Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

socialcooling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 204 posts

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#161

Post by [deleted] »

socialcooling wrote: post #144
vladf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that the above holds for non-mass surveillance as well. So if you're OK with offline systems of social reputation (which most people are, and it seems essential to the function of society), then you owe an explanation as to why your two points [discrimination on views, imperfect generalization] don't apply to offline systems of reputation.

The difference is: - scale - transparency (ability to complain or discuss decisions). - culture: people can recognize normal discrimination, but think algorithmic judgements are 'neutral'. Check out https://www.mathwashing.com

[deleted]

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#162

Post by socialcooling »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #58

How is this not the well documented Hawthorne Effect? That being watched digitally and with more ubiquity seems to be a distinction without a (real) difference. Calling something new does not make it so.

Social Cooling is related to a number of concepts, including Foucault's panopticon. But Social Cooling is about much more than "individuals change their behavior when observed"(the Hawthorne effect). That's only the starting point. Social cooling aims to cover the large scale societal consequences of that effect, and makes a comparison to Global Warming to point to the scale of the problem as well as the possible path that leads us out of the problem.

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#163

Post by bussierem »

api wrote: post #41
peter_retief wrote: post #16

We are in the age of "virtue signalling" people pretend to hold what they believe are popular virtues. Is it possible to mention "Donald Trump" and not cause an uproar of virtue signalling?

I agree but I must also point out that in some parts of the country not being a Trump supporter could have serious social consequences. The entire country is not San Francisco.

As much as I love this site and what it provides, the last sentence of your comment should be an all-caps sticky message on the front page at all times... :)

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#164

Post by greglindahl »

peter_retief wrote: post #16

We are in the age of "virtue signalling" people pretend to hold what they believe are popular virtues. Is it possible to mention "Donald Trump" and not cause an uproar of virtue signalling?

We're in an era of accusing other people of "virtual signaling" instead of actually discussing what people say.

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#165

Post by sixstringtheory »

Asooka wrote: post #130
sixstringtheory wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've ever seen as much apathy in a classroom as my fellow CS majors displayed in our society and ethics course.

Because "society and ethics" sound a lot like "bowing to the man ", which coincidentally is exactly what this fine article is against. Because the man does stupid decisions based on flawed assumptions.

It might sound that way to you. To me "society and ethics" means asking: what are both the positive and negative implications of something, and how do you weigh or mitigate them? What should you do, what shouldn't you do, and why?

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#166

Post by mncharity »

Harvard Rescinds Acceptances for At Least Ten Students for Obscene Memes[1]: "Harvard College rescinded admissions offers to at least ten prospective members of the Class of 2021 after the students traded sexually explicit memes and messages that sometimes targeted minority groups in a private Facebook group chat." (June 5)

A related NYTimes opinion piece [2] encourages "help young social media users realize that their online and real-life experiences are more intertwined than they may think. Parents might, for example, cite current events, like the Harvard episode, to remind them that nothing online is ever completely private". Which is true, good advice, and social cooling.

And the nytimes/reuters version [3] is currently "Page No Longer Available". How does that affect your confidence that "if it was going on, you would know about it"? :)

[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-resci... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/well/family/the-secret-so... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/05/business/05reuter...

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#167

Post by matt4077 »

peter_retief wrote: post #16

We are in the age of "virtue signalling" people pretend to hold what they believe are popular virtues. Is it possible to mention "Donald Trump" and not cause an uproar of virtue signalling?

"Virtue Signaling" is the most asinine, mean-spirited concept invented since about the middle ages. Its only ever used as a blanket dismissal of others' opinions, even going so far as to blatantly use the moral strength of an argument as a weapon against that argument.

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#168

Post by DerfNet »

watwut wrote: post #152
pmlnr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not about getting old. In those days your social media site - or your blog - was heavily themed, altered,tailored to one's own ideas, sometimes to crazily annoyibg levels, sometimes to surprisingly clean minimalism. Today you have at maximum 2 images to make something 'unique', which doesn't even remotely scratches what it used to be during the early myspace era.

You still can host your own blog and style it however you wish. On github for free.

Sure, where it will never be seen.

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#169

Post by DerfNet »

lovich wrote: post #141
sr2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's entirely possible that one day many years from now, a prospective employer/insurer/whatever finds such a comment and flags me for it This is why you should use pseudonyms and strive for anonymity. It's trivial to signup to Hackernews under an assumed name, or handle, and start venting on contentious issues. Hackernews might shadow-ban your throwaway account, so you might have to lurk moar and share some intere…

True, but since everything is saved you only need to fuck up once and now everything can be pointed at you. The asymmetry in effort between staying anonymous and someone de-anonymizing you is getting bigger every day

I was recently doxxed on Reddit. Never posted my name, used a unique username, but after 6+ years of posting, someone triangulated the data and successfully found my full name and home address.

Even though the user was banned (several times), even though all the posts are now deleted, along with my entire comment and submission history, my username there is now permanently tied to my real name.

While it was easy for a human user to doxx me using my comment history, it's even easier for computers, who save everything, no matter how briefly it is posted, to comb through your data and determine who you are. The only way to stay anonymous is to completely avoid ever talking about anything remotely identifying

Re: Social Cooling – How big data is increasing pressure to conform

#170

Post by elefanten »

vladf wrote: post #160
socialcooling wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is: - scale - transparency (ability to complain or discuss decisions). - culture: people can recognize normal discrimination, but think algorithmic judgements are 'neutral'. Check out https://www.mathwashing.com

I wholeheartedly agree with the linked page (we should encourage this kind of scrutiny in algorithmic judgements). However, where there seems to be disagreement is that an algorithmic judgement is a step forward compared to offline, human judgement. An algorithm has fixed code, and fixed code is traceable and auditable. Yes, it might be hard. Yes, legislation may not be there, but it's possible . Compare this to huma…

Broadly, I agree with you. For discussion's sake, I think the counterargument would be to focus on the scale and culture points. Specifically,

1. The scale means we're applying many more judgments in many more places that would've slid by the human judgment radar. This is arguably dangerous in itself because if we hold judgments to generally be unreliable, we're just adding many more points of unreliability.

2. The culture could conceivably develop in the direction of blindly trusting automated judgments, such that the type of scrutiny you encourage will dwindle as a practice. This would put us in a much more vulnerable state with respect to bad judgments.

That said, I still side with you. I think the ultra-dystopian scenario outlined as a possibility by OP is unlikely precisely because power/control are decentralized and very difficult to wield intentionally. And there's massive inherent conflict between various actors that have greater means to try to affect that control.

However, I also don't think it's inconceivable to end in the ultra-dystopian scenario. Technological progress is generally good and generally can't be stopped, but it also continually introduces undesirable possibilities as well.

Post reply on HN