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

Facebook’s war on free will

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 284 posts

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#261

Post by forapurpose »

molteanu wrote: post #113
athenot wrote: post #65

> The problem is that when we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to the organisations that run the machines. This is the money quote of this article, and it's been on my mind quite a bit as of late. More than ever, we live in a world where there are many forces ready to take full advantage of our laziness. It takes a bit of introspection to really understand the tradeoffs that are appr…

This, from Dune: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

Yet so many readers of sci-fi that I know seem willingly oblivious to the risks of modern surveillance and centralization of power.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#262

Post by bbradley406 »

feelin_googley wrote: post #258
athenot wrote: post #65

> The problem is that when we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to the organisations that run the machines. This is the money quote of this article, and it's been on my mind quite a bit as of late. More than ever, we live in a world where there are many forces ready to take full advantage of our laziness. It takes a bit of introspection to really understand the tradeoffs that are appr…

"The Verge: There are people who love the idea of our humanity being augmented. They think it's a good thing. More intelligent, stronger, and so on. Author: They're living in a science fiction fantasy world. The problem is that we're not just merging with machines, we're merging with the companies that make these machines. It might be one thing if we were gaining intellectual powers that we had full control over , bu…

This concept of human augmentation controlled by several large corporations was very well explored in the Deus Ex series. Consider watching the DE:HR cutscene compilation [1] to get a sense of the atmosphere.

In all of the games, the medication for preventing implant rejection is extremely expensive and strictly controlled by the manufacturer. Those who can no longer acquire it suffer a painful death brought on by the implant rejection.

While high class society members can pick and choose what augmentations they desire, low class workers are pressed into getting enhancements to improve work efficiency. Construction tools are melded to arms, and military personnel are subjected to experimental tech. One ex-mil NPC was forced to get an implant to wipe memories, so that their team could be used for inhumane purposes and have no recollection.

The protagonist in Human Revolution is head of security for a biotech giant who becomes augmented after a corporate espionage attack. The attack is part of a larger attempt by a Chinese company to monopolize the market, under the direction of external forces. To avoid ruining the ending I will just say, you really don't want a tech company pushing bad updates to hardware your life depends on.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPuNh2stwvw&list=PL1030EE10C...

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#263

Post by ryandrake »

majewsky wrote: post #256
ryandrake wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but so what? How can some "profile" Facebook has on me affect my life in any way? I'm not going to be denied a loan because Facebook might know who some of my friends are. I've been ignoring Facebook without consequence for a decade.

[citation needed] How can you even know if it doesn't affect you (either positively or negatively)?

I think the burden is on the person claiming bad effects to name examples of those bad effects. It’s silly to have to prove the non-existence of something you see no evidence of.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#264

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #263
majewsky wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] How can you even know if it doesn't affect you (either positively or negatively)?

I think the burden is on the person claiming bad effects to name examples of those bad effects. It’s silly to have to prove the non-existence of something you see no evidence of.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#265

Post by QAPereo »

ikeyany wrote: post #16

You could take a year-long class on the psychological influence (some call it social engineering) of Facebook and you'd barely scratch the surface. One example I find particularly interesting is how Facebook slowly expanded what would trigger a notification, keeping people fixated on that red box like rats to sugar water.

Just avoid it... don't try to outsmart it, accept that it's poison and move on. The complexity of the issue is belied by the simplicity of the available solutions.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#266

Post by andrei_says_ »

ameister14 wrote: post #238
andrei_says_ wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ascribing ulterior motives to the author and thus constructing a straw man argument makes it difficult for me to take your comment at face value.

That's not an example of a straw man argument. I'll clarify, for the downvoters: I don't think the statement I made is an example of any common fallacy, but it is definitely not a straw man. If I were to say that he was arguing something he was not and then attacked that argument, or if I used him as a representation of all people making his arguments that would be a straw man. Maybe you could argue that it is ad hom…

I, too, like precision.

You are attacking him, by projecting your opinion of his motivations for writing the article, imaginary motivations rooted in "his" dislike for an industry.

Ascribing motivations to someone else I associate with straw man fallacy. And, you're correct -- attacking him for these instead of addressing his arguments can be defined as ad hominem.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#267

Post by elihu »

wslh wrote: post #234
molteanu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, from Dune: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

We cannot forget Momo [1] by Michael Ende with greymen buying the time of people: why are you wasting your time talking with your neighbour when you can profit from it? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_%28novel%29

I think the grey men in Momo are different; the grey men encourage people to save time by being more efficient (and thereby neglecting human relationships and the things that made them happy).

Facebook, on the other hand, encourages people to use their human relationships to waste time via superficial interactions with so that Facebook can profit directly from ad sales.

Some strategies work well against either threat; spend time with people away from the computer, don't go along with whatever everyone else is doing.

But they are exploiting different vices: the grey men exploit people's long term greed to entice them to accept an intolerable present, whereas Facebook exploits short-term procrastination and addiction psychology: "I wonder what's going on on Facebook right now... it'll just take a couple seconds to check." (This isn't unique to Facebook. I tend to waste a lot more time on Hacker News and Reddit than Facebook. At least HN doesn't have a profit motive, and I do learn a lot of interesting things here.)

edit: I'm not sure how this relates to the Dune quote, as it's been a long time since I read it and don't remember the context of that quote.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#268

Post by ameister14 »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #266
ameister14 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an example of a straw man argument. I'll clarify, for the downvoters: I don't think the statement I made is an example of any common fallacy, but it is definitely not a straw man. If I were to say that he was arguing something he was not and then attacked that argument, or if I used him as a representation of all people making his arguments that would be a straw man. Maybe you could argue that it is ad hom…

I, too, like precision. You are attacking him, by projecting your opinion of his motivations for writing the article, imaginary motivations rooted in "his" dislike for an industry. Ascribing motivations to someone else I associate with straw man fallacy. And, you're correct -- attacking him for these instead of addressing his arguments can be defined as ad hominem.

>You are attacking him, by projecting your opinion of his motivations for writing the article, imaginary motivations rooted in "his" dislike for an industry.

They aren't actually imaginary - this article is right in line with his book, which he wrote after being fired by one of the founders of Facebook. He's written and spoken quite extensively on this. Further, I didn't say those were his motivations for writing the article. I said that those were his motivations for writing it in the manner that he did.

>Ascribing motivations to someone else I associate with straw man fallacy.

That isn't what a straw man is, though.

As for ad hominem - I'm not actually attacking him, I'm taking issue with the way he wrote the article and is characterizing a 33 year old man that has achieved immense and improbable success, married and with children as a 'good boy.'

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#269

Post by elihu »

majewsky wrote: post #255
tyfon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait for GDPR. Then facebook/google/whatever can't process data from me without consent (which they do not have without an account).. "Under GDPR organizations in breach of GDPR can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater). This is the maximum fine that can be imposed for the most serious infringements e.g._not having sufficient customer consent to process data_ or vio…

> can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover I'm not overly familar with the English terms for all these economic stats, but I think "turnover" is "revenue", and that's $27.638E9 [1] according to Wikipedia. So the fine would be about $1.1E9. On the same Wikipedia page, I see that their net income is some $10.217E9. Is "net income" the same as "profit"? If so, does that mean that even this massive fine would only…

That sounds more like a tax than a fine.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#270

Post by crpatino »

gerbilly wrote: post #236
crpatino wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you are right, your comment is pointless. Let's assume Buddism was the ultimate truth of how the Universe work. Would it be Ok for a Buddist to interrupt a debate about criminal law with the remark that, given reincarnation, all murders are an illusion??? People feel inside like they have free will, and they are not going to change that opinion because of your argument. If a men in a white labcoat tells them…

>Would it be Ok for a Buddist to interrupt a debate about criminal law with the remark that, given reincarnation, all murders are an illusion??? Maybe not but would it be ok for a Buddhist to interrupt a thread to point out that Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation? https://www.thoughtco.com/reincarnation-in-buddhism-449994

This kind of ass fuckery is why normal people hate us.
Post reply on HN