Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

I will never understand how parents can be okay with ads that target children. It's like giving their children's minds to a stranger with candy.

The only question is whether you continue using, yes or no. Scratch your chin as you like, but does the little engagement metric hovering just above your head go up or down?

This is surprising to me. I didn't think that platforms that leverage network effects were typically well-suited to open sourcing unless it was something federated. Are you worried about the system being gamed or usurped by someone willing to be more exploitative?

I think what I think about docudramas in general: Hyperbolic. I think the harms of social media are exaggerated, and not entirely unique to social media.

I don’t have a problem with Facebook knowing what content I interact with and using that to serve me ads, or content that I want to spend time consuming. I don’t agree with the characterization of publishing or volunteering information (likes, posting photos, profile details) as private information. Facebook makes clear what information is public, what is shared to friends, etc. I think most people are relatively aware their interactions determine ad selection, as it is intuitive. It’s really not scary to me that Facebook knows which city I live in to target ads.

I don’t agree with the characterization of engineering apps to provide entertainment or social value as “manipulation” in the harmful sense. The fact that something is enjoyable to use or is used a lot isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and is not necessarily an addiction. To use another example, I would want game developers to “manipulate” me to enjoy playing a game. That’s the point. The fact that people spend lots of time on social media just demonstrates that they derive something from it, not that it’s addictive or harmful. Is social media a worthwhile use of your time? Maybe not. Is it an intrinsically harmful activity? No.

I think the Internet in general allows for the more rapid, selective spread of information, and that it lowers the cost of publishing. It follows that ideas can spread quickly, including conspiracy theories. I don’t agree that belief in pseudoscience, rumor, or superstition is anymore prevalent than it was before social media. I think it’s just more visible to everyone how many people do believe wacky ideas. Regardless, social media isn’t going to suddenly make me believe the moon landing was fake, so I don’t see it as being harmful.

In short, I don’t think ad targeting is harmful or violating my privacy. I don’t think social media is harmful but that passive consumption of media is not the best use of time, like video games or watching TV.

Targeted ads are a relatively new phenomenon - many people (especially older generations/parents) just don't understand how poisonous they are. 70 years ago parents were okay with their kids smoking cigarettes in school. Ads and tobacco and sugar and whatnot are not good for the consumer, but they're addictive and lucrative, so they will be pushed on us until we stop buying.

1. People need to be educated on the manipulative and detrimental effects of ads, which is difficult because

2. There is a concerted effort by advertising companies to keep people in the dark in order to keep milking more money out of them.

Hopefully it won't take a generational mental health epidemic (as smoking was to lung cancer) for us to regulate Big Tech. We're already seeing depression/anxiety/suicide rates skyrocket, teen/young adult quality of life dropping, people of all ages addicted to dopamine gambling systems, etc.