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

The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 142 posts

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#51

Post by netwanderer2 »

I think the article hits the nail right on its head, nobody really knows anything anymore. Not the person running it, or the person sitting at the top has gotten any clue about the very systems that they have created.

Mark Zuckerberg said in his first public statement when the news of Facebook privacy issues broke out that it was absolutely impossible and ridiculous for anyone to think Facebook could ever had any stake at all in the election. Less than a year later, his tone has changed significantly as he had more time to learn of what's really going on inside the platform that he created and has been running it as the CEO himself, with thousands of employees working under him.

I think this tells the tale of our AI future. As the system reaches a level so complex that it's very likely no single individual, not even the creator of the AI network himself, will understand how everything really works. How can we prevent an engine, that has gotten too big for its own good, to collapse when we are incapable of even servicing it?

The truth is NOBODY knows anything anymore because we are all drowning in the sea of information. There is too much of it and it's like a bag of wires all tangled up. The more we learn the more we realize that we know nothing. Our path to enlightenment is completely blocked by the same knowledge that we have accumulated. It's like the modern Alzheimer disease in which the accumulated beta-amyloid protein has blocked all of our neural pathways. The question is, is there even a way to unlearn what we have learned?

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#52

Post by 1337biz »

eksemplar wrote: post #24
sonnyblarney wrote: post #7

" you know that you could leave at any time and you know that you will not." I have no problem. The press needs to take more responsibility for this as they are the primary enablers of Twitter. Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion, and often used as the basis for some kind of rally bad straw-man argument the author wants to make. I think Twitter will wane but it won't go a…

The only people I know with twitter accounts are journalists. One friend in particular has a hard time understanding how you can function without twitter. I tried using it, like most people, but when you work a job that doesn’t involve trolling the internet for news, it’s really hard to use twitter in any meaningful manner. You’ll post something and a few days later you’ll have time to post a reply. Or you’ll follow…

Twitter truly feels like a dangerous mixup of mostly journalist, social activists and social media gurus, who all reaffirm their existance on the platform.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#53

Post by wingerlang »

eksemplar wrote: post #24
sonnyblarney wrote: post #7

" you know that you could leave at any time and you know that you will not." I have no problem. The press needs to take more responsibility for this as they are the primary enablers of Twitter. Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion, and often used as the basis for some kind of rally bad straw-man argument the author wants to make. I think Twitter will wane but it won't go a…

The only people I know with twitter accounts are journalists. One friend in particular has a hard time understanding how you can function without twitter. I tried using it, like most people, but when you work a job that doesn’t involve trolling the internet for news, it’s really hard to use twitter in any meaningful manner. You’ll post something and a few days later you’ll have time to post a reply. Or you’ll follow…

  Or you’ll follow a few interest points and miss everything they post because you don’t visit every hour and it’ll drown in the feed if you don’t.
As long as you don't feel the need to see everything they post you should be fine.

  I honestly think all the regular people on twitter are either unemployed or spending so much work time on social media that they ought to be fired.
I'm a regular that finds some value in Twitter, I follow only a few people and I think Twitter does a fairly good job of surfacing interesting tweets. It also takes me only 2-3 screens to get caught up after a few days. It doesn't have to be an uncontrollable firehose of shit content unless you let it become that way (see: following 1000 active accounts).

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#54

Post by czechdeveloper »

freshwaters wrote: post #38

The most alarming part of the article for me was the reference to climate change and its impending consequences. I I may say I've been living under quite a rock for I hadn't thought of it as mentioned here in this paragraph: " The book’s most fascinating and disturbing chapter is about how the Internet, the primary vector of information about climate change, is increasingly a vector of the problem itself. The world’s…

This actually paralyses me a bit.

Nice vacation? All I think is footprint I'm making and how I'm destroying that very beautiful nature I wanted to visit.

Start enterprise? I'll just add another CO2 to provide people with service they don't really need to survive.

Like this new gadget? I can't buy it, I don't need it and again, just another item in vicious cycle or consumption.

But what can I do. I want my enjoyment of those stuff back. I want to be motivated to create and experience, yet I can't as I see the other side of that. I want to enjoy good stuff, but I can't.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#55

Post by [deleted] »

gmueckl wrote: post #18
kwyjibo1230 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing you to "drop off" social media seems like the exact chilling effect you describe (assuming you are a moderate), rather than being a stance. It's happening!

How would you act instead? In the eyes of a someone with a sufficiently incompatible position you are a loonie who gets ignired after the dirst dissenting statement with a simple mouse click, never to be seen or heard from again on that platform. This is just so much easier than in the real world.

[deleted]

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#56

Post by DanielBMarkham »

spacehome wrote: post #50
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #42

"...Like Lanier’s book, though in a very different register, it risks presenting the Internet as both the manifestation and cause of all of our deepest problems..." A friend of mine sent me a link recently with some stuff that Taleb's currently working on. The internet, the collection of data storage and transmission instantaneously anywhere on the planet, is not a problem. The problem is that humans are hard-wired f…

Unfortunately, it looks like we're wired for mobs, too. Participants in mobs act very differently and self-report afterwards that the subjective experience is an altered state. It sounds like echos of an evolutionary history that had a fair bit of mobbing.

I completely agree.

It's interesting to look at the history of warfare and how it relates to population density. In general, as farming got more and more advanced, large-scale warfare really took off.

The difference was that people were limited geographically. So tribal chiefs (and later dictator/kings/lords) were able to geographically isolate and deal with unrest.

This has fallen apart several times. The French Revolution comes to mind. The Chinese "People's Courts". In each case you had tens of thousands or more in a self-reinforcing feedback loop driving one another emotionally. These things do not end well.

So if it's a choice between strong, totalitarian governments, the emotional mob-rule we're currently developing, and some controls on tech? Count me as a vote for some controls on tech. From here it looks like all three are happening simultaneously anyway. Better to choose your poison than get all three.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#57

Post by Chazprime »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #7

" you know that you could leave at any time and you know that you will not." I have no problem. The press needs to take more responsibility for this as they are the primary enablers of Twitter. Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion, and often used as the basis for some kind of rally bad straw-man argument the author wants to make. I think Twitter will wane but it won't go a…

It’s become more and more common to see op-eds sourcing selected tweets of few outraged randoms on Twitter around any significant cultural event.

Boom. Instant manufactured outrage.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#58

Post by sonnyblarney »

will4274 wrote: post #49
sonnyblarney wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What is it about tweets that would mean they're not legitimate expressions of opinion? " It's not about the legitimacy of the tweet or even factualness. When journalists want to create a fake narrative, what they do is say "people are saying this" and then show a few tweets to support them. Even though almost nobody really may be thinking in those term. For example, there's a lot of social justice clamour over thing…

> When journalists want to create a fake narrative, what they do is say "people are saying this" and then show a few tweets to support them. Even though almost nobody really may be thinking in those term. What do you think when you read an article in a newspaper saying "an anonymous source at the state department who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation"? News organizations know how to make something out of…

Anonymous sources are a different thing altogether.

They are generally giving out specific facts.

Yes, of course those things are generally about manipulations of some kind, but there are protocols involved, and those 'anon facts' generally have to be true. In these situations, the news organizations credibility is on the line. The more credible the entity, the more likely they've done their checking/double checking to corroborate etc..

Many legit stories break this way.

Again, yes, it's all about narrative ... but there's generally more meat to the narrative in those cases.

Tweets by individuals who are authoritative on something are also a different thing. If an actress says 'I faced harassment from several studio execs' - then this has some credibility as a statement.

But this is altogether different from the straw-man 'people are saying' types of stories which are very common. A daily occurrence.

The 'materially useful' tweets are a small thing.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#59

Post by intended »

fzeroracer wrote: post #20
intended wrote: post #13

in the 90s, I read about how religious extremists in certain countries were targeting moderates. This seemed very odd at the time, because the moderate position just seemed the normal sensible person position. Over time though, moderate preachers were singled out, and in some cases killed, because they didn’t take a stand. This created a chilling effect. Coupled with incendiary and emotional images (“look at these pi…

Those exact same dynamics have existed since humanity started forming groups and civilizations. Thaddeus Stevens was considered an extremist due to his views on slavery and many revolutions have been fought due to the gulf between two portions of society having grown too large to bridge. Social media just makes those divides more readily apparent because people now have instant access to those they harshly disagree w…

I disagree in precision, but not with your direction.

YES, these behaviors must arise in any group of thinking beings.

No, this is not like what happened before.

The Internet and social media dramatically accelerate the creation of new groups and the rate of polarization.

On the forums I am on, I have seen tiny social cracks become ongoing flame wars in the span of a few months. These are fringe opinions, with strong emotional components, become battle lines.

But worst of all, it is that the underlying issue loses all hope of ever being discussed peacefully or maturely.

A valid fringe issue, which would eventually have its day in the Sun, is now a point to test identity

These became issues, when earlier it was solved by the slower pace of conversation and discussion. Things are getting inflamed due to the medium. IT carries little nuance or context, and it amplifies the most acerbic and attention grabbing messages.

It makes things worse in a way human beings and cable companies alone could not.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#60

Post by intended »

gmueckl wrote: post #18
kwyjibo1230 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing you to "drop off" social media seems like the exact chilling effect you describe (assuming you are a moderate), rather than being a stance. It's happening!

How would you act instead? In the eyes of a someone with a sufficiently incompatible position you are a loonie who gets ignired after the dirst dissenting statement with a simple mouse click, never to be seen or heard from again on that platform. This is just so much easier than in the real world.

theres about 3 options.

1) Exit social media and save yourself. This is the best option

2) With unending patience, choose an individual and just interact with them at a human level till both sides achieve understanding ( no matter how distasteful or difficult the process ). This does not scale

3) Begin to invest in PR, think tanks, media firms, groups and so on to craft a message to sway large groups of people at one go. This scales and what most people are resorting to, and what is creating the problem in the first place.

Post reply on HN