Democratization of information is good, as long as the audience has the knowledge or interest in learning how to understand it. Information without understanding leads to deeper opinions as people use their preconceived notions to interpret the unknown.
This is why people so vastly misunderstand polls and statistics in general. They don't follow normal intuition for meaning and instead of learning how to understand it, people use them to reinforce preexisting ideas.
I have no good suggestions about how to better equip people to understand data, as it requires interest in their part. I fear people prefer to view data through their beliefs rather than learn how it really works.
I couldn't help but think about this book: Against Democracy https://a.co/d/2qdKBLW. It is about democracy in politics and takes the difficult stance that democracy isn't good enough. Makes some good points
"Democratizing access" is IMO a frequent misnomer of both the intent and the effect. What you've described is mainly increasing general access through reducing cost for low volume (individual-scale) purchasing, while pocketing some of the value in the transition from the old model and suppliers to the new. One could certainly argue that the "democratization of access" to information that free social media networks provide has harmed actual democracy, unethically captured attention and the public sphere, and actually centralized power and wealth with certain individuals rather than distributing it in a more equitable fashion. Using the term "democratization" IMO is a way of making that seem beneficent regardless of its actual intent or impact.
*Actual* democratization of access to information would also require democratic control over the platforms that distribute it.
Speaking of monitoring for potential harms... when we discussed monitoring for the potential harms of Teamrankings' business, there were bigger problems like climate change to be solved (despite Teamrankings' involvement in the creation of those specific externalities)...
Democratization of information is good, as long as the audience has the knowledge or interest in learning how to understand it. Information without understanding leads to deeper opinions as people use their preconceived notions to interpret the unknown.
This is why people so vastly misunderstand polls and statistics in general. They don't follow normal intuition for meaning and instead of learning how to understand it, people use them to reinforce preexisting ideas.
I have no good suggestions about how to better equip people to understand data, as it requires interest in their part. I fear people prefer to view data through their beliefs rather than learn how it really works.
I couldn't help but think about this book: Against Democracy https://a.co/d/2qdKBLW. It is about democracy in politics and takes the difficult stance that democracy isn't good enough. Makes some good points
"Democratizing access" is IMO a frequent misnomer of both the intent and the effect. What you've described is mainly increasing general access through reducing cost for low volume (individual-scale) purchasing, while pocketing some of the value in the transition from the old model and suppliers to the new. One could certainly argue that the "democratization of access" to information that free social media networks provide has harmed actual democracy, unethically captured attention and the public sphere, and actually centralized power and wealth with certain individuals rather than distributing it in a more equitable fashion. Using the term "democratization" IMO is a way of making that seem beneficent regardless of its actual intent or impact.
*Actual* democratization of access to information would also require democratic control over the platforms that distribute it.
Speaking of monitoring for potential harms... when we discussed monitoring for the potential harms of Teamrankings' business, there were bigger problems like climate change to be solved (despite Teamrankings' involvement in the creation of those specific externalities)...