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

241–250 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#241

Post by ethbro »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #126
aylmao wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware of, for the sake of constructive debate. > 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. No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to…

>No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar. But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of affection/sex. >This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love. Well…

> > No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection.

> Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar. But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of affection/sex.

Or, you know... porn?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#242

Post by ethbro »

losteric wrote: post #57
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…

Is it possible TV did make society marginally worse, and each new dopamine trap captures an increasing fraction of society? This statement is laughable: > The thing that actually holds old friendships together and provides endless opportunities to interact with other people that you would have never done otherwise Facebook's innovation was trapping users in a walled garden with omnipresent surveillance and advertisin…

I think here's the argument underpinning all of these.

Assumption: Facebook is more effective at capturing attention than TV, TV was more effective than radio, radio was more effective than newspaper.

Follows: If this process continues, at some point we will develop something which captures attention as perfectly as possible.

Opinion: That hypothetical end case is most certainly a social ill, especially for democracies.

So whether it's Facebook, or whether it's the thing after Facebook, if we keep stepping down this path we're eventually going to end up somewhere very dark.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#243

Post by Retra »

ryandrake wrote: post #138
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there was contestation about adding it to the DSM. Actually in DSM-V it's recommended to pursue further study into internet addiction. What I'm really asking though is what lines you draw between something like 'social media addiction' and 'gambling addiction'? Or is the only difference in your mind the inclusion in the DSM?

I’m a frequent visitor to a few local card rooms and make regular trips to Vegas. I’ve seen and know addicted degenerate gamblers. It’s a totally different league from people wasting time on Facebook. I simply can’t imagine someone so self-destructively debilitated by their Facebook usage. To me, Facebook use is a dirty bad habit like nail biting. It’s not a family-destroying addiction. Totally open to the medical es…

If someone keeps losing their job because they can't sit still and concentrate for 25 minutes, you aren't going to hear about it. If you can't imagine that, then I'm afraid you're imagination needs a tune up.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#244

Post by dtornabene »

jnordwick wrote: post #31

Can we stop calling this addiction? The DSM V doesnt recognize process addictions, with the exception of Gambling Disorder, and many of the symptoms don't apply to social media use. Even Internet addiction wasn't included for lack of proof. Substance Use Disorder (the new category for chemical addictions) has specifics such as withdrawal and physical dependency that you don't get from turning off your Facebook accoun…

Actually, yes, it does induce "drastic and rapid physical changes in your brain". This is well documented. The Shallows despite some of its faults, is excellent in this regard, with a bibliography that stretches pages. There was a CBS piece months ago detailing precisely this.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#245

Post by ZephyrP »

dopamean wrote: post #119
cornholio wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing unethical in taking money away from a first world government in fair market deals, within the rules set out by those same governments. They employ tens of thousands of well paid experts who's job is exactly to maximize national interest and who would not blink an eye to crush investors like Soros, would the places be reversed. Comparing that to poor individuals who were abused by large corporations i…

If anything about those deals was unethical it was what the Bank of England was doing. They did a disservice to every citizen of the country. That blowup was going to happen regardless of whether or no Soros was on the other side.

This thread have given me the uneasy feeling that I watched a completely different show.

I only remember the outlines of the issue but I recall the Conservatives wanting to not "look weak" on policy reflecting ongoing negotiations in Berlin when they had already been repeatedly warned about the consequences and decided to play chicken with the market?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#246

Post by cmpb »

> This is nothing less, Soros claims, than a theft of citizens’ autonomy. “People without the freedom of mind can be easily manipulated.”

What autonomy? I’m usually one to shrug off the “no free will” problem and just buy into reality, but the quoted statement brings the problem front-and-center.

We are all being manipulated, all the time, by everything that we interact with. So FB isn’t really stealing anything from us. And yes it manipulates the mind, but isn’t that just part of the human experience?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#247

Post by qplex »

elipsey wrote: post #233
current_call wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are certainly talking about excessive social media use whether FB likes it or not. The goal of propaganda is not to make people think a certain way; it's to get people to act a certain way. Entertainment is centered around consumption, not interaction. If I can get people who dislike something to read entertaining articles about how it's bad instead of going out and protesting or canceling accounts, then I've…

I believe you are begging the question. I don't use it either, but apparently lots of people still do. It seems like you're proposing that we should, in aggregate, spontaneously become more virtuous. How?

The people I know who still use Facebook are doing it less and less.

What is holding them back are the friends who are not using any other social media.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#248

Post by freehunter »

dredmorbius wrote: post #231
freehunter wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, dopamine is addictive. Banning or controlling anything that releases dopamine is a futile effort.

You've just shifted your goalposts.

No, I restated a summary of my original post. Same goalposts. Same location.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#249

Post by tim333 »

djaychela wrote: post #90
rossdavidh wrote: post #83

I am no great fan of Facebook, but the indignant accusations about them wanting to keep us glued to their screen seem mostly to come from people who were (and are) perfectly fine with television networks that did the same thing for decades. Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than on social media, I bet. I use Facebook once a week, and TV never, and I find that people are mostly not even will…

I don't think they're in the same league, though. Facebook (and all social media) is far more insidious than TV ever was (and I probably watch maybe 2-3 hours of TV a week). Facebook et al are personalised to each user to capture them as much as possible. That isn't the case for TV, and nor have I ever been in a situation where people I'm working with are watching TV in between fragments of their attention being paid…

>completely addicted to their smartphones

For me and I think most people the smartphone is a way of connecting with other people. The need to check it is a need to see what your mates are saying in a conversation - the electronic gizmo is just a conduit.

And people chatting to each other has probably been a thing for millions of years. I'm not sure what's so bad about chatting at a distance via tech.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#250

Post by jnordwick »

dtornabene wrote: post #244
jnordwick wrote: post #31

Can we stop calling this addiction? The DSM V doesnt recognize process addictions, with the exception of Gambling Disorder, and many of the symptoms don't apply to social media use. Even Internet addiction wasn't included for lack of proof. Substance Use Disorder (the new category for chemical addictions) has specifics such as withdrawal and physical dependency that you don't get from turning off your Facebook accoun…

Actually, yes, it does induce "drastic and rapid physical changes in your brain". This is well documented. The Shallows despite some of its faults, is excellent in this regard, with a bibliography that stretches pages. There was a CBS piece months ago detailing precisely this.

What i mean by drastic and rapid change is like how drugs affect the brain. We have no evidence that happens, and a lot that says it doesn't. Except for gambling, process addictions have been removed from the dsm because of a lack of evidence that shows addiction in the typical clinical sense.

And for those that really literally compare fb to illegals drugs, they're complete idiots not to be taken seriously. It is so far divorced from every bit of evidence we have, i think they are more trying to push a particular narrative.

Post reply on HN