Great podcast. Upvoted and resteemed. Particularly interested in the concept of the evolution of thought itself, as a result of increasing access to information. Of course, all knowledge is built upon foundations already laid, but I get what you are saying. Never before has such a breadth of knowledge been available to the individual interested enough to seek it out.
However, sadly, I don't entirely share your optimism, though I wish I could. The expansion of rational debate seems to me to have diminished rather than expanded as a result of the Internet. While I fully recognise the potential you speak of, unfortunately the centralised nature of the existing Internet has resulted in the silo effect, with the preachers reaching mainly the converted. It has exacerbated rather than overcome our divisions.
If the exploration of solutions by the many (instead of the few) is to flourish then we all need our ideas to be challenged. Healthy, respectful debate, considering the 'other perspective' is essential if we are to collectively seek better 'solutions.' Yet the mass swath of internet users are engaged only with that which they already agree with. How many followers of Jordan Peterson also listen to the excellent 'Rationality Rules?' Not many I suspect.
Shadow banning on Youtube, Twitter etc, demonetisation of channels, and increasing legislation aimed at solidifying central control of the hypertext Internet is driving people into their silos. The 'labeling' of identity politics is increasingly defining our notion of 'others.' She's just 'alt right,' he's a 'libtard' and so on. From what I can see most people are unable to step beyond these labels and, with the entire system controlled by a few 'deep state' sponsored giants (such as In-Q-Tel's Alphabet) a dystopian control grid, based upon the age old tactic of 'divide an conquer' appears to me to be the more likely direction of travel for the current iteration of the Internet.
While the promise of IPFS, Ethereum etc offers the potential to combat the problem of centralised control I don't yet see how it will overcome the narrow confines of the silo effect and the identity labels that accompany it. This appears to be the prism through which most people view content.
For example, Steemit offers the potential for iconoclastic content creators to thrive, while this opportunity is steadily being eroded on the big centralised platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Yet Steemit is rife with Whales who flag content they don't like, regardless of it's originality. Often without even viewing or reading that content. The label alone is sufficient.
As your excellent podcast alluded to the IDW offers great potential and I for one have discovered its existence and am very interested in it as a result. However, thanks to the information you have provided, my initial thought is that it will become an echo-chamber for those already predisposed to ideas discussed. If we are truly going to achieve a collective approach to problem solving we must reinvigorate debate, not with those we agree with, but with those we don't.
The IDW is something I will certainly research further. I really hope you are right and I am wrong.
Great podcast. Upvoted and resteemed. Particularly interested in the concept of the evolution of thought itself, as a result of increasing access to information. Of course, all knowledge is built upon foundations already laid, but I get what you are saying. Never before has such a breadth of knowledge been available to the individual interested enough to seek it out.
However, sadly, I don't entirely share your optimism, though I wish I could. The expansion of rational debate seems to me to have diminished rather than expanded as a result of the Internet. While I fully recognise the potential you speak of, unfortunately the centralised nature of the existing Internet has resulted in the silo effect, with the preachers reaching mainly the converted. It has exacerbated rather than overcome our divisions.
If the exploration of solutions by the many (instead of the few) is to flourish then we all need our ideas to be challenged. Healthy, respectful debate, considering the 'other perspective' is essential if we are to collectively seek better 'solutions.' Yet the mass swath of internet users are engaged only with that which they already agree with. How many followers of Jordan Peterson also listen to the excellent 'Rationality Rules?' Not many I suspect.
Shadow banning on Youtube, Twitter etc, demonetisation of channels, and increasing legislation aimed at solidifying central control of the hypertext Internet is driving people into their silos. The 'labeling' of identity politics is increasingly defining our notion of 'others.' She's just 'alt right,' he's a 'libtard' and so on. From what I can see most people are unable to step beyond these labels and, with the entire system controlled by a few 'deep state' sponsored giants (such as In-Q-Tel's Alphabet) a dystopian control grid, based upon the age old tactic of 'divide an conquer' appears to me to be the more likely direction of travel for the current iteration of the Internet.
While the promise of IPFS, Ethereum etc offers the potential to combat the problem of centralised control I don't yet see how it will overcome the narrow confines of the silo effect and the identity labels that accompany it. This appears to be the prism through which most people view content.
For example, Steemit offers the potential for iconoclastic content creators to thrive, while this opportunity is steadily being eroded on the big centralised platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Yet Steemit is rife with Whales who flag content they don't like, regardless of it's originality. Often without even viewing or reading that content. The label alone is sufficient.
As your excellent podcast alluded to the IDW offers great potential and I for one have discovered its existence and am very interested in it as a result. However, thanks to the information you have provided, my initial thought is that it will become an echo-chamber for those already predisposed to ideas discussed. If we are truly going to achieve a collective approach to problem solving we must reinvigorate debate, not with those we agree with, but with those we don't.
The IDW is something I will certainly research further. I really hope you are right and I am wrong.
Take it easy.