Yuval Noah Harry: “How do we share the planet with this new experts?”

Liberalists often take these mechanisms as a Muslim by it and refuse to think where they came from. For example, you have electricity and drinking water in your home. When you go to the bathroom and water flow, the wastewater goes to a huge wastewater system. This system is created and maintained by the state. But in the liberation mentality, it is easy to take an emotional matter from it that you only use the toilet and water flow and no one needs to preserve it. But of course, someone needs this.

There is nothing like the ideal free market. In addition to competition, there must always be a kind of confidence system. Some things can be successfully created by competition in the free market, however, there are some services and necessities that competition cannot be maintained in the market alone. Justice is an example.

Imagine a perfect free market. Suppose I am applying for a work contract with you, and break this contract. So we go to the court and ask the judge to make a decision. But what if I was the judge? Suddenly you cannot trust in the free market. You will not tolerate the judge taking the side of the person who paid most of the bribes. If justice is circulated in a completely free market, the justice itself will collapse and people no longer trust each other. Confidence will disappear to honor contracts and promises, and there will be no system to impose.

Therefore, any competition always requires some confidence structure. In my book, I use the example of the FIFA World Cup. You have teams from different countries that compete against each other, but for competition, you must first agree on a joint set of rules. If Japan has its own rules and Germany has another set of bases, there will be no competition. In other words, even competition requires the basis for the common confidence and agreement. Otherwise, the system itself will collapse.

Photo: Shintaro Yoshimatsu

in NexusI noticed that the mass media made the mass democracy possible – in other words, that information technology and the development of democratic institutions are linked. If so, in addition to the negative possibilities of popularity and comprehensiveness, what are the chances of positive change in democracies?

On social media, for example, fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theories deliberately spread to destroy confidence among people. But algorithms are not necessarily the fake theories of news and conspiracy. Many have achieved this simply because they were designed to do so.

The purpose of Facebook, YouTube and Tiktok algorithms is to increase the user’s participation to the maximum. It was the easiest way to do this, which was discovered after a lot of experience and error, which is to spread the information that nurtured people’s anger, hatred and desire. This is because when people are angry, they tend more to follow the information and spread it to others, which increases the participation.

But what if we offer algorithm a different purpose? For example, if you give it a purpose such as increasing confidence between people or increasing honesty, the algorithm will never publish fake news. On the contrary, this will help build a better society, a better democratic society.