• Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 1010 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

How long unti we can only say positive things on the internet

Iain

I read an article today that made me wonder if it is something that would gain traction in this country:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39r7p47wzgo

This week, China's Cyberspace Administration launched a two-month campaign to curb social media posts that "excessively exaggerate negative and pessimistic sentiments". The goal, according to authorities, is to "rectify negative emotions" and "create a more civilised and rational online environment".

In the crosshairs are narratives like "studying is useless" and "hard work is useless", as well as stories that promote "world-weariness".

Initially I thought nah, we are still a free society but then I started thinking of the recent use of the police to patrol social media for anyone saying things in support of organisations that the government consider problematic (think of the Middle East) - if you protest you easily end up in jail, if you write something on social media then having the police turn up on your doorstep is a realistic threat.

Our freedoms only really can be defined in the Citizens Charter and these are subject to all sorts of emergency powers and erosion as bills are passed granting more exemptions for the government. The current government have a sufficiently large majority that passing laws which curb our freedoms should be easy so long as they make small changes each time.

Think digital IDs, online age verification checks etc. Each one is a way to tie us to what we say and do in a way that they can track patterns of behaviour and use vague laws to act if they choose to.

So it is possible but do you think they have the appetite for making the population more compliant?

Parents

  • Am reminded of the film life of Brian: "Always look on the bright side of life".  :-)

    I concur that feeling good about things can reduce the amount of effort I am able to expend and to some extent the risks I am able to take.  Possibly also the type of "energy" that I employ is altered from something akin to anger to being more enthusiastic.  The expression "you are what you eat" extends to more than one type of consumption.

    Psychological manipulation exists on both a micro and macro scale in social behaviour and politics is the "art and science" of this in evidence.

    Therefore yes "I am happy" to accept your hypothesis regarding the use of positive reinforcement strategies as an alternative to negative reinforcement strategies in achieving population compliance  .

    Personally I think this is at the least the lesser of two evils.

    There then arises the perhaps implicit concern regarding whether the people and organisations employing any such strategies have the interests of the wider society and individuals as their primary motivation.  In effect can they be trusted in this matter.

    A well known national media organisation has the remit to "Inform, Educate and Entertain".  Perhaps others have a remit to "opiate the masses" in respect of what sort of information and education is passed on. 

    Personally my capacity to trust in this respect is difficult given the available evidence.  Openness overcomes this and is (in my opinion) far too often absent - either by neglect/omission or by covert action.  

    Interestingly there is quite a body of evidence that having self control and what is called an "internal locus of control" correlates with happiness.

    Training people to recognize their locus of control, accept personal responsibility, develop problem-solving skills, and employ strategies to develop a more proactive and resilient mindset which can lead to increased self-efficacy and well-being might be another way?

    I think this approach ethically better - but harder for society to achieve.  I think this based on the evidence I observe and, I suspect, the limitations of some people in power and authority wishing to nurture this in "their" population.

    (whistling) de doot, de doot de doot de doot...  :-)

  • in reply to Phased

    Sorry in advance if I missed the point of this my adhd is in overdrive so I kinda read the first bit and had to say this 

    I find if you give out positivity it helps keep the meltodwns at bay or at least lessen the impact of them

Reply Children
No Data