'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#261

Post by intended » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

deepGem wrote: post #167

apatters wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have aged. "With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users..." The idea of a program controlling its users must have seemed very esoteric when that quote was first penned in 1985, at a time when home PCs (let alone ones with GU…

If the program controls the users, and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of unjust power. I'd modify this statement as the program can potentially be an instrument of unjust power. I like to believe that the opposite of this will most likely occur. What if such a program manipulates people's minds towards the good, what if it can turn terrorists against terrorism. Whenever we think…

If something can bring someone away from terrorism, it can also bring many more into terrorism.

Firstly terrorists didn’t have that much reach before. Now? For the few terrorists that you pull away, many more can be pulled in.

And it’s not just terrorism. It’s any tribe or emotional trigger that can pull you.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#262

Post by jansho » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 2:43 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #254

FeepingCreature wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree. Pre-social media, people would talk with friends and family using e-mail and programs like AIM, and there would actually be deep and meaningful conversations. This seems hilariously false.

Of course I can only speak from personal experience. But in my experience, long personal e-mail (several paragraphs) from friends to catch up used to be relatively common, and now they've all but disappeared (I don't think I've gotten any in the past couple of years). Likewise, long chats of the old AIM/MSN variety - spend an hour or two chatting with a friend sharing ideas and news with them - seems much rarer than…

This is true for me too. It's funny that we can now literally connect to thousands of people in social media, but through likes and short comments. Sometimes I get the impression that long threads of discussion is not encouraged, that it's polite to just keep it short and sweet (example, when Instagram introduced the "like comment" button, I sometimes find myself using it rather than thanking directly.)

So our connecting is more like lines crossing over briefly, but never more than that. Sometimes this is fun - because where else can you encounter other people different from you - and sometimes it's just a little sad.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#263

Post by intended » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 2:47 PM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #248

Chathamization wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're going to be totally honest, then first, let's call social media primarily talking to your friends and family. Which is one of the most deeply and fundamentally human things you can do. I disagree. Pre-social media, people would talk with friends and family using e-mail and programs like AIM, and there would actually be deep and meaningful conversations. This has been supplanted by social media, which is of…

> I disagree. Pre-social media, people would talk with friends and family using e-mail and programs like AIM, and there would actually be deep and meaningful conversations. This seems hilariously false.

Yes it is false.

But the op is oriented correctly.

The issue isn’t the depth of conversations- the issue is the availability of addictive alternatives.

I’m on a phone surrounded by family - who I will see only a few more times in my life.

And that’s entirely because of my choices.

But by that criteria being in bad relations, junk food, bingeing, gambling addictions are all “choice”.

They are not.

These tools are designed to be as addictive possible within the confines of law - laws made to prevent even worse excesses.

If you have Joe Schmoe, vs me and my ability to data mine their lives, to put reminders that “hey you are on your streak! Log on again!” While they are on the pot, to “leverage” their network to get more people onto the game and then put them on leader boards “to catch those people with competitive impulses”; to gamify their life and to put triggers to run dopamine and seratonin triggers - then joe schmoe doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#264

Post by hellbanner » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 2:55 PM UTC

archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

There are a few services like https://digitaltipjar.com/faq

I'm looking for one that was a browser plugin - you click it every site you want to support (if that site opted in).

Then, your monthly spend eg. $5 is split between all of the sites you chose to support.

It let users commit to paying $N per month for their favorite sites, without having to calculate "should I give 1 or 10.." etc.

Anyone remember this? I saw it on a few webcomics

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#265

Post by hellbanner » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 2:57 PM UTC

apatters wrote: post #149

hodgesrm wrote: post #144

I don't buy the idea that smartphones are extinguishing the life of the mind. Sure, smartphones provide access to almost unlimited trash. But they also provide access to Wikipedia, perhaps the most successful encyclopedia ever developed by humans. They can show you newspapers from across the planet. They let you read Latin histories of the Norman conquest of Southern Italy in the middle ages. [0] C'mon folks, this is…

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have aged. "With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users..." The idea of a program controlling its users must have seemed very esoteric when that quote was first penned in 1985, at a time when home PCs (let alone ones with GU…

Ah, yes "Program or Be Programmed"

"When humans learned to read, they also learned to write"

Now humans learn how to click without learning how to code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgicuytCkoY trailer for the book "10 commandments for a digital age"

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#266

Post by hanbura » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 3:00 PM UTC

hodgesrm wrote: post #176

amazingman wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment contains great content, but it’s also fairly non sequitur. It appears that you didn’t read the article, and instead are responding to the (silly/stupid) headline. The concerns addressed in the article make it much more difficult to take the posture you’re taking here.

Thanks. I just want to say I did read it. It has a number of concerns that are mixed together in a way that's not entirely consistent, compelling, or even especially new. Consider the idea that democracy is being destroyed because people are helpless addicts of social media. You can make a plausible argument that American society and democracy are going through a troubled spell. But it's a big step to say that's all…

>The fact that you can't verify sources easily is not a symptom. It's a fundamental problem with the Internet today

Verifying sources is easier than ever. In the 80s it was a major time investment to verify anything. Today, if your source is available in written form - whether that's a newspaper, a research paper or a book - I can more likely than not start reading it within five minutes.

Fake news and trolling are much more a symptom of cheap and easy publishing, and the exposure they can get in today's attention economy. Outrage spreads faster than you can fact-check it

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#267

Post by ivanhoe » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 3:00 PM UTC

wz1000 wrote: post #219

ivanhoe wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. How would one go to independently verify some news article in 80s? There was no quick way to do it, and consequently nobody did it, people just expected it's true if it's in the newspapers (and often it wasn't). Now you just need to google a little or google search the image and the problem solved - or ev…

> Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. The problem is that Google results are often misleading or incorrect themselves. This is as expected. The sole purpose of Google is to maximize shareholder value. It would be silly to expect it to optimise for any other metric like the fairness or accuracy of results.

True, but there's a lot of people out there that have genuine knowledge about whatever the subject is, and if you wait a few days usually you'll be able to find multiple sources to verify or dismiss any claim.

The main problem is how much time and effort one is willing to invest into debunking the fake news stories? For the most of people answer is: not any, if possible. Even I will look at maybe 2-3 pages of google results and twitter feeds and give up, presume it's true. It's the same problem as computer security: it's all about the balance between the goal and convenience. It's just not convenient to double-check every fact that you read, you'd just do that whole day long or go crazy, so we choose to trust them...

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#268

Post by SolaceQuantum » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

walterstucco wrote: post #238

TeMPOraL wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't. You would spend a lot of time watching TV, reading novels, or hanging out in the bar.

At one point you stop watching TV, because there are no more new things to watch, you stop reading novels because they aren't novel anymore, you stop going to the bar because there's a fixed amount of alcohol you can consume, it costs money, the bar has opening hours. Smartphone follows you everywhere, all the time.

if You can get bored of novels with all their formats and styles and character arcs and high complexity why can’t you get bored of scrolling through empty one-or-two line updates of people’s lives that you know don’t r fleet reality? It’s basically a worse novel that also makes you feel bad for reading it.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#269

Post by achompas » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

keeptrying wrote: post #196

If this is true Then it also presents a unique opportunity. I.e. There should be a very real and observable productivity boost from being able to ignore your phone and working on career building/family-relationship projects. If you can tear yourself from your phone for 3 Hours a day and work on career building projects, you should be able to get far ahead of others in your social circles who can't break the addiction…

This is the thesis of Cal Newport’s “Deep Work.” It’s an interesting book, I recommend reading it.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#270

Post by sumeno » Sun, Oct 08, 2017, 3:25 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #207

TeMPOraL wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, smartphones are not magically holding people back, who would otherwise be creative and do cool stuff. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite, as even the constant stream of shit Internet content eventually exposes you to e.g. DIY tutorials in precisely your favourite area . Nevertheless, some people have less of intellectual lives than others, and (as GP argues and I agree with) whatever the reason, it'…

They (or, rather, the software they connect to) are holding me back from precisely that. If there was no social media, the novel I’m writing would have been done a year ago.

And yet more books are being written now than at any other time in human history. Perhaps you are just making excuses. It is far easier to blame externalities than taking responsibility.