When you maximize the ability of humans to determine what info, ideas and art gets the most attention, I think you better society as quickly as possible. I trust us to collectively manage our selfish incentives well when power is widely distributed. Fully connected while not allowing anyone to be harassed into silence, must be our goal.
Discussion
Replies:
4
@wjmaggos i'm skeptical that maximum attention is a measure for value. even if all humans could discover and evaluate universal information in negligible time, you'd still see the wrong things getting attention. it's not purely a distribution problem, and it's not simply perverse incentives, either -- well-meaning people allocate their attention incorrectly all the time.
who decides it's the wrong things? the people should get to decide imo. and we won't all see everything but hopefully the best stuff can bubble up. isn't this how the world figured out fire etc, just more slowly?
@wjmaggos everyone decides for themselves. but people aren't perfect judges. even personally i can say i pay attention to things i should rightfully ignore.
and maybe you don't share some of that stuff. but some stuff, you do. and some of that, your followers think is worth sharing with their followers. and we are hopefully less misled by a few people with access to the mass media version of bullhorns but moreso by the wisdom of crowds. Or those who have a social media version of a bullhorn in the form of lots of followers who they had to earn, not achieve reach by buying ads or a media outlet.
bad attention stewards will lack followers.
