, rather than imagining what that buck could do

So....tell everyone to stop being self interested?

> emotional problems require emotional solutions.

What emotional solution do you propose? Send everyone to therapy?

I see a dramatic difference in sites that have sophisticated moderation tools, such as Quora, vs those that don't, for instance YouTube. I just think they should go further.

[angersock]

Counterpoint: a lot of things like automated cars and whatnot are only possible by the wide-spread reallocation of resources to their accomplishment.

Uber is able to afford this beachhead because they flaunt local laws and exploit workers, Google because they have a massive surveillance apparatus they are able to charge money for advertisers to access.

The simple explanation "oh well somebody would've built it anyawys" is incorrect.

[phreeza]

I think Slashdot has something like this. Not sure how well it works.