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

Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#141

Post by leggomylibro »

ryandrake wrote: post #114
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others. Besides when you say: >The world su…

We are still talking about a website , right? A totally optional website, in a browser with a close button? This isn’t a chemical addiction or gambling.

Isn't it a chemical addiction?

I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when you see that 14 people liked your post?

Okay, so maybe Facebook doesn't change the way that your brain's receptors work with long-term use, but don't deny that people keep going back for that hit of inclusion.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#142

Post by Slansitartop »

Brockenstein wrote: post #130
Slansitartop wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.

>We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so. Naive people do. However, part of the problem is what people believe is moral differs, it's not an absolute. Lots of people project their moralities onto society and the law and are just dumbfounded when they don't match. Is that a problem with society or the individual?

That's an academic argument. The basic building block of any society is the expectation-requirement that the other members will act according to the moral principles of that society. At a minimum, the people who fail to abide by those principles can be judged and criticized for their violations.

And to pull this back on track, this all came up in the context of the idea the market is amoral so we shouldn't expect the actors in that market to be anything but selfish and amoral. I think that's wrong and pernicious idea.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#143

Post by InternetUser »

bsder wrote: post #106
vinceguidry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this. Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies. People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, the…

The bigger problem for me is all the passive invasiveness these companies represent. Even if I don't have a Facebook account , I am tagged in so many pictures that Facebook can identify me. I find that problematic. Even if I don't have a Gmail account , so many people do that Google has a significant number of my email conversations. There are many things Facebook/Google/Amazon can do, and I cannot prevent them even…

This was the major revelation that hundreds of millions of people made when the Snowden stuff was released years ago. Not to imply that the "FAANGs" are pure-minded and fair entities, but you are already required to be identified, documented, tracked, and known, year to year, by many large powerful entities: the company you work for, your bank, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, MasterCard or Visa (I would assume you have at least one credit card), your phone company, the DMV, the judicial system (whether you were the culprit or victim of a crime), and so on. As for what you can do to avoid being known to Facebook, Google, and so on, well, you could move to another country, but then you'd just end up tracked by their services (e.g. VK.com is the #1 site in Russia,[0] and Baidu and WeChat are respectively the #1 search and social network in China, with 980 million MAUs[1][2], and they are now requiring gov't IDs[3]).

[0] https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/RU

[1] https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/CN

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeChat

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16721230/wechat-china-app-...

But an answer to your specific question, as far as specifically avoiding Facebook, Google, and Amazon, is to only visit websites that don't have any link to those sites (e.g. no Facebook link, no Google Analytics script and make sure no one you know uses Google Voice, and not built on AWS), and don't use email anymore, just text messaging and phone calls.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#144

Post by KhanMahGretsch »

>Making Facebook good for democracy is not entirely altruistic. (emphasis mine)

This is the crux of the issue: what authority does anyone have to insist that a company should act in a manner consistent with their subjective view of what is 'good for democracy'?

What fair standards could exist that would limit Facebook's appeal without also upending the gambling industry, the entertainment industry, the food industry etc.?

Given that Facebook is not physically harming, stealing from, or unfairly discriminating against it's users, who use the service voluntarily, what infractions are they making that requires government intervention?

Since when is it not the right and responsibility of parents to judge which activities are healthy and productive for their child? Since when does the same right and responsibility for an adult not exclusively apply to themselves, outside of criminal activity?

My solution is the same as Lisa Simpson's in that Treehouse of Horror where giant corporate logos come to life and wreak havoc across Springfield: Just Don't Look!

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#145

Post by Clanan »

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

Soros regularly uses his wealth to pursue political aims throughout the world. He often does this through "philanthropic" groups. For example, UK news stories have been popping up about him spending £700,000 on anti-Brexit movements. The Koch brothers might be a similar comparison?

I think that they become bogeymen because their wealth provides substantial power and they're involved with controversial things. On the other hand, people like the Gates focus more on "dry" issues. (Edit: or maybe they have better PR!)

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#146

Post by severeFever »

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

Having been very deep down that rabbit hole of misinformation, it is a miracle that I was able to resurface again with pretty much the same left leaning political stance that I had when I entered.

One important takeaway though: "Critical thinking" is important. I'm not sure if people want it though. It is sad that political news and social media are treated as entertainment rather than as a tool. People are very quick to band together around a cause if it will make them feel like a part of something without investigating if that cause is based on any sort of factual information. And "fact checking" is definitely not the solution to this because that is also subject to the same bias.

Education is the treatment we have right now. Keep having students read and discuss Lord of the Flies, 1984, and Brave New World. Having skeptical 15-30 year olds will lead to more intuitive solutions down the road.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#147

Post by vondur »

Clanan wrote: post #145
jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

Soros regularly uses his wealth to pursue political aims throughout the world. He often does this through "philanthropic" groups. For example, UK news stories have been popping up about him spending £700,000 on anti-Brexit movements. The Koch brothers might be a similar comparison? I think that they become bogeymen because their wealth provides substantial power and they're involved with controversial things. On the…

I believe he was also heavily involved in the current Ukrainian civil war regarding funding of certain political groups.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#148

Post by paganel »

jpfed wrote: post #112
jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

Well, my problem with Soros is my wife attended the Women's March a whole freaking year ago and she still hasn't gotten her check!

I attended an anti-corruption protest in the capital of my country last year (I live in Eastern-Europe) and I’m also waiting for Soros’s promised pay.

On a more serious note, the local branch of his Open Society Foundation financially supported the translation and publishing of a lot of books about democracy and economics in the 1990s, so that we, as a people who had just got rid of Communism, could learn how the capitalist world was being run. I remember reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” in the mid-‘90s as a high-school student thanks to one of those Soros-sponsored translations.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#149

Post by oconnore »

This article is weird, because the "bubble effect" (or as Soros describes it: "an undue ability to influence people’s behavior by leveraging their massive data stores to precisely target messages that nudge users in specific directions") is definitely the main issue with Facebook!

Without such power, Trump would not be our president, the alt-right would not capture so many followers, and our democracy would be much much healthier. It would also be easier for people to exercise self control with their time spent on Facebook (because without algorithmic warm-bath-water content, you would be jarred out of your safe zone). And if people were pushed away from Facebook, normal media, including news media, would have an easier time profiting from providing useful journalism and deeper storytelling.

It seems like people (both Cal Newport, and the majority of commenters in this thread) are extremely uncomfortable admitting that Facebook wields this power over many people. It is a bit scary, and it calls into question individual rational self control (which many of you hold dear to your hearts), but there is massive evidence that this power exists, and that it is negatively affecting our society. We need to deal with it.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#150

Post by jnordwick »

bpchaps wrote: post #137
jnordwick wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tv is exactly in the same league as Facebook. Video games is pretty close too. Neither one are recognized as addictions.

Video game addiction is recognized in DSM-V.

No its not. Internet gaming disorder is not part of the dsm-v, only that it should be studied further.

> Internet Gaming Disorder is a “Condition for Further Study” in the DSM-5 (APA 2013). This means that it is not an "official" disorder in the DSM, but one on which the American Psychiatric Association request additional research. Upon further research, the APA may or may not decide to make the disorder "official" in future editions of the DSM.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhe...

These things don't share many of the symptoms that physical addictions or even gambling are associated with.

Post reply on HN