Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech
Most humans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump want a world where people celebrate special occasions together, contribute to the community, show respect for one’s elders, take care of their bodies and are careful about indulging one’s appetites. Most humans who voted for opposing candidate Kamala Harris also want a world where people do these… Continue reading Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech The post Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech appeared first on Fair Observer.
Most humans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump want a world where people celebrate special occasions together, contribute to the community, show respect for one’s elders, take care of their bodies and are careful about indulging one’s appetites. Most humans who voted for opposing candidate Kamala Harris also want a world where people do these things. This common ground exists because these practices allow humans to meet our basic informational needs, sensory information in particular.
Recently, my partner, Criscillia, and I demonstrated that truth mathematically, by understanding that the information brains need for trust is not the kind of information you find in newspapers or books. It is the kind of information we receive through our senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch and interoception, all at once. Real people know nervous systems need real life.
That same math shows that digital inputs are bad for us. The more “personalized” they are, the worse. Because personalized digital technology makes so much money, that basic tension pits private profit against public health. I have never heard any scientific disagreements with this contention, even after trying for a decade to provoke them. The math of information flow and all unbiased evidence agree: Digital media damage learning and sociability. So any country hoping to protect its youth must severely limit childrens’ digital exposure.
The United States, which pioneered this awful tech and makes the most money from it, must now officially face this choice just as Trump takes office. The Senate side of Congress already passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) — a proposed legislation meant to protect children on the Internet — by the lopsided odds of 91–3, showing wide bipartisan support. But the House of Representatives has stalled and tried to weaken it to make it easier on industry.
The House will vote on KOSA on Tuesday, December 17. Will the congressmen protect kids from known digital toxins? Or will they protect their contributors’ profit margins? It seems too close to call.
KOSA vs free speech
The big news came this week when Trump’s tech vizier, Elon Musk, the world’s most influential technologist, announced his support of KOSA. Even more crucially, he and X CEO Linda Yaccarino helped the House restore the teeth of the Senate version. He and his tech company voted for life over tech.
Unlike earlier bills, KOSA was designed to identify and neutralize the toxin, not just give it a name and a punishment. The toxin in this case is described in the key term, “design feature.” Design features are software elements (such as “infinite scroll,” for example) which entrain the human nervous system unconsciously; individuals can’t defend themselves. Their basic structures have been mathematically understood since the old days when “persuasive technology” was considered good, not evil. KOSA’s genius approach embeds that established industry knowledge into the very legislation regulating industry and protecting kids and teens.
The major objection to KOSA is based on a weird US myth, going by the name “free speech.” Free speech in the US means people get to speak their minds without government interference, which is good for democracy. Furthermore, according to our scientific understanding of trust, speaking out loud in public is very good for the nervous system. So what our Founding Fathers imagined is still alive and well.
Unfortunately, the US also has a sub-population of people who think that typing posts is equal to using the voice. Some of those people further claim that free speech ought to apply in ways having nothing to do with voices or even people, so any regulation at all constitutes “censorship.”
The people who say such things call themselves intelligent. But does a foreign server hosting porn deserve free speech? How about social media platforms urging kids to kill themselves?
Musk was right: Choose life. Science says so.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
The post Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech appeared first on Fair Observer.
What's Your Reaction?