Data | Philosophy Tube

[@PhilosophyTube]

It's rewind time!

[@chryssie-1984]

I just realised the whole Ellis being a "pure braw legend'" part and the earlier bit about institutionalised gay bashing. It is rewind time indeed.

[@MegaShiney99]

W

[@kanyewest8456]

It’s data collecting time

[@Arrakiz666]

Let me venture a guess. This will be all about how in the modern discourse certain, shall we say, _pernicious elements,_ or _the usual suspects,_ whichever you prefer, like to use data-points in the abstract without following them up with any argument, relying on the audience to fall back on certain cultural stereotypes and create an argument on their own? Because I hate that that happens.

[@anisbinwali3477]

Its ethical hacking time!

[@randodrick7247]

"Will ya shut ya face sweetheart, I'm tryna have a socratic dialogue here" is possibly the best line on youtube

[@zackburke5459]

Now I plan on using that when I see people having meltdowns over wearing masks at the grocery store...

[@robingates-shannon931]

might be my senior quote

[@yuvalne]

+

[@FakieStreams]

"that's no a pair of tits, that's the mojave."

[@debrucey]

It's right up there with "Don't break the fourth wall, I'm trying to make a video about post-modernism!"

[@benutzername1875]

To quote Snowden: "Saying you don't care about your right to privacy because you've got nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you've got nothing to say."

[@joshknightfall]

Snowden deserves the congressional medal of honor, instead he's exiled in Russia.

[@sdgdhpmbp]

All of a sudden my privacy lost value. I mean damn. There's nothing in the world more soul-crushingly depressing than a reminder than people aren't exactly sheep, but they're certainly not fit to choose their own leaders nor have a say in pretty much any matter. Do you have any idea how many people are plain ignorant? Do you know how many are proud to be ignorant? Or let's drop the vague language and say something relevant and relatable: Do you know how many people are Trump voters? How many are celebrating Brexit? I fully agree that overall, *everyone's* voice matters. *Everyone's* privacy matters. *Everyone's* vote matters. And yet nothing is to change that, paraphrasing Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. Nothing is to change that this imbalance in inequality also empowers/is powered by false narratives. If you haven't heard of Ruport Murdoch by now, time to change that. All democracy really did is change the idea of one power hungry king to 10. That's it. Changing that to 100 under socialism, communism or whatever isn't going to solve anything neither, just give the illusion that it's morally superior. It's going to take a herculean effort for democracies to fix themselves, and we all know the Earth would sooner die than that happening anytime soon.

[@chalichaligha3234]

@@sdgdhpmbp , You are right that the situation is dire. But do not forget why so many people are kept poor and uneducated. It is precisely because there are two main classes in society - those with power, and those who follow. Capitalists and workers. The soviet union was not much different except for the name of the ruling class, and the way they handled power. It is easy to tell uncritically thinking people that this or another socioeconomic system is better, fairer etc. But the only way we can tell that a system is better is that the people within don't have to be told. This is what communism (academic definition) is all about. Giving the power directly to people in their communities as to how they organise life. Not through the "people's party". And using your own way of putting things, the people following 1, 10, or 100 people's ideas means exploitation. But following 7 billion ideas wouldn't, because a truly fair society is one where everyone can make their own decisions. How would people still form a cohesive society if everyone followed their own mind? Well, any society where that is true must be one of material fairness, and people will support and continuously adapt the system to be as good as possible. But how do you enable the possibility of each of us being our own masters together? You educate people in critical thinking, so that they can truly make informed decisions in their favour, and any communist society would do exactly that. Will that happen in our society. Highly unlikely. Because our capitalists masters would only lose out if the majority of people could actually think for themselves. On the other hand, as the proportion of jobs requiring critical thinking increases due to automation, it is possible they'll trip themselves up. So do we just sit here and wait for a better future to emerge? NO. WE FIGHT! Everyone who can must try to create a world with more critical thinkers. Whether by direct teaching, lobbying the government or any other conceivable way. And what must we do with other critical thinkers? Build a new society. A new world, free from the bonds of master-slave, capitalist-worker relations. How? By pooling expertise from every profession and experience and making them anew. New, community based engineering and industry. New systems of economic relations. New visions of a prosperous community. First done on a small scale, then multiplied, attracting all to join the communist federation. I am working on plans for a new industry which I aim to put into practice when I finish my education, and of course I work to gather as many as possible in this quest for a better world.

[@XenaBe25]

@@chalichaligha3234 I'm facing eviction due to a greedy landlord right now. Renovictions suck balls. I pay $890/ month (Canadian) for a roomy 2 bdrm with an eat in kitchen bc I've been here 7 years. Everybody else in this building pays between $1200 and $1600. The only reason they have to boot me is that they want to jack up the rent, so hopefully the rental housing tribunal will rule in my favour. But if it all hits the fan over the next year or 2 and I end up homeless bc I can't afford to pay $1600/month, I'll look you up. A workers' collective sounds much better than a homeless shelter :)

[@XenaBe25]

@@chalichaligha3234 Are you in the US? Or elsewhere?

[@danielheflick1529]

I took me right up until the end to understand what the framing device was doing. As the conversation repeats over and over again, they're each gathering more data on the other, allowing them to ask more and more, well, "targeted" questions, until eventually their true selves are revealed: powerlessness for the patron, and willful ignorance for the bouncer. And that's the kind of conclusion that macro level data collection is incapable of coming to, but two human beings understanding each other are. Brilliant work as usual, Philosophy Tube.

[@Rissa_1322]

The fun part of experiencing this thought process for me is that I could operate with it Before I Knew What It Was? It reminds me of Life Is Strange and other choice-based games I've played, but specifically Life Is Strange because of the Rewind aspect. The game is just bits. But on the other side of those bits, someone told me a story, and while the code is only gathering information so it knows which direction to keep the story going, *I* am not interacting algorithmically with a program. I am, in every way that matters, interacting with a person, AS a person. So I'm watching this, literally holding my breath, KNOWING what it's doing without UNDERSTANDING what it's doing. And then I scroll down here and you've done Words to it. Thank you.

[@aneutralopinion1712]

Oh fuck that's incredible

[@RubenVenema]

Excellent analysis!

[@fruitygarlic3601]

I love how this manifests in even the smallest of ways. The patron, who is ordinarily very measured in his questions and responses, brings up Magic Mike and Kim Petras so confidently after the bouncer cites "insitutionalised gay bashing" as one of the reasons he left the police force in an alternate timeline.

[@TheOzumat]

It's powerlessness for both, the bouncer is just doing his best to not feel it, by distracting himself and suppressing any troubling thoughts.

[@koalasquare2145]

I love how she hires three extras and still plays both roles Edit: she

[@potmki6601]

four tho?

[@mattpluzhnikov519]

Considering she was working from her own script, and thanks to the Rewind feature and literally reusing some clips multiple times, my guess is playing both parts streamlined production significantly. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that it's easier to read your own script with the desired inflection/delivery, rather than give an actor their lines and instruct them on some of the nuances you may be wanting/trying to capture.

[@bigboss3051]

That's what happens when you have such a large ego.

[@ilicythings]

@@potmki6601 the forth is barely in shot lol

[@actualalpaca18]

the other people are probably just her friends and not actors like her

[@MortisheadUK]

"SHUT YER FACE SWEETHEART - i'm tryn'ta have a socratic dialogue" is my new favourite arrangement of words.

[@lousutcliffe6713]

Yeah, but for a moment I was like "howay leave Alice alone ya weegie gyet"

[@samerm8657]

😂

[@recordlowrollers9841]

Oli is just an absolutely brilliant writer-I chortled at that, and the Mojave line.

[@discodespot]

Your band rules but I was really hoping it would sound like a mix between Motorhead and Portishead.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Stolen and slightly rearranged.

[@emorykj3158]

Instead of coming out as gay, I’m coming out as a “pure braw legend.”

[@delve_]

Do it, you pure braw legend.

[@hayk3000]

ur mom pure braw legend

[@morgoth_bauglir]

Μom... dad.... I have to tell you something.... I... I'm a pure braw legend...

[@lousutcliffe6713]

I too identify as a pua braw legend like.

[@Gooberpatrol66]

OP is a pure braw legend.

[@thuslyandfurthermore]

"if you were still a police officer would you enforce it" "yeah" **perfectly executed look of horror**

[@eoghan.5003]

13:23

[@Squin52X]

13:12

[@man.6618]

@@Squin52X AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[@bitshifter9191]

Should police officers should be able to choose which laws they enforce? Is moral objection a valid reason to refuse to do a job your paid and willingly show up for?

[@thuslyandfurthermore]

@@bitshifter9191 yes, but there shouldn't be police officers in the first place, and yes obviously or else morality in general has broken down lmao. not hard questions

[@maiab-w8733]

going to 3 gay events and then moving to sweden to start a turnip farm with 9 golden retrievers is my ideal life actually

[@barkingdoggo3331]

you just told it to Google xD

[@saltypork101]

They have a gay scene in Sweden.

[@lopamurblamo]

That just sounds like Animal Crossing honestly

[@isaacbear7115]

This is just the plot to Stardew Valley

[@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868]

Sounds a bit like animal crossing

[@charlottemclean6130]

I really like that the scanner is a hammer, it really reinforces the "this is tool that so easily becomes a weapon" aspect. Excellent work Olly!

[@captainzork6109]

Alternative interpretation: I think it’s a metaphor for functional fixedness. The scanner is just for scanning ids to allow people to come in, and that’s where the thinking stops. The doorman is not thinking about how this hammer came to be, what it actually does or how it could be used. The doorman keeps saying: “It’s just a scanner.” But the person trying to come in keeps asking what it does, trying to break open the doorman’s mind going: “Hey, what’s that? Let’s look at the bigger picture here!” A typical interaction between people who agree and disagree about data collection, I think

[@defensivekobra3873]

Third interpretation: he just has an really low budget and could not afford an real scanner

[@TheMogul23]

It also seems to be a reference to that saying "if all you have to use is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

[@diciassetteecinquantanove5171]

I do like all these interpretations, but to be fair the impression I had at first was that he was trying to say: "A hammer is a technical/technological artifact as much as a sofisticated scanner". By this I mean that is not the scanner per se, but the whole 'essence' of human technical behaviour. I mean, we have always created tools to increase and express our ability to interact with the environment, but every technological advancement also undermined our ability to have a direct control, giving a part of it away, transferring it from the body to the technical object. Then, the real problem with data is that while a hammer is a prothesis for our hands, so we can keep a certain control at that stage even if it modifies our behaviour, our data duplicate is an external prothesis of our mind/brain/psychology and this has far more serious implications on how our psychology can be modified. But for sure he chose a hammer also for lack of money, I really liked the materialistic interpretation

[@alexonline2340]

i just let out an audible "ohhhhhhh!" because i couldn't figure out the metaphor with the hammer. this makes perfect sense. technology is a tool that can improve our lives but can easily become a weapon.

[@andytrinh2562]

olly just straight up took the inner monologue conversations we have with ourselves and made it a short film

[@clsisman]

It's called a Socratic dialogue!

[@LvLupXD]

It's a supervised learning algorithm

[@clsisman]

@@LvLupXD It's both! Which is what makes this video brilliant!

[@R0S3inC0NCR33T]

I always hated that "go live in the forest" argument. Where the hell would I go to do that? We don't have the common land anymore! And with Google Earth and satellites and all that, you literally wouldn't even be safe in the forest

[@TheGeekSquaredified]

Actually,google earth can't penetrate dense forests so it's off to the amazon I guess

[@perhapsyes2493]

Exactly. If I had the means to, I would've already. Issue is, to buy a lone house in the forest costs a Million. I mean... I would actually just like to be able to buy a house at all. Renter life ... shoot me.

[@CatCheshireThe]

Yeah the "go live in the forest" cliche is a deliberate dodge meant to make the argument itself impossible to make. If you don't live in the woods, you're engaging in the system you claim to hate and a hypocrite who shouldn't be listened to. If you DO go live in the woods, you're a nutcase out of touch with modern society who shouldn't be listened to.

[@TheDelinear]

"Go live in the forest" is the same reductive argument as a bunch of others, most notably the one I'm seeing a LOT right now, "If you don't like this country, go live somewhere else". It's designed to shut down the dialogue by suggesting it's absurd to think that the thing you like is even capable of being challenged, so the only other option is to complete remove yourself from said thing, which is generally impossible. Instead, you're left thinking you face two impossible choices, so instead you're meant to meekly comply.

[@Spamhard]

Always stupid when it's used as an argument re Capitalism especially, as if somehow hiding in the woods in your own little hut would mean you could magically avoid all aspects of capitalism for the rest of your life.

[@irinka8319]

can we all take a quick sec to appreciate how tedious this must have been to edit? fantastic work, ollie !

[@arbitool]

Edit? Imagine the writing!

[@DavidJamesHenry]

Pretty sure this is just writing

[@man.6618]

@@DavidJamesHenry the video still had to be edited :/

[@rxcort]

Or maybe he stopped recording and changed outfits every time it another character needed to speak

[@kelseakelsea5131]

Right? Crazy!

[@blumousey]

The 'nothing to hide' argument is so flawed. Everyone has things to hide. Passwords, bank account details, private documents, photos, the privacy of their home, emails, messages, etc.

[@369TurtleMan]

blumousey this is actually called the “privacy fallacy”, fun fact

[@blumousey]

@@Solisus but that distinction is irrelevant to the government. You have to give them access to your private life as I detailed above for them to be able to see if you're doing anything illegal or not. It's none of their business. Plus you're just handing them power and ammunition if they ever want to persecute you.

[@aboxintheblack9530]

blumousey Thoughts

[@geroffmilan3328]

@@Solisus how do you kmow; memorised all of the laws, everywhere, did you? I'm a professional hacker. Would you like to make this a challenge, that I can find nothing that you wouldn't like made public? 2 things I can tell you: Once the looking starts, it don't stop I would have to follow you for no more than 1 mile to find you breaking laws you never knew existed. Minor edit: the same is all true of me, I'm no legal guru - so I act accordingly.

[@GrahamChapman]

People who claim they've "got nothing to hide" are displaying a remarkable lack of imagination in regards to what some other people may want to cause them harm over... "You're gay/trans/very poor/an ethnic minority/a single mother/socialist/communist/humanist/climate change activist/rape victim/Jew/Muslim/Atheist/etc? Well, it would be a pity if the wrong people learned about that, huh? Someone who may want to lock you up in some sort of facility for not being what they approve of, for example?"

[@noahhayes93]

im a bartender and bouncer in a nightclub where we scan I.D.s and can attest that it does very little to stop people getting drunk and fighting and people getting their shit stolen. like someone got their purse stolen this weekend and we looked thru the cameras and looked thru the i.d.s scanned that evening, and literally, didnt solve shit. the person who took this young womans purse had their backs turned to the camera on the way out, so their was little to be seen to match by i.d.s. also people bring in someone elses id card cuz they have similar facial features and shit. fuck this surveillance bullshit. love this video and a huge fan of philosophy tube. keep up the good stuff mate

[@finley7906]

read this in Ellis's voice

[@kid14346]

I find it very interesting the ways that we can condition viewer's suspension of disbelief. "Why is that man clearly holding a hammer over a driver's license?" "It's a scanner." "Oh I guess it is a scanner and I will now intrinsicly believe this for the rest of this narrative."

[@Zeboki]

I just thought that it was a clever way of putting that the tool can very easily become a weapon.

[@rolfs2165]

You know what they say: When the only tool you have is a scan^h^h^hammer …

[@SnoFitzroy]

"The tool could so easily become a weapon," and "when all your problems look like nails" comes together here in a really deep way that my mind can't stop coming back to.

[@dynawesome]

It’s also about the “it’s just a scanner” thing People will just accept that things are certain things without asking bigger questions

[@jamesmodlin6279]

Its symbolic. The threat of "dropping the hammer".

[@definitiveentertainment1658]

“..But do you have a camera in your boss’s office to make sure they’re not underpaying you?” Some statements are so self-evident and show the inequity of our world so simply..that they actually hurt to hear.

[@badasunicorn6870]

Yes! And it's so obviously ridiculous that you realize: "is it as ridiculous the other way?" which leads to the more terrifying realization: "why does the other way feel... normal?“.

[@maxwild2582]

I like how the whole video is an algorithm going through potential interactions.

[@BNidoking]

holy shit you're right

[@martinreid2352]

What's better, it probably came to many of its viewer _by way of an algorithm_

[@borissmalov5085]

Is this what an algorithm is?

[@CloudCuckooCountry]

13:26 Can we just appreciate Abby's silent reaction to the bouncer saying that he'd still enforce a law he doesn't support? I absolutely loved this little moment. Show's why Olly's a great writer and actor.

[@xyaeiounn]

I can only like this comment once :(

[@ICouldntThinkOk]

I agree with him on that. It reminds me of an argument I had on The Law Of Infinite Probability where someone called me immoral for saying I would eventually kill an immortal dog if I was the only one who could (and with me being immortal too). Just because you don’t agree with the action doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do. This scenario he gets money that he might even use for activities that are even more important than privacy.

[@booketoiles1600]

He is a cop after all. Enforcing unjust laws is their job

[@xyaeiounn]

​@@booketoiles1600 A good soldier will not obey a bad order. Police have discretionary options but everybody understands that enforcing a rule you don't believe in, or don't need to enforce, is a form of hypocrisy, a pleasure that can only be enjoyed from a position of power. Too many people talking about right and wrong when they are dealing with power that has no values.

[@randomalienfrommars0567]

How did I realize this video IS an algorithm: >while watching I thought about how he came up with this many probabilities and kept optimizing them. >thought about how much easier that would've been for the computer. >"oh! this IS a data structure in computers. A tree graph where the algorithm goes through parsing the info, each branch getting smarter than the next to explore possible reactions" >but is the algorithm the bouncer trying to convince a human to agree on surveillance and reached a dead end? or is it the skeptic trying to convince the bouncer to doubt themselves with more and more pointed questions and succeeded? or is it a simulator playing a scenario and analyzing it to understand possible arguments and collect as much data as possible from them? >"this is making me think and I don't want to think" >"oh well existential crisis meh what am I gonna do about it" >"oh"

[@panoshanos1]

On you confusion whether the algorithm is the bouncer or the patron the answer can be both. There is a thing in machine learning that pits two algorithms against each other in order for both of them to improve. if you want to do some reading on it look for Generative Adversarial Networks .

[@mattpluzhnikov519]

@@panoshanos1 I have NO background in the subject, but thanks to a relatively recent Tom Scott video and RandomAlien doing an excellent job describing their thought process, I was going to chime in saying roughly the same thing as you.

[@davidgustavsson4000]

The sign is in Comic Sans, you're legally allowed to disregard anything it says.

[@spadaacca]

Ponj

[@badasunicorn6870]

Well, no, but if it was... Papyrus *shrugs*, you would.

[@therrydicule]

Depends of jurisdiction. They are some jurisdictions where a contract can't be in Comic Sans. They are also font size regulations. However, I do not think that it would go far legally given how it is readable...

[@deadmeme8011]

...It took me twelve and a half minutes to realize all the rewinds were a representation of AI learning.

[@squelchedotter]

It took me until reading this comment

[@apersonlikeanyother6895]

WeNeedMoreFarads me too.

[@Dimipim1]

i saw it like a video game thing where you try the different options to see all the dialogues but your take makes much more sense

[@michaelreppenhagen736]

@@Dimipim1 That's what I got, too. I don't think the two readings are mutually exclusive, though.

[@alexanderskage7739]

For anyone who's wondering, this type of AI/ML is often called Reinforcement Learning. You figure out which sequential steps lead to greater reward, often by randomly changing actions.

[@domidextrus]

"I don't want to think." Such a simple phrase, but a perfect note to tie all the failed scenarios together. An unfortunate amount of us don't want to think about the possibility that the privacy of the people is being compromised for the sake of security. They just want to reap the benefits they get in return, so they keep on rolling with the punches. This has been another masterfully crafted thinkpiece. You just keep knocking it out of the park.

[@Traeumeer]

Only: How to engage those who make use of their right not to think?

[@Mrbertiification]

I think there is potentially more to this scene: You can see the pressures in his face of his economic and fiscal reality which pushes / force him not want to think about what he is doing because he needs to keep doing it (and deep down "knows" that it is wrong). Behind cognitive sentiments can be (coded and uncoded) social realitys (personally I even would go further).

[@Hakajin]

I think there's more to it than that. It feels more like, what good does thinking do me? Oh, I definitely believe knowledge is the first step to power. But only the first. Your'e just one person, what can you do? Sure, if we could make everyone aware and band together, we could really do something, but we don't trust that others will do anything. That, in turn, drains our motivation to do anything. It's easier to just not think about it. And what happens then? The devil of it is, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING! I sure do, anyway. We're only powerless when we believe we are. But how do you stop believing it when others believe in it? I think this is may be the greatest paradox of our time. Maybe of ANY time.

[@notpointed]

Let me turn it around: We shouldn't have to think. We shouldn't have to live in an environment so hostile and exploitative that we have to think about every single action, every single object. There are truly stupid people out there and they are simply at the mercy of this, they can't just think about it. Human progress should be used to make our environment easier to navigate, not harder. And we've made progress. On the sidewalk we don't have to think about holes or roots potentially breaking our ankles. We never have to think about where we'll get clean drinking water. When injured we can leave the medical thinking to the doctors. It used to be that we didn't have to worry about having money in old age. But the social state is eroding, suddenly people do have to think about old age money problems again. Suddenly people do have to think about compromising on their living situation in order to afford rent. Suddenly we again have to worry about being murdered in the streets by nazis. Why should the burden of morality and rightness be placed on a low-income person like a bouncer? Why is the bad thing not illegal?

[@GingerWithEnvy]

Someone pointed out earlier how the video game style of restarting can represent the growing data gathering, and I'm floored by how amazing that is. We see, that just given the regular way of talking, you would've gotten nowhere with the bouncer, but after each reset, each bit of data collected you're able to push the bouncer just a little bit further. And then the process repeats and it starts to dawn on you just how powerless the bouncer is. With this video game rinse and repeat, the growing data collection, the ability to convince the bouncer goes from being a near impossibility to a near certainty. It doesn't matter how good the arguments that the bouncer had were, they just don't have the same playing field, and suddenly I'm stuck by how awfully unfair it is. That when the opposition is able to limitlessly gather data on you, you're almost lost from the outset. The house always wins. Gosh Abby did a great job with this video

[@rickwrites2612]

But in that case the patron didn't win anytjing despite his being on an AI playing field. The bouncer just ended with a personal boundary, potentially hinting threat of violence.

[@Sugugus_421]

Ooooh, I get it. It's a reference to machine learning. Every time the discussion reaches a dead end, the machine rewinds it and tries a new approach. The end goal presumably being to get the bouncer to think about his own role in the system, which ultimately fails, ending the video on a tragic note. Stellar job honestly. The Socratic dialogue lives on.

[@tasteslikestupid4003]

the inherent homoeroticism of save-state booting a grayscale discussion on data with a faceless yet oddly familiar club bouncer

[@ipomoea3067]

You win the internets.

[@theocean1973]

Why is nobody talking the inherent homoeroticism of save-state booting a grayscale discussion on data with a faceless yet oddly familiar club bouncer?

[@clarence5211]

oh man, that ‘because it makes me feel powerless’ line really got me. i occasionally try to limit data collection, but it always leaves me feeling like it’s a futile effort

[@camillajefferson386]

Every time I bother to make the effort to declare what cookies I'm willing to have tracked, a sad little voice in my head sighs and another laughs at the futility. Like a little gremlin that thinks "ha ha haaa, think you can foil meeee?"

[@gabor6259]

@@camillajefferson386 There is a show Show Vendors or Show Purposes button. You can disagree with everything. I don't know if it actually works but it's there, so I use it.

[@Cobalt985]

I wanna start this out by saying, this should NOT be our responsibility. The government is supposed to control and regulate this. However, as long as it IS our responsibility, there's a lot you can do. Run Linux full-time. Cut out social media, except for when it's critical (this is good for your mental health too). Be disconnected from the internet on your computer whenever you can. Use a privacy-focused Android ROM, like GrapheneOS. Use a browser that's not connected to your Google account + privacy addons (Brave is actually really good by default). It's a lot to learn. But it's possible, if difficult. The smartphone and browser steps are the most important and will cut out the most. Operating system choice is second priority.

[@wavingcat5]

The bouncer’s comment at the end is a trauma response. He is overwhelmed and trying to keep himself from being overloaded. His nervous system is trying to keep him safe and being confronted puts him at risk of flooding. In fact, being able to even say he doesn’t want to think is more than most people would be able to face. Social change won’t work unless it’s trauma informed.

[@1993greeksoldier]

Any recommendations on trying to encourage someone with trauma in ways that let's them learn accurately about the world without overwhelming them?

[@yanas9871]

yes, it's a very good point

[@SnoFitzroy]

Yeah, it gives me goosebumps and nearly brought me to tears. I didn't realize until now just how much I was thinking like the bouncer when I thought I was thinking like the patron. The bouncer is right in one way. I DON'T want to think about what Facebook knows about me. I DON'T want to think about how much dirt the big tech companies might have on me or be able to fake about me if they pooled their information together, or if I got hacked by a bad actor. But with how much I do know about tech sometimes I am forced to. And I don' like where the thinking goes.

[@bdz_4206]

Yeah it's not fun.

[@vib2119]

@@1993greeksoldier I got no particular tricks for strangers, might wanna just see this video again and see how Abi does it. Maybe not get too heated but at same time don't be Mr Logic and not show any emotion at all, don't use too much technical jargon, be simple ,and provide simple analogies. basically explain calmly, simply and swiftly. But if it does happen, you wanna give them a soft landing, so to speak. And even if they say they don't think, they probably do, atleast a little. Like if I was in Abi's place, I would say something like "I am sad for you,man, it's normal for people to have this stance, for certain topics, but you shouldn't keep it forever because that's not a good way to be, for anyone. Cause you can't stop the thinking part of you for long, and we are on this Earth for a long time." Then I'd probably just leave and not go in unless I had to do some important in there. Did the best I could, rest is up to the bouncer. Now, if it's someone close to you I think best to induce the trauma and then work it out with them, help them deal with it so they become wiser in dealing with other traumas in their life and maybe even some of yours, but you can't really do that with a stranger for obvious reasons. So with a stranger, you try and prevent the trauma from happening. And with a close one, you help them deal with it.

[@itsevanffs]

this video... _is_ an algorithm. it's trying to find the best way to convince the bouncer as quickly as possible, isn't it?

[@viciousmocker3118]

That's the vibe I got from it too! That or Olly going through all the things he could have said to the bouncer irl to convince him

[@KerpowBang]

shame the algorithm never found the answer

[@itsevanffs]

@@KerpowBang well i did type this comment before i saw the end of the video.

[@kumoyuki]

algorithm: n. a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. this video wasn't that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[@itsevanffs]

@@kumoyuki alright, i edit my statement. the video _contains_ an algorithm.

[@Supermikhail]

KZbin doesn't deserve this production quality.

[@AbderrahmenBesbes]

but WE do

[@user-yr8ge3fz8o]

aye, it dinnae belong ta youtube, but ta the people

[@SupachargedGaming]

"Why can't you just go live in the woods?" Because "land rights" - everything is "owned" by someone.

[@frederik7338]

Either that, or its protected nature reserve. Which means you'd be jailed for disturbing the ecosystem, if you try to make your home there.

[@skepticmoderate5790]

@@frederik7338 Ironic because they don't jail oil barons.

[@notpointed]

I wonder how many people out there would love to just go live in the woods, except they're not allowed to.

[@RoyalFusilier]

I'd fucking hate every second of it, and I actively disdain the idea of 'get rid of technology'... but hey, if somebody else wants to have a go, I also don't really have a right to tell them they can't.

[@fanthomans2]

"It's not a problem with human beings that they don't think like mathematical machines." This has cut very deep in me. I'm a scientist and usually super rational. But, man, the above sentence is true.

[@caitlinvdg7308]

He's right, I went to three gay events and now I'm very happy on my swedish turnip farm with my nine golden retriever's

[@bbinkovitz]

This is the gay agenda.

[@knockout13]

Välkommen till Sverige!

[@soyboysupreme6190]

Please write a self help book so we can follow in your footsteps

[@UsenameTakenWasTaken]

@@bbinkovitz Hell, it's my agenda, and I'm almost straight. Almost...

[@flytrapYTP]

@@UsenameTakenWasTaken the gays are taking our retrievers to their turnip farms.

[@EmperorsAlpaca]

I'm a leftist, I work security, and I study computer science. One night, there was a shooting just outside the event I was working. I once let a guy in who could barely speak english, and just wanted to go see his brother who was working there temporarily. I once let a family in after they got there just a few minutes too late to get tickets. I once basically profiled a group of kids who looked like they were setting up to rush the exit, and prepared to shut the gate on them. I once led a group of kids to the nearest bus stop who confided to me that they snuck in. I once denied a guy entrance who said he wanted to go in to meet the girl of his dreams. I once accidentally let a group of teens sneak past me, due to them pulling a smart distraction. I don't know how to combine all this in my head into any kind of coherent picture. I don't know if I'm a good person or not. I never want to work a job where I'm spying on people, but what the fuck do you do when your primary skill is writing code? Is there any ethical work under capitalism? I feel helpless. I think the best thing I can do is try to minimize harm and get involved in my community, but I don't think my best is good enough.

[@rolasmola9641]

"I don't know if I'm a good person or not." - This is a false dichotomy. It suggests that someone is either good or bad, without anything in-between or any other axes of measurement. At the end of the day you're just a human being, trying to fulfill a complex set of (often conflicting) goals and desires with imperfect information and mental faculties, under time-pressure, and without the concrete reassurance that your goals or desires are even worth pursuing in the first place, or which ones are worth prioritizing when they inevitably come into conflict. This doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, but it is almost a certainty that there will be actions that you commit in the moment that you will come to regret later, or are unsure were the correct decision. This doesn't make you a 'bad' person. This also doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to be a 'good' person, however you choose to define that. What it does mean is that your definition of a 'good' person shouldn't be so strict that you lose all hope as soon as you do something that you later regret, or that others (even those that you respect), judge you negatively for doing.

[@kathrinlindern2697]

One thing this video doesn't mention is that data can be actually used to make things more equal. Like, the question "who gets to go on parole" - it is scary to think of an algorithm deciding that, but the alternative in the current reality is humans deciding that. Now, humans are also "black boxes", that make biased, often discriminating choices. And with humans, that issue is hard to fix because you can try to "educate them" to work against their biases, but because we don't make probabilistic choices, this is really hard. When you have an AI make those decisions, you can explicitly look for bias. For that parole system, for example, it has been proven that this bias exists - because the AI only mirrors society and society is pretty racist. But as a developer, you now have the opportunity to explicitly fix this issue by explicitly encouraging the AI to not just minimize the general error but to also minimize the difference in error (both positive as well as negative) between white and black people, so that the resulting algorithm, while still a black box, is going to be significantly less racist than the average human that would otherwise make that choice. Technology is neither good nor bad, it is what we do with it that matters. And AIs making some choices for us could actually lead to a more equal society because we can find and address unfair bias way better in an algorithm than in actual humans.

[@JC-om7nr]

Chill out man

[@ja785y]

Hi, as a programmer you have relevant information, get it to people who can use it. Find philosophers, politicians, ect tell them what you know. Obviously none of us can solve any of these problems alone. But find someplace to put the information you have. Your experience is worth more than you probably give it credit for

[@elise205]

Capitalism is designed to make you feel this way. To feel hopeless, to doubt yourself. To make to accept the blame of something you didn't do. The biggest obstacle we face fighting against such a dystopian system is the self doubt that was forced into us. The hopelessness makes people give up the fight for freedom - and that's why Capitalism makes us feel hopeless. Never give up. They have enslaved us in almost every way, but if you're a Leftist, then there's one way in which you're free - your mind. Don't let them enslave that too, because they will in a heartbeat if you let them. I know because I see the people around me, and they're all just cogs in the machine, they feel hopeless, but they've accepted it. Never accept helplessness. Because together, we can and will win this war.

[@zaphnath-penaeamessenger6685]

"Oi, d'you mind shuttin' your face sweetheart? I'm trying to have a socratic dialogue here" incredible. amazing. the voice of a generation

[@Kmc2777]

“No one is in control of their life just go and have a pint” geez that is dark how familiar that thought feels. But at least we seem to be in a moment where there is hope for something better.

[@BibleStorm]

"My privacy should not be for sale" "Nobody's in control of their life. Just go 'ave a pint" "I don't want to think" Get out of my head.

[@thebackup2121]

Shouldn't have to make the argument for my privacy, is what's on my mind

[@unbanrofellos5786]

Thank you COVID-19, very cool

[@Nogoodreason707]

I've been the bouncer on the other side of this conversation and scanned more IDs than I could ever count. In all that time, fewer than 1% ever asked why we scanned the IDs. Even fewer pressed for an explanation of what was done with the information scanned. We were told just to say it was for security purposes and that the data was not stored. The data was definitely stored.

[@TrindyForce]

This was a very bold framing of a socratic dialogue, I like the way you take the concept to its fullest potential. Honestly, by the half way point I surprised you had so much left to do with it, but you found so many ways to keep it fresh. I would guess a lot of people will have clicked away earlier than they might have on your other videos, given the inherently repetition in the dialogue, but I'd like to say that I really appreciated this.

[@badasunicorn6870]

I like how the more he listens to the security guard the further he gets, it's great commentary on the importance of listening to people and meeting them where they are. Leftists will have experiences to indicate it, but we still often get caught up in scoeing points, but it's not as effective, or as affective, as letting people pour their hearts out, and just guide them. If people dissagree with us fundamentally, we are likely to be wrong, or they are incapable of seeing the truth, but most people agree deep down, so helping them process info, and giving them access to it in the first place is often enough to get them to agree, but it's still really hard. Edit: I originally misspelled security guard sexurity guard.

[@finfondler998]

I really need to work on that - if only there was a rewind in real life.

[@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379]

this fails to account for the fact that lots of people don't have many thoughts beyond what they are told to be the case and then get angry when the cognitive dissonance between their pride, fears and morals just make them get angry or dismissive. staying within your critique though, It was fairly important to note that even by listening to the bouncer, nothing changed, in circumstance or the bouncers opinion.

[@DrDirtyHarry]

@@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 however we the viewer did learn more. Much like the Socratic dialogue that is mentioned, arguing like this isn't always about trying to convince the person you are talking to, it is to convince observers. I *try* to have this attitude in online discourse. If others come across our conversation, which side will persuade them?

[@KindredBrujah]

I think it's rather more that the more data he has to work with from the security guard's opinions, the more likely he will be to convince the security guard to change his mind.

[@Mrbarmitsoulo]

@@DrDirtyHarryI definitely agree with you and thank you. For me it is extremely important. I enjoy entering videos with interesting controversial topics and going to the exact comments that i am sure that I absolutely disagree. Then I observe the reaction, the response if you will, of like-minded individuals and try to put my self on both ends. I humbly feel that the observation of a discussion and the strength and validity of some arguments and especially the way they are presented and expressed, can be better studied if I do it from my screen. I can read it. Stop. Then reread it. Google if there is something I don't get or know etc etc. Every time there is a big controversy on the internet I skip all the comedic or irrelevant comments and I try to find the debates that interest me and especially the best possible arguments against my initial belief/conviction. I don't know it feels.. like some kind of self criticism to challenge everything you THINK you believe.

[@porksoda703]

the part about poor people selling their data really hit me even though it was only five seconds long. when the bouncer proposed the idea i thought “yeah, i’d sell my data, bills would be easier to pay.” i guess i’ve just been desensitised to the dangers of selling your data

[@nottheborg836]

you know when you have an argument with someone and it goes kinda badly for you bc you’re all flustered about the subject and then for days afterwards you’re replaying the conversation in your mind and thinking of far better things you could have said in response to everything your opponent put forwards? that’s what this video feels like

[@s-e-e-k-i-n-g]

this is probably the best visual representation of the depression and defeat that is felt when going over things in one's mind - what could have been said to change anything, to make even one small change, to make things even a little bit better, to have gained even one thing only to feel like it always just ends up like this Enjoyed the CC, thanks

[@helloofthebeach]

I've heard that the French call this "the spirit of the stairwell", when you think of what you should have said long after it would have mattered.

[@ToriKo_]

This format seems like it’s gonna be really gnawing and repetitive and then you look up from the screen and it’s 26 minutes later, and realize you found it really enjoyable

[@slinger6123]

i watched it twice in a row to understand it better and catch all the metaphors,, felt like 5 minutes lol

[@danbirch9739]

i just want to commend the incredible patience of the people waiting behind him

[@TheDelinear]

And the one in the middle who also figured out how to defeat the Met's facial recognition tech by keeping their cap down the whole time.

[@PanicbyExample]

the way i figure it that's us... potentially underappreciating the battles right in front of us

[@Vee_9001]

@@PanicbyExample I don't see it as them underappreciating the battle, I see as two things. 1. They represent convenience, or Olly at the beginning. Don't make a fuss, don't waste other people's time. The bouncer has kids at home, bills to pay, a game to watch, and Olly is standing in the way of that. In the same way the other people in line want to go in, forget their days, and just have fun with friends. To protest is to inflict harm in a way, its standing in a road and making someone late to work, or its going on a strike and causing the manager to lose money that she needs to send her kid to college. 2. They represent bystanders. It's not that they underappreciated the battle in front of them, though that might play a part. Maybe they just don't know, or don't care, or they agree but they think it'll all work itself out in the future. Olly can't go and run into the woods because of them, if he steps aside and lets the bouncer scan his card, they're next. And yeah it might not hurt them specifically, but what about the next guy in line? And the kid after that? And the prisoner after that? It's why individual actions to protect privacy are meaningless, because even if Olly somehow beats the bouncer he still hasn't gotten rid of the scanner.

[@ilan5821]

Since technically they're not "living" the rewinds the conversation is not THAT long, waiting 10-15 minutes in lines at a club is pretty normal

[@harrygibus]

This must have been a nightmare to script and edit. Thanks for all the hard work.

[@jenlord4240]

I'm a cashier, and cannot believe how much i resonate with this message. I have recently been forced to start scanning id's, and i didn't think much of it. "I dont want to think", i suppose. Just yesterday a customer was spouting about how strange it is we have barcodes associated with us. This video is a perfect representation of how absolutley powerless we all are, and how senselessly oblivious the general public is to it. We trust too much, and we will always be exploited as long as we allow it.

[@argh523]

> I'm a cashier ... I have recently been forced to start scanning id's How does that even work? People in a store have to show ID to buy some stuff? Or is it just when you need to see ID (like for alcohol and tabacco), you also scan them? I'm in central Europe, I've never heard of this before. How common is this?

[@jenlord4240]

@@argh523 it's becomming mandatory accross the states one gas statiom chain by another. I personally work in a tobacco shop, so it's especially enforced. But i've been denied nicotine because my id doesn't scan. Another halarious fault of the gov. They are mandating "federal id's" as opposed to state level within a the next few years, and the ones in my state fail to scan.

[@jenniferpearson9707]

Wait this is real? What? I thought this was like a dystopian future...

[@jenlord4240]

@@jenniferpearson9707 Very real.

[@xzonia1]

So if someone comes in and just wants to spend a $1 for a lotto ticket or buy a candy bar with cash, you still have to scan their id? Or is it just for alcohol and tobacco?

[@charliedawson6318]

__ These subtitles are great.

[@tchaiko_]

I too don't want to think, because it makes me angry. At the end of the day, I don't want to be angry anymore. I just want to enjoy life as little as they're letting me to. I purposely isolate myself from what's happening in the world because I just want to be at peace. I'm a mentally ill person which is a enough problem of itself and adding up on things to worry about only makes it more difficult to heal, only prevents it from getting better. I used to be way more involved, way more worried, way more angry everyday, but it DRAINED me dry, it worsened my health. So yeah, I don't want to think. I just want to embroider pretty patterns on my clothes and watch cartoons and look at the fucking sunset everyday. And I want people to let me be, because I need that tiny bit of peace. This video made me feel guilty, in an absolutely good way. But I admit I don't feel like I can do much about it. I'm so glad that you made it though. Your work is great Oliver, please keep going. And if you need to stop thinking and go look at the fucking sunset or whichever daily natural phenomenon you like in order to not go mad, PLEASE do it. They can't figure out ads for that.

[@jaidadraco]

I feel that so much

[@johnplant4567]

Amen.

[@lucasbeeres]

I appreciate how the editing itself is also commentary on the futility of arguments like these. I've personally had many conversations with different people about data privacy, and they always feel like this; even if I had the ability to go back constantly and change what I said, we're so powerless as consumers that there's no conclusion to the argument that isn't mired in either intentional ignorance or dystopic misery. And it isn't like these megacorporations like Facebook and Google are evil, data collection like this is just an inevitable outcome of capitalistic optimization. Data is just too useful for them to reasonably stop.

[@booksvsmovies]

I usually find Socratic dialogues confusing to parse at a certain point but this one really kept my attention. The way multiple arguments were integrated into the essay showed the different ways to approach rebuttals which I thought was nice. This was a really inventive video and I really liked it.

[@minttony7420]

" *MMMMMÑYEEOOMMM* " "whats that?" "An ID scanner" "What does it do?" " *MMMMMÑYEOOOMMMM* "

[@free_siobhan]

[@chiomavillacorta291]

@@free_siobhan:D

[@christophersnedeker2065]

@@free_siobhan prehistoric instrument sound used in modern technological dystopia.

[@alesdaer]

The subtlety and beauty of the videos Olly makes are just astonishing every time. The transition of power in this video is so clever that I almost didn't notice. You start by thinking that Olly is on your side and that the bouncer represents the established power and control. You end the video realizing that you are the bouncer and you never had control in the first place.

[@the_potato_herald]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean enough to be sure, but I feel like I agree - would you mind clarifying this point a bit to help me figure it out? :)

[@lazilylapis676]

@@the_potato_herald they mean that the bouncer is just like all of us; we get paid to participate in things that sometimes we straight up dont want to do. Sometimes when doing this, we like to not think about it, because thinking about all of it makes us miserable. We are on both ends. Fighting the data collecting, as well as indirectly participating in the collection!

[@alesdaer]

@@the_potato_herald Well, the fact that Olly is rewinding the video to change the way that he is presenting his arguments every time the bouncer doesn't understand or gets frustrated initially feels like it's under the bouncer's control. However, the video ends when the bouncer admits that he doesn't want to think. He gives up his power and control over the situation, the conversation, and his privacy in that moment, and Olly doesn't reply at all. You could then conclude that the bouncer giving up is what Olly was trying to accomplish the whole time. Thus, Olly was acting as the "algorithm" whose entire goal was to stop the bouncer from thinking by adjusting its personalized approach to each argument. (This could be read as an easy metaphor for targeted advertising, if somewhat dramatic depending on your point of view.) In viewing the allegory that way, we (the uneducated public - and I mean uneducated on this topic, not necessarily generally uneducated) play the role of the bouncer who thought he was in control, but was really being manipulated the whole time.

[@the_potato_herald]

@@alesdaer thank you, that makes a lot of sense, and adds a nice layer I wouldn't have picked up on

[@robotbirb7321]

It sucks, because we have options. We vote, join unions, make some fuss online... But at the end of the day, we still have to live. We have to put these issues down and go to work, go to school, see friends, have lives. At the end of the day, we don't want to think about it. And it sucks.

[@freewillie8487]

That's kind of the point, if you are always busy working you have less time to question

[@robotbirb7321]

@@freewillie8487 I guess that's what I'm (clumsily) trying to say. Olly pointed out the issue, and why it isn't as well discussed as it probably should be. And it's a situation that sucks. I understand the seriousness of the situation, and I am concerned, but I'm physically incapable of keeping it in mind all the time. I have to have a life.

[@freewillie8487]

@@robotbirb7321 sorry if I came off as aggressive, I completely agree the situation sucks and it's meant to be that way. I have way too often been told "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about". You are right it's incredibly hard to inform yourself of the facts and the truth let alone do something about it.

[@robotbirb7321]

@@freewillie8487 Lol yeah text loses a lot of tone! It happens. Sorry if I sounded aggressive too, totally not meant that way. I'm just lamenting the state of everything- we have to be cognizant of what your data is being used for, and we probably should be less cavalier about how it's gathered and used. But the bouncer isn't wrong. I don't want to think about it. Olly's Socratic Dialogues are fantastic- I'm the bouncer, having to re-evaluate if I can afford to continue to be the bouncer, and I'm trying to come to terms with that in the KZbin comments section. Lol.

[@mr.fabulousmegardev6256]

21:51: You're making me think about myself. I don't want to think about myself, do you understand? I don't wanna think about what this machine does. I wanna get through my shift, and go home, and on the weekend, I wanna get drunk and watch celtic beat the rangers, do you hear me? *I. Don't. Want. To think.* A very powerful, down-to-earth line that gets to the heart of the problem of convincing society to change for the better. It's that exhaustion, that desire for the simple, easy way, in a universe of complexity, that makes it easy for scams and fascism to flourish, and hard for democracy and positive social changes to get going and be effective. Brilliant work, Olly!

[@FredHMusic-gr7nu]

“If you hate technology so much, why don’t you go live in the woods?” “BECAUSE I SHOULDN’T BLOODY HAVE TO!!!”

[@christophersnedeker]

And you legally can't do it. You'd be arrested for squatting and illegally hunting and fishing.

[@vukkulvar9769]

@@christophersnedeker There's not a square inch of land in the world that someone could live of for free and freely. Only remote places that are less likely to have you caught.

[@lprocks555]

this dialogue was not only a brilliant way not only to present the arguments and counterarguments, but to illustrate the most effective way for the left to reach out to the average worker. your argument won't land until you've connected with the other person, when what you've said resonates with them and you approach the conversation as equals. when ellis jokingly agreed that, yeah, this surveillance thing is kinda shitty, the boss has got cameras everywhere, that's when he became open to the debate. ugh. your mind olly

[@MissAshley42]

As the end shows, however, getting through to someone doesn't assure change. It can just as easily leave them even more distant and unwilling to learn.

[@hayk3000]

This shows that the key is not to attack the person, but to make him cooperate with you towards the same goal.

[@DanQ]

Gosh, I've had one of those fancy ID scanners in my shed for years and I didn't even know that's what it was for.

[@sanityisrelative]

Does yours also sound like a didgeridoo, to is that just the newer models?

[@natschlamp]

How is this comment six days old on the day this video was released?

[@snrken]

"6 days ago" wtf

[@lightwavers9535]

@@natschlamp I believe Olly has a Patreon, and I don't know if it's the case for this video but other KZbinrs have a Patreon tier where you can pay to get early access to the video, before it's even released.

[@breadmoneymusic]

The “I don’t want to think” line really hit me. It’s exactly what I see in people that choose to avoid problems that glaring, but it’s also what I see in myself quite often. Willful ignorance seems to be the easiest way to deal with these types of issues, but it doesn’t solve anything.

[@BlindErephon]

It kind of summed up my day and feelings sometimes. You do your best in whatever way you can, but ultimately you just try not to think about how fucked up things are and how helpless we are to really make a measurable difference. When you think about it too much it drags you down and you stop doing anything helpful because you feel like there's no point.

[@Carlos-Mora]

I think it's less that you choose to avoid it, but that there's little if nothing to gain to try and question it, at least on the individual level and the immediate future, and that's by design.

[@Skronkful]

Currently doing my PhD in high-dimensional statistics ("Big Data"), so this topic is very close to my heart. I generally agree with the points raised here, data privacy is an issue well worth giving thought to. I can't say I know much about location tracking data, but I know of some pretty concerning cases where people managed to match anonymous data to facebook profiles and get more information about them through other publicly available information. Fortunately, this is pretty well-known issue and in most cases there are measures in place to prevent abuse. For example, most income data tends to be "top-coded"; values above a certain threshold are censored, so you only know that they are above that threshold, not the actual value. This is done because there tends to be a relatively small number of extreme outliers who are easy to match with real people (yes, income inequality is also a data privacy issue). Data censoring is a well-studied issue and work goes into developing statistical methods that take it into account. There were two specific points I take issue with. The first is your example of the police using an algorithm to detect child pornography, or trying to tell if the animal is a wolf or not. These "black box" neural network algorithms are pretty old news now, and there are lots of methods which focus on identifying exactly which features of the data are important in predicting the correct outcomes. In many applications, knowing these features is far more important than the actual prediction itself. Of course, not knowing what exactly the algorithm is doing is a serious problem. My biggest gripe was with the part at 11:45 regarding different interpretations of what "probable" means. I very much disagree with this separation of the mathematical concept of probability with how we use it in our practical lives. The concept of probability has existed before any of the mathematical rules did; the problem with probabilities is that we suffer from systematic cognitive biases that make our intuition very unreliable - that's why we make a system with axioms that we all agree should hold for any internally consistent concept of probability. We then use maths to derive rules, free of our biases. To give an analogy, take the Müller-Lyer illusion. You look at the lines, and say that one line is longer than the other. When a ruler is used to compare the lines, you say "The question is flawed, when people think of length, they think of how long it appears to be, not long a ruler would measure it to be." Just because we're ill-equipped to answer a question intuitively doesn't mean the question is flawed. If there's a problem with internally contradictory concepts, then there's a problem with human beings if we cannot evaluate probabilities in the same way a "mathematical machine" can. Cheers :)

[@discipleinblack]

Honestly, one of the best vids you've ever put out. Having the whole spill play out as a Socratic Dialogue between 2 lower/middle class individuals is a perfect way to show how massive the scale of the problem is. And the dialogue was very fleshed out and natural. Absolutely brilliant episode mate!

[@stevencleere4912]

My brain when I realized this whole video is an algorithm. It keeps rewinding whenever it hits a dead end, and going back to find the right path.

[@shayvandy4981]

👏👏👏👏 it's brilliant

[@AramZuckerScharff]

As someone who works to eliminate user targeting from ad tech by developing privacy-respecting alternatives, let me say this video is spot on, and I appreciate it. The problems with machine learning are particularly nuanced but you got a handle on them very effectively here. Thank you!

[@maxaroni39]

Abi's made so many wonderful videos, but this has to be my favorite of hers. It's so incredibly clever and thought-provoking, I find myself coming back to it often.

[@angelinakodjabashia7416]

It’s such an underrated masterpiece that remains relevant

[@tshred666]

>her 😂😂😂

[@MrOsc1234]

Really loved this format, kind of felt like a videogame dialogue tree or something where you keep quick saving on every dialogue choice lmao

[@887frodo]

The ironic thing is: none wants to think. The bouncer does not want to think but neither does the other guy. The bouncer wants to do his job and go back home and live his life absentmindedly, but so does the club goer. The only difference is that he realizes that constant surveillance IS want prevents you from just living your life absentmindedly. Because we should be able to live our lives without having to think too much about everything. They both stand in the same side, but multinational corporations with massive surveillance apparatuses pitch them against each other. One doesn't want to think, the other want wants the same thing but realizes that he can't afford that luxury until certain things are solved. I think it would have been badass if the customer, at the end, would have said: me neither, and that's the problem, ain't it? Because it would have been right in so many lvls!

[@AMomentousMori]

Oh I quite enjoy thinking for its own sake, but of course only about things that interest me. What I don't want are things impeding the pleasures of thinking freely, which forces the otherwise pleasurable activity of "reflection" into a burdensome task of thinking about the loss of pleasure in thinking, identifying what led to the loss, and finding the remedies. I'd rather not think about any of that, but since it affects and taints something I'm generally interested in ("thinking freely"), I feel there isn't much of a choice.

[@charalampostsakirides-pala2761]

@@AMomentousMori Agreed on all counts, with both your comment and the original, too. Reflection is well and good - and can be quite pleasurable, I mean, many people don't realise what fun bonkers purely and rigorously rationally-constructed (epistemo-)logical musings can be even on their own, not to mention the mix in with the intuitive, creative part, like the kind Olly does - but only when done freely, out of interest and pleasure, and not forcefully, because of necessity. One should have the choice to think or not, and not the obligation to think about that either. Sometimes everyone likes to think and train their mental muscles. Sometimes everyone likes to kick back, stare at the ceiling listening to music and emptying one's mind, or eating coco-pops with ice-cream and watch soap operas, or whatever it is each of us does to accomplish that state. And no-one likes to have to think about thinking itself, unless it's done in the fun way, at least. Let's go mad, but for the right reasons and in the right way, at least. :P

[@Azlinea]

The other guy definitely wants to think, or else there would be no pause and reflect/rewind. He could have just shrugged, been squicked by the experience and moved on. And yes its a framing device but both characters rewind through the conversation at some point. The bouncer just denies that he has feelings for his rewind and ultimately is engaged in the conversation so long as he can remain feeling superior (And/or Olly is just flirting with himself at some point). As soon as any sort of vulnerability is required on the bouncer's part the conversation ends. The main dude definitely doesn't like being vulnerable, from the awkward squirming after each emotional outpouring, but he still is willing to for the conversation. I'd like to keep thinking. Or better yet, I'd like to keep feeling unlike the bouncer.

[@charalampostsakirides-pala2761]

@@Azlinea Wise.

[@Azlinea]

@@charalampostsakirides-pala2761 Comes with the name ;p But in all seriousness, I'm kinda of just paraphrasing Satre and Simon de Beauvoir with some context to back it up.

[@rashotcake6945]

Oliver does a really good job of making steel man arguments. In this video, the ben Shapiro one, and the gaming one. Rather than strawmen, which oversimplifies and misrepresents your opponent’s argument, Oliver uses steel man, which is when you argue for your opponent’s point of view better than they could and then take down that argument.

[@seopark7467]

a FANTASTIC way of handling that "refute your opponent" thing

[@tbirdguy1]

It's the perfect strategy to deal with this age of deluge of deflection and misdirection we get from the internet.

[@Whitecroc]

@@tbirdguy1 Is it, though? I've only ever seen people dismiss it as a strawman argument in itself.

[@spencerkitchin2985]

Its just a sincere socratic dialogue. That's what happens when people care about the arguments more than the rhetoric.

[@Migueru3999]

I see the point that you're making. Do you think Oliver tryied to show the steel men when he wrote the the script and played the played the role of the guy scanning the ID?

[@ionab1102]

this whole starting scene feels like a weird improv exercise and i’m not complaining edit: holy shit it’s the whole video. you pure braw legend

[@pidgelord9445]

Dude this was awesome. The rewind conceit worked wonderfully, and I really enjoyed the feeling of travelling down so many dialogue branches. I'd love to see the script represented visually as a story tree.

[@veiledAutonym]

Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'

[@Ire-mw9cc]

Discworld is just the best

[@merrittanimation7721]

I'm always happy to see a Discworld reference.

[@tmack11]

I love that I exist where this video is easily accessible, and not done through some film festival or other thing I don't have access to. Thank You. Seriously, thank you for your hard work. This is brilliant and you know it.

[@duckupine4345]

I watched that video like 4 or 5 times and it's only now I realised what the framing does. Because the person coming to the club is shown a little from the above and the bouncer is shown from lower perspective we unconsciously have the feeling that the bouncer is superior to the other person, and he actually is because they can decide whether to let somebody walk in providing they give they data to the club. Truly a masterpiece.

[@picksleydust4985]

Philosophy Tube: extremely well scripted and thought out procedural dialectic Me: AIII BOP AFTER BOP WI KIM!

[@DJ-vg1pr]

Its not "AII BOP AFTER BOP WI KIM!" its "AYE BOP AFTER BOP WI' KIM"

[@picksleydust4985]

@@DJ-vg1pr lewk, if you wanna correct my spelling of slag that's your prerogative, but phonetically I'm still accurate. Plus, I am actually a Scot and I dinny think it's that big a deal, pal.

[@withelisa]

@@picksleydust4985 as a Scot how would you rate Oliver's performance?

[@DJ-vg1pr]

@@picksleydust4985 I am also a Scot, and I only mean it as a bit of friendly patter

[@sjblack9135]

I think my favorite part was when Bouncer asked “If it’s for everyone’s safety isn’t it worth it?” It made me think about how one can see anti-data-collection sentiments as a selfish endeavor, when really, there are so many individuals being hurt by this collection process (examples mentioned being social housing acceptance, availability of parole) that it’s not as individualist a conflict one is told. Sure I’m all for cctv helping put away people inflicting violent crime, but if people are systematically being afflicted by a system as unpredictable and random as these data collection algorithms are...bro. I gotta sit down. Awesome video!

[@punkXkiitie]

SJ Black Exactly. Also, who is deciding what’s safe? Or, what’s harmful?

[@TheDelinear]

@@punkXkiitie Not to mention many of these surveillance systems were initially put in place following terrorist attacks, and we were told they were purely for detecting/preventing such atrocities. Once they're in place though, it's easier to introduce scope creep. Next, they're also covering violent crime, and people are like "Well, on a small scale, violent crime is no worse than terrorist attacks, and we already surveil that, so I guess it's okay". Then it's for robberies and people are like "Well, robbery implies violence, and we already surveil for violent crimes, so I guess it's okay". Then it's for theft, and people are like "Well we already surveil for robbery, and theft is basically robbery without the implied violence, so I guess it's alright". At each stage, the previous relaxing of the initial scope of the surveillance is used to justify the next relaxing, and in a few short years we go from preventing terrorist atrocities to making sure your phone doesn't get nicked while you're drunk, which doesn't bode well for where it might go in a few more years.

[@Harpeia]

Here's some food for thought - I found Philosophy Tube via targeted advertising.

[@Nonaryfame]

Jesus christ that's actually extremely fitting

[@BirthquakeRecords]

This was incredible. Maybe one of my favorite videos from Philosophy Tube, if not the entirety of KZbin. I can’t believe I slept on it for so long. Thank you, Abigail!

[@icannotchoose]

I really like this format because it reflects a style of argumentation I like. You go down each path of reasoning and if it burns out or comes to some conclusion, go back and follow a different possibility. I produce more nuanced ways solutions and ways of thinking. Like I didn't even think of the anonymity thing before. I just thought, "Yeah if the data is anon, sure they can use it", without realizing they could easily figure out who I am from context. I should have known this too because census data is now "jiggled" so that this very thing doesn't happen. Perhaps we should require the same of all private data collection

[@Emiltee]

You might not be able to convince someone in 1 perfect dialogue to change their opinion, but over like 4 dialogues you can get someone to be ruder and ruder to the people behind you in line

[@ibrahim08794]

Fucking lost it at "depends how you define violence". Outstanding work.

[@benjdelphi]

Well, I agree with the point which makes me an easy target but my favorite part of this video is that it is an honest analysis of how to speak to people about complex issues, and it clearly shows how pretentious point-scoring keeps the conversation from moving forward.

[@KumoKumiko]

The infinite patience of the extras in the bg checking their phones across dozens of timelines is Inspiring

[@UubTay]

So much save scumming and we still didn't make it to the good ending...

[@ChillietheFaerie]

maybe not, but at least the information was put out there. thinking about these things can be really scary but now the hypothetical bouncer is sort of forced to contend with the fact that they're complacent in a system that dehumanizes them. who knows, it might be the start of their willingness to participate in activism. oof sorry to give a serious reply to your joke post x~x

[@icarus313]

Oh god i know right?!! lol

[@heartwarden]

The point is that there isn't a good ending. The objective of the conversation was always kind of depressing, and people won't be happier on an individual level just because you made them think more "wokely" about their situation.

[@tenchimuyo69]

Despite Olly's "why the left will win" video. There's a very real possibility that we'll never get that good ending. Ever. It isn't zero.

[@heartwarden]

@@tenchimuyo69 Nono, you're confusing a good ending individually with a good ending globally. This conversation was never ending in The Left Winning, ever. It's just a discussion at a club. It won't change anything. The good ending WOULD be "winning the argument and getting your points across" but that does in fact happen. The good ending was achieved, and it wasn't all that good. Because winning arguments on an individual scale doesn't really help that much.

[@SomeBlokeOrWhatever]

In this video: Ollie tries to talk his way into getting into a club he's been banned from. To do so he needs to convince the bouncer not to look at his ID

[@zealferal]

He was banned for having such an engaging conversation with the bar staff about the enduring relevance of Marxism that nobody could buy any drinks for three and a half hours. That's my theory 🤷‍♂️

[@paradigmarson9586]

I love how the captions have become an integral part of the humour.

[@JackPinesBlacksmithing]

I have been one of the faceless developers that makes all this data gathering valuable. It has troubled me for the last 5 years how easily we give away our data for "free" services. I've had the hardest time trying to get this point across to folks. The conclusion makes it clear why. Already shared on my FB. Thank you!

[@clairemckinley691]

I really really liked this one, Ollie. Re: the credits caption dialogue, I’m sorry that you’ve been having a hard time of it lately. Take care of yourself, don’t push yourself too hard. And yes I did like the rewind gimmick and that Ellis is back. I like what you said about being made to think rather than having the message spoon fed to you. I think this is one of your best episodes yet, truly incredible work

[@alexdummy3866]

"I don't want to think", yeah, this one hits home, I used to be all about privacy protections and stuff when I had plenty free time and few obligations, but nowadays I'm exactly like Ellis.

[@fdagpigj]

Nobody wants to think. People are fundamentally extremely lazy. But some things force us to think.

[@naomistarlight6178]

Now I want there to be a dating sim where you play as a basic Olly trying to seduce various characters that are also Olly.

[@BoomBlockGaming]

A perfect world

[@SpaghettyLuvsU]

Link to the Kickstarter?

[@danielbazin242]

Oof, this comment REALLY didn’t age well

[@sasserine]

Does anyone else want to see The Arsonist and his sister, going at it? Watched through a keyhole by Sir Nigel Piss, from the Confucius video, his monocle steaming and having to be furiously polished.

[@naomistarlight6178]

@@sasserine Only if there's also a snake on somebody's chest!

[@condorscondor]

"I dont want to think" the words that will end our civilization

[@mayasanguinis8788]

I don't believe "I don't want to think" is a decision made willingly and without coercion. "Coercion" in this case means a society that makes its people constantly: tired, distracted, stressed, and depreciated. It's hard to care about things like your internet and IRL privacy in a society where you can go from financially OK to financially ruined in the time it takes for your car to get T-boned on the way to work, hard to care when 24/7 news channels blast Awful News on top of Awful News all day and night (and bad news is addicting the way a really good cup of french fries is hard to put down), hard to care when bills are months late and the kids need food and your food budget is $5 and a shoebox, hard to care when you work long hours with garbage pay managed by people who got their position through socializing rather than skillsets (and, of course, you have no promotion potential because Reasons™)... "I don't want to think" is not a common result born of a vacuum. It is a carefully planned and calculated endgoal.

[@jakers141]

words that characterize my reaction to Pete Buttigieg and subsequent inevitable ketamine addiction

[@Robstafarian]

I think they already ended our civilization.

[@lewysf8705]

My public high school now requires all students to wear ids. Need one to ride the bus, need one to get lunch now. Students need to pay for replacement ids, and after using 6 temporary ids you get detention. Students of color and any students already more targeted by hall monitors are way more likely to get noticed and sent to their dean. Almost no teachers speak out around students. When students raise complaints teachers just say “its just the way it is now, so you need to do it whether you like it or not”

[@Lanoira13]

This was an awesome format and a really interesting scene which I think is analogous to a feeling a lot of us face in this day and age. At the end of the day, the bouncer didn't like what he was doing. He didn't agree with it. But he felt he didn't have the power to stop it. Like didn't have the energy or the means to stop it. If he refused to do it, he'd lose his job. If he unionized he'd have to find other bouncers, convince them to unionize, and convince them they should refuse to do it, and even still he could be fired at any point in that process. He could vote, but so many people have lost faith in their vote mattering, doing ANYTHING. So he felt all he could do was just pretend he didn't care, and try not to think about it. He accepted it because he didn't know what else to do.

[@EFsuffolks]

I didn't like the format personally I like the reverse itself but it outplayed enough that it lost me on his true thesis in a nuance that I'm used to

[@AutumnEpilogue]

Seeing the lore of Abby's little metaverse evolve through philosophical dialogue is absolutely amazing.

[@adjoint_functor]

How tf did you predict the metaverse in a youtube comment WTF

[@QuikVidGuy]

It took until the second failure, over 12 minutes in that I was like "Wait, if that's a failure, who's the player-Wait... Okay, it's not just a conversational device, it's the algorithm."

[@nicolassalamanca8051]

I just wish that "Will you shut up? We're trying to have a Socratic dialogue over here!" would be a more acceptable response in any social situation

[@AzaleaJane]

"um excuse me we're having some DISCOURSE over here m8"

[@DrORRB-qm7fl]

“What’s that?” *holds up generic hammer* “It’s an id scanner”

[@ElDaumo]

yeah. we have all seen the video...

[@MarceldeJong]

Clever metaphor, when all you have is a hammer, all problems become nails. Data collection is the hammer. There are other ways to solve crimes and such.

[@maudprovost8147]

It also speak of the violence potential of the scanner and how we change our way of being bc of it's presence.

[@biggie_tea]

*continues playing didgeridoo*

[@c.andrew3944]

Beyond these other observations, it could be anything. A hammer, a can of peas, a plush toy. These algorithms are black boxes.

[@pahbody5336]

i did not realize how much more comforting these videos are because of the conversations with the audience as it stands here i was hoping to be reassured by a welcome break of tension, but it never came, instead i sat through 26 minutes like they were five minutes Shit's fascinating

[@tdietz20]

This is an impressively concise if horrifying intro to the irony of most people's fears about AI. Most people fear AI becoming too smart and taking over, not realizing the scarier reality is AI is incredibly dumb and it pretty much already has. AI would be actually be less frightening if it if was smarter than us and not shackled by an evolved tendency towards short-term thinking. However the predicament we're in is that the companies awkwardly fumbling with this collected data know they're doing a shit job, however it's still works well enough to be more profitable than the equivalent results from expensive humans. They've even acknowledge and accept the consequences of the damaged reputation because it still doesn't tip the equation away from doing it. And they can simply buy any potential competitors that try to carve out some market share with a principled stand. The only way to change the behavior is through legislation, which is incredibly unlikely anytime soon since it's generally left-leaning politicians that propose it and packaged into a "liberal agenda" and opposed without understanding the irony the threat it poses to them So may as well enjoy the traffic update you didn't ask for and

[@TealWolf26]

"I don't want to think!" Preach. Most people aren't down for the kinds of inconveniences and sacrifices that make change for good or protect the rights, privileges and securities they enjoy. I'm just as guilty as any of ducking my head down and letting the system have its way. It takes a special kind of heroism to stick to your principles and fight the good fight day after day with no recognition; only knowing that you did the right thing. I wish I had the strength to do that more often. This isn't a bill or a petition to parliament or congress but awareness is the first step to treating the problem. If you don't have the power yourself to change things on the big scale you spread the word until it reaches the ears of someone who can. And if you can't fight big, fight small. Maybe you don't have to stare down riot police or make impassioned speeches in front of crowds. Maybe all you have to do is to say something when a friend, a coworker, or a family member shrugs and says "That's just the way it is."

[@Shinkicker07]

❤️

[@johnplant4567]

Amen.

[@TheDelinear]

I feel like that was the point of the union argument in there too. There's a hierarchy of unfairness, and you might not be able to change it all the way to the top overnight, but maybe you're in a position to change the bit that's adjacent (just above or below) you. It's not easy and it requires effort and maybe even sacrifice, but if you break it down that way maybe it's not completely impossible.

[@TealWolf26]

@@TheDelinear That's a good approach for sure.

[@jeffengel2607]

@@TheDelinear For that matter - the only way anything is getting fixed all the way to the top is a lot of people each doing their bit where they are. Responsibility scales to power, and for anyone reading this, it's neither world-shaking nor zero.

[@xorowl1584]

I enjoyed the rewind in this case because it was like examining the different branching paths this conversation could take. and the more we talk about it and understand it the better.

[@donventura2116]

A socratic dialogue where you use the rewind to explore different emotional and rational arguments and motivations is really genius. One of my favorite videos that I come back to every now and then.