Google wants to avoid editorializing, and be able to throw their hands up and say "not our fault!" due to the plausible deniability of "algorithms".
They can't pull that off anymore.
There needs to be a shift towards a Web-of-Trust-like system, where some sources are recognized as authoritative. Government websites, like the CDC, for example. Big media outlets. Scientific associations (IPCC, APA, etc). Not all information is equal. Even if, for example, government dietary recommendations are outdated in some ways, that should be the authoritative answer Google provides, unless there is an equally-reputable but more accurate source (here, prioritize medical sources over governmental ones).
A high school dropout doesn't know more about academic subjects than a PhD grad. A blog isn't as authoritative as a reputable source. This is easy stuff.
Then the question becomes: "some people don't see reputable sources as reputable". That isn't Google's problem, and it can't be fixed at their level.
There's a difference between "government sources" for hard facts (CDC), facts about the world (e.g. DoJ travel warnings, CIA factbook, DoE energy savings tips), for facts about the government (e.g. for Trump's EO, the suggested snippet would be to the text of the EO), and claims from the government. These are easily distinguished.
> Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.)
I really hate (nothing personal) this "wishful-thinking" type of activism ("we really need to do...!". You want to change women's sexual preferences? How, through CRISPR? How will you "work at a local level" to make fat 50 year olds with high school diplomas more attractive to women?
> "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back
Instead of saying that, how about saying that everybody, including 50 year olds in mainland America, deserves the opportunity of a good job? It's like saying "fat people should be just as attractive" instead of just losing weight.
The current situation is not a refutation of "men are worth something because of their career", just a confirmation. It doesn't "have to come back", because it never left. This is how it has been, is, and will be. You're saying men without ambition or money are entitled to relationships, which they're not. Some people just can't compete, doesn't make the competition obsolete.
I tend to agree with this, yeah. There is plenty of room for change in how we run the economy giving everyone a chance for a good job.
For one - the working hours in the US are crazy. Cap it at 32 hours and badaboom, everyone has a job. Combined with a decent minimum wage, you'd be fine. And yes, if this would result in economic collapse, Europe would've gone to sheise a looooong time ago yet the countries rated as best to live are the ones who have executed exactly that recipe.
> It literally cannot prescribe complex social roles
It absolutely can. Evolutionary psychology is science, and it's based on the scientific method (ironically, unlike the sociology that's obsessed with "gender roles", which isn't based on science at all). Check out Gad Saad's podcast on Joe Rogan.
Except dystopia isn't "everyone lives in a bad, mean world". It's societal dislocation. For some, the dystopia is real, right now. For others, it never will be.
These are often not kids of the lower-classes, who are more likely to end up on the streets caught up in crime than in their bedroom playing video games. It's the middle or even upper middle class children often doing this, not just for economic reasons.
Take away their video games and drugs, and see what you end up with. Their video game addiction is obviously a sign of deep, fundamental and overwhelming distress. I think you're going for the "they're victims too, not violent inhumane monsters" which is true, but doesn't take away from GP's point that they're potentially volatile and therefore a threat to stability.
The main downside is for the children. Believe me, you would not want to be the child of such a man or such a woman.[0] This is worse than lack of iodine, lead in the pipes, or congenital deformities from pregnant drug abuse. It's a societal time-bomb.
> Children living in female headed families with no spouse present had a poverty rate of 47.6 percent, over 4 times the rate in married-couple families.
> The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.”
> Children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide.
> Children age 10 to 17 living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity, and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.
The "gender roles" crowd is deeply dogmatic and misguided, and it's having incredible consequences.
Partly because the German currency is severely undervalued for its economy (because it's held down by the other eurozone countries), favoring exports. In a sense, the other eurozone countries are subsidizing German exports. If the euro went away, and Germany switched back to the Mark, exports would be corrected downwards, and jobs would leave since Made in Germany wouldn't be profitable anymore.
That doesn't take into account the fact that (through no fault of their own, and meriting no shame), single parents are pretty systematically worse statistically than bioparents in a nuclear household. Take into account the impact of parental "abandonment" on the child, which is traumatic regardless of whether the abandonment was voluntary or not, and regardless of whether it's one parent no longer seeing a child at all, or the other parent seeing the child less because she has to work harder to provide; both count as "abandonment" emotionally, and can be traumatizing.
Single-parent families, step-families all require better parenting, management, and communication skills, since they're more complex, and these parents aren't more skilled than the average, with predictable consequences.
Check the statistics on "fatherless" households, children of single mothers perform worse on every single metric. Worse academically, commit more crime (and much more rape), more runaways, more addictions, the list goes on.
> Yes, old school partnerships are dying, but that doesn't make males more disposable.
Implies that "old school partnerships" are dying, but being replaced by something new. That's not the case. It's not a case of old-thing-evolving-into-a-new-thing. It isn't being replaced by anything, just being destroyed. I'll bet you single mothers are much less happy than married women, especially in their 50s and 60s, not to mention the increased likelihood of being abused by dates, strings of failed relationships, increased stress, and loneliness.
tbh you're preaching to the choir here, i believe in 2-parent models for the sake of spending more time with the child and nurturing it better.
that said, ill add that single parents of the past are often a result of a broken house hold. the single parents of the future will do so by choice, this will give rise to interesting dynamics, i think.
it isn;t replaced by anything right now, but crises leads to break through, we might/(most likely will?) deal with is, as nature would have us, by either coming up with a new paradigm, or breaking then reverting to (a better?) version of the old.
maybe im an optimist, but ive seen so much shit, and the world is knee deep in shit these days that i need to believe that we'll make it.
to deal with this issue i personally would suggest community (kibutz style?) child care, which ironically echoes a communist tint, to deal with time-not-spent with children. top that with corporate/workplace restructuring (ala sweden with mandatory father-time as well as mandatory mom-time off for birth) and we'd be on our way.
one issue i do see is old age and loneliness. i see so many lonely old people here in europe. for now, females are growing older and finding it more difficult to find a partner after choosing not to marry. the men are reluctant to take an older woman as a partner, and while i understand hypergamy, im not sure i understand why the older men are not taking mid-30-smth women as partners.
also, i dont understand why can't couples marry and support each other's careers and just have kids later. is it so unnatural? it might boil down to the socioeconomics of hypergamy, which is a thought that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, to think that our females are "programmed" as such is no comforting notion.
They can't pull that off anymore.
There needs to be a shift towards a Web-of-Trust-like system, where some sources are recognized as authoritative. Government websites, like the CDC, for example. Big media outlets. Scientific associations (IPCC, APA, etc). Not all information is equal. Even if, for example, government dietary recommendations are outdated in some ways, that should be the authoritative answer Google provides, unless there is an equally-reputable but more accurate source (here, prioritize medical sources over governmental ones).
A high school dropout doesn't know more about academic subjects than a PhD grad. A blog isn't as authoritative as a reputable source. This is easy stuff.
Then the question becomes: "some people don't see reputable sources as reputable". That isn't Google's problem, and it can't be fixed at their level.