Chi siamo
Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere in the Bristol and Bath area.
We discuss all manner of topics. Some are profound, others are decidedly not. We aim to have one topic per month, we hold events to discuss this topic in a number locations, often with two separate discussions in each venue - we limit numbers to 12 for each discussion (usually less in practice). Each discussion goes in its own direction, depending on the people around the table. A facilitator gently steers the discussion to help keep things moving, interesting and balanced.
Our discussions are non-party-political and free of religious or ideological dogma (most of the time at least). We encourage a healthy mix of the serious and humourous, so you can be guaranteed a lively, stimulating evening.
We're not academics or experts - just ordinary people from a variety of backgrounds who share a common interest in exchanging ideas about things which matter in life and meeting like-minded people.
If you're a heavy-duty philosopher you may find this group a bit lightweight. For anybody else, come along and get stuck into a decent conversation over a coffee or beer.
In addition to our discussions we hold some social events and occasionally arrange to meet for public talks.
Eventi futuri
2
The Internet, Algorithms and AI: Cause, Amplifier or Mirror?
The Llandoger Trow, Llandoger Row, Kings Street, BS1 4ER, Bristol, GBNote: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.
Hatred, misogyny, racism, vigilantism and personality cults existed long before the internet. Pamphlets, newspapers, radio and rumour have been used to inflame fear, reward demagogues and mobilise crowds. It cannot therefore be blamed for inventing cruelty or tribalism.
Yet it is equally misleading to call it a neutral mirror. Digital platforms alter speed, scale, anonymity, permanence, coordination and reward. We train recommendation systems through what we watch, share and linger over; they then shape what we encounter next. Because anger, fear and novelty hold attention, outrage can become commercially valuable. Research does not support a simple verdict: digital media can increase participation and knowledge, while also being associated with declining institutional trust, polarisation, hate and populism.
The same mechanisms can help an isolated young person find understanding, expose abuses ignored by institutions or organise assistance. They can also produce pile-ons, livestreamed vigilantism and communities in which increasingly extreme behaviour earns status. The architecture creating influencers also allows political leaders to bypass parties and journalists, turning followers into a personal constituency. The result may be not only a shift to the right, but a wider transfer of power from institutions to personalities.
The controversy over the treatment of Professor Jason Arday before his death raises a related question. Criticism and investigation may be legitimate; their cumulative repetition across headlines and individual posts can become punishment, without any participant feeling responsible for the whole. No causal claim about his death is needed to ask when scrutiny becomes a pile-on, or whether media coverage leads public hostility or responds to it.
Recent fatal wrong-way-driving cases show why causation needs scrutiny. Videos glorifying dangerous driving exist, but police said there was no evidence the A66 incident was filmed for TikTok. A plausible connection was easily converted into an assumed explanation—an example of the very problem under discussion.
AI intensifies the problem. It can manufacture text, voices and images cheaply, personalise persuasion and create the appearance of public agreement. It also gives anyone challenged by genuine evidence a ready response: that the evidence is fake. But AI is not an independent actor. Human choices still determine what is produced, believed, shared and rewarded.
The central question is therefore not simply whether the internet has made us worse. It is whether it reveals existing impulses, amplifies them or gradually reshapes us—and whether systems built to maximise attention can be reconciled with trust, restraint and democratic life.
Questions for discussion
- Does the internet create hostility, or chiefly expose, connect and amplify attitudes that already exist?
- In the Jason Arday case, how should legitimate scrutiny be distinguished from punishment by repetition?
- When does citizen investigation become vigilantism, and does livestreaming alter the answer?
- Has social media particularly strengthened the political right, or personality-led and anti-establishment politics more generally?
- Do users shape algorithms, or do algorithms gradually shape users’ appetites and identities?
- Is AI’s greater danger persuasive false evidence, or making genuine evidence easier to dismiss?
Further reading and viewing
- Nature Human Behaviour — systematic review of digital media and democracy – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01460-1
- Reuters — dangerous-driving videos and the A66 investigation – https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-police-arrest-12-after-linking-crash-that-killed-seven-organised-crime-2026-08-24/
- Channel 4 News — Jason Arday, media scrutiny and responsibility – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FExJbZUzF-k
- RSA Replay — Disinformation and democracy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2R-HoySKUE
13 partecipanti
Remember, Remember the 5th of November. Gunpowder, treason, plot and Revolution
Westbury on Trym, GBNote: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.
Join us this month as we go beyond the eye-catching and English attempts of Guy Fawkes to discuss all aspects of the concept of Revolution.
Starting with, How would we define a Revolution, as opposed to a change, or a progression? [1]
What social realities have been subject to revolution? Examples could include scientific, cultural (broader than the revolution in China, encompassing the arts), and political.
What causes people to revolt? Whether it be the nobles who revolted against the King of England through the Magna Carta, landowners in America, or the average citizen in the French Revolution.
Does a Revolution require momentum, a crisis point, undeniable evidence?
The scientific revolution which replaced the earth with the sun as the centre of the solar system was based on “undeniable” evidence. Why did it take so long to succeed? What systems of thought and enquiry influenced the revolution?
A similar revolution occurred with the adoption of general relativity. Was this easier than the first revolution? Was it aided by the intervening centuries of philosophical thought?
What can we learn from revolutions in the arts? Consider for example the introductions of photography, and of computer-aided drawing. Were these revolutions? Or just progressions in technology?
Revolutions in technology have also occurred which may have changed the way we think of and interact with the world. Examples to discuss include the printing press, the automobile, radio, television, the internet and AI. How were these adopted? Is the speed of technological revolution and adoption accelerating? Are people keeping up?
In the realm of the political, have any political revolutions been without violence? Were these revolutions successful, or did they fail?
Can revolutions overcome the claims of crowd stupidity, and ensure the change prevents the establishment of dictators? Whether it be Aristotle as the foundation of western science, long after his death, or any of the modern political dictators. [2]
Are the individuals who are noted as responsible for revolution, special or unique? Alternatively, could anyone at the right place and time, been able to seize the change in technology, political or cultural currents to claim credit?
What revolutions may we see in our lifetimes, and beyond? Space flight, a steady state economy, green technologies, revolutions in our relationships with each other, world peace?
How many people does it take for a revolution to be successful?
Do we have enough here tonight?
Additional resources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution
[2] Theory Of Crowd Stupidity That Dictators Built Their Power On - Le Bon7 partecipanti
Eventi passati
528
