this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
113 points (92.5% liked)
SNOOcalypse - document, discuss, and promote the downfall of Reddit.
4672 readers
1 users here now
SNOOcalypse is closing down. If you wish to talk about Reddit, check out [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].
This community welcomes anyone who wants to see Reddit gone. Nuke the Snoo!
When sharing links, please also share an archived version of the target of your link.
Rules:
- Follow lemmy.ml's global rules and code of conduct.
- Keep it on-topic.
- Don't promote illegal stuff here.
- Don't be stupid, noisy, obnoxious or obtuse (S.N.O.O.)
- Have fun, and enjoy the popcorn! 🍿
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The economic "rational agent" that I'm referring to is, in large part, robotic. It (yup, "it" - it's an abstraction, not a real person) is devoid of emotion and motivated by self-interest alone. It would gladly burn a circus full of people to make some popcorn. It does take long term into account, but only for itself, never for the others.
I just find it funny that, even if it's called "rational", its behaviour describes rather well how irrational masses behave.
Bacon on a cheeseburger: isn't that basically porn? Some outright enjoy it, some avoid it, and some try to avoid it but still consume it in small amounts. Or even politics, for some, who apparently see apolitical content as disgusting.
Yes. Yes and it goes further - "good" and "bad" don't have intrinsic value, they depend on a point of reference and a specific attribute. And there's often implicit but never stated moral statements, when people using it. Those aren't taboo words for me, mind you, but we need to be a bit careful about how and why we use them, and make sure that the others are on the same page on what should be called "good" / "bad".
For example. When I talk about "good content", that "good" can be two things:
Yes but it's clear that the admins were making it more social media-based. Posting to profile, livestream, chat, those things are practically useless in a content-centric site, but they're essential for a social interactions-based one.
Rational agents can take long-term into account, so if people on Reddit watching it all burn & fall apart before their eyes are choosing to ignore that, are they "fully" rational agents then?
In any case, they might be correct in staying, IF we only only allow looking ahead like a month or so in time - b/c inertia is a real thing. Even then, for some of us it is no longer worth it, while for others it is.
Also, why would upvoting a comment such as "^THIS 1000%" constitute a long-term style of rational acting? It adds nothing to the discussion, so when all "discussion" becomes replaced by such, which float to the top b/c of the large number of upvotes (& maybe awards, etc.), then "real" content such that people might actually come to Reddit - like via a Google search for a specific query - get buried below them? If that is "rational", then it seems short-sighted to me.
Or in opposition to rational, there is maybe "emotional", so that you have a feeling and want to express it, and you see something that expresses that, so you "like" it further, in addition to liking / upvoting the original comment - without considering the long-term ramifications.
True - many were resisting that, but it was happening, truth.