Live data from Hacker News

DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

medium.com

41–50 of 173 posts

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#41

I'm reposting this comment because I would like to open the discussion up beyond facebook and social media and into the reality that technology has provided marketing with some pretty ridiculous tools. : I feel like you used to be able to avoid getting swindled by ignoring the swindler, ex. close the door to the saleman, or ignore the gypsy pear salesmen at the market. Today, marketing is engineered at such a level t…

> People with power and wealth could still be toppled when you exposed them to the truth. How in the fuck does that even come close to happening today?

I have doubts that this happened regularly in the past, usually wealthy/powerful were allowed to be toppled by their enemies. I don't know the details of how Weinstein got toppled after so many years of being protected, but my gut says that the people who were protecting him no longer felt like it was worth it to continue. In revolutions, it's not the people that overthrow the dictator, it's the court/army which allow the people to overthrow the dictator, in order for them to install a new dictator[0].

> How do you overcome marketing that is engineered to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities you are not even aware of?

Become more aware of your vulnerabilities so as to be aware of when you're being exploited. I recommend mindfulness and then making note of when you're being triggered in either a positive or negative way. If you know the enemy and yourself, you need not fear the result of a thousand battles[1].

> How do we patch our society and governing systems from being pwned?

As these systems become more complex it requires more energy and complexity to maintain the systems, this additional complexity creates a larger attack surface and more internal fragility. Solving these problems requires more energy and complexity, exacerbating the problem and delivering diminishing returns on additional complexity. Systems should to be designed to collapse in a way that minimizes losses of knowledge (especially of why they collapsed) and with mechanisms to recover quickly using the accumulated knowledge to build more robustness into the new system, this would be an anti-fragile system. Centralized, too big to fail, institutions (Facebook, et al) are a major component of fragility in our current systems[2][3][4].

I think you can avoid the marketers and advertisers by learning how they operate, nobody gives away shit for free, so anybody that claims that is either a marketer/advertiser trying to lure you into a bait/switch or is using you as the product (TANSTAAFL). Be flexible and avoid lock-in to any single service/company, always be ready to drop a service when they start acting against your interests or the interests of society as a whole.

[0] CGP Grey, Rules for Rulers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

[1] Sun Tzu, Art of War - https://sites.ualberta.ca/~enoch/Readings/The_Art_Of_War.pdf

[2] Joseph Tainter, Collapse of Complex Societies - http://wtf.tw/ref/tainter.pdf

[3] Nassim Taleb, Antifragile - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile

[4] JP Crutchfield, The Hidden Fragility of Complex Systems - http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/FOCS.pdf

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#43

I think the idea that Facebook is putting democracy in peril is a bit farfetched.

The fact that Donald Trump is the President of the United States should be evidence enough that democracy is in serious danger.

Democracy is not in danger, this is exactly what democracy is. Like it or not but he is quite a telling representative of a big part of the population. And democracy means majority rules. As simple as that. Consider it in light of 80-20 %% rule.

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#44

Sounds good in principle but how would mastodon scale to billions of accounts and maintain data centers around the world?

The main Mastodon instance probably can't do that. But then I think you're missing the point of a distributed social network.

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they aren't gathering data on users and selling ads then how are they generating revenue? Maybe they take donations, maybe you run your own instance and pay for the hosting. Not having shareholders that expect profits and growth probably takes a lot of the pressure off, too. All they have to do is not have burdensome costs or break even.

I definitely don't think the current people running it are trying to be the next Zuckerberg. But you do have to have people working full time and pay for server costs, electricity, etc. A distributed system would be interesting, but is that what they are doing? At this point is it purely developers volunteering their time and money (along with donations)? I can't see donations supporting this type of thing at a large…

It's decentralized. Larger instances are funded by patreon donations, while smaller ones are usually run by the folks that use the instance.

The decentralized nature helps the network scale.

And yeah, it's an open source project funded by donations. Plenty of those exist, and if it gets big enough, it'll get more contributors and donations.

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#47
post #34

I'm reposting this comment because I would like to open the discussion up beyond facebook and social media and into the reality that technology has provided marketing with some pretty ridiculous tools. : I feel like you used to be able to avoid getting swindled by ignoring the swindler, ex. close the door to the saleman, or ignore the gypsy pear salesmen at the market. Today, marketing is engineered at such a level t…

>How do you overcome marketing that is engineered to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities you are not even aware of? I don't know that you can. I think we live in a great period of time to be a con man.

> I don't know that you can. I think we live in a great period of time to be a con man.

yeah look at just about any elections in the past few years, not only the usual suspects like the post-soviet bloc...

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Donald Trump is the President of the United States should be evidence enough that democracy is in serious danger.

That is democracy working as intended. We have just realized that democracy and widespread, instant communication are incompatible.

> We have just realized that democracy and widespread, instant communication are incompatible.

I'd say that's absolutely not true - it's a demonstration that the republic system is broken. He lost the popular vote, yet still won. That's anti-democratic, whilst being pro-republic.

True democracy would still work fine if done pragmatically - have people, when registering to vote, be given a PGP key. Have them send in a cryptographically signed email with their vote - verify that it's from the right person. Maybe package it in a very simple GUI.

Instantly, everything impractical and or wrong about the current "democracy" we have is gone, and actual democracy can start taking place.

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#49
post #13

LOL at the popup I get. "You've read over 3 articles this month. Let's make it official. Log in with Facebook or Google."

Comments like yours are tiring an meaningless. Facebook and Google have their tentacles in nearly everything . If you want to get a message out, it's going to intersect with their platforms in some way, even if you're directly criticizing them. AFAIK, there are no purist corners at this time that attract enough eyeballs.

"Tiring and meaningless" eh? As opposed to your meaningful and engaging strawman reply?

Even if it were true that an essay or article couldn't be disseminated effectively without Facebook getting involved at some point, it doesn't mean that readers must be burdened with a popup that asks them to log in to Facebook before viewing.

Re: DeleteFacebook: Perspective from Mastodon

#50

I think the idea that Facebook is putting democracy in peril is a bit farfetched.

while Cambridge Analytica is clearly a horrible company the idea of gathering data and building some models to better target advertisement to them is something totally normal happening all over the place. And i don't think we can really dismantel the core of online advertising because of one shady company

It's not that CA is just gathering data and using that data to target ads. That's normal. But they've also been using fake news, spy operations, honeypots, and other tactics in order to manipulate people. They've even boasted about their ability to manufacture sex scandals by sending prostitutes to a political opponent. That goes above and beyond what is "totally normal happening all over the place".
Post reply on HN