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

Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 266 posts

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#241

Post by nip180 »

aoshifo wrote: post #232
nip180 wrote: post #31

It was very ironic that Netflix, who once said that sleep is there biggest competition, releases a documentary about how it’s rivals in the attention economy are harmful. Yes, Netflix doesn’t advertise directly to me, but many of the effects are still present. The way I think and behave can be changed by programming I watch on Netflix. Netflix uses a recommendation engine to keep me engaged. Netflix has implemented s…

Well, the difference is, that YT needs you to watch more to show you advertising to make money. Netflix just needs you to pay your subscription. That is a big difference, as far as the payoff of using psychological hacks goes. I believe, that if Netflix was ad-based it would be a hell of a lot more addictive.

TV addiction is a huge problem in the western world. The average American spends more than 2.5 hours watching tv a day, and Netflix is a large part of that. Even worse, Netflix promotes “binging”, of watching tv for long periods of time.

Netflix is clearly addictive, and there businesses model is based on people spending large amounts of time watching their programming and talking about it.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#243

Post by ricksharp »

"We are more profitable to a corporation if we are spending our time staring at a screen, staring at an ad, than if we're spending our time living our life in a rich way." (Justin Rosenstein ~1:25:30)

This is ironic, because what is best for all of us as a whole and what is best for each individual - is that each of us are productive, helpful, and loving to one another.

However, what is more profitable in a short term for a single person (or entity) is what is often destructive to others (a drug dealer is a good example of making profit from the destruction of others).

Instead, we have to care about the long-term benefit and health of each person (our friends, family, community, and all humanity) and not just amass some money for ourselves so we can live selfishly.

Also, to be clear, I believe capitalism is a vital part of that - when it works with a win-win focus. (I innovate to provide a good and beneficial service that helps you, and you help me by providing me with resources I need, etc. - big win-win for everyone).

However, when we turn it to pure profit and divorce it from the human side of working together for mutual good, that is when it destroys instead of empowers. That is exactly why that quote above struck me.

If we use social media to enhance our human relationships, then it is beneficial. But if all we do is stay up late at night watching video after video of emotionally triggering content, then it's time to hit the delete button.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#244

Post by ricksharp »

Nextgrid wrote: post #20
rogerdoger123 wrote: post #5

The problem is that many people, including my wife, are OK being shown ads. After watching the documentary, I uninstalled Instagram and logged off Facebook as I hated the thought of being manipulated. My wife (and her friends for that matter) though concerned over the impact to kids, was back on Instagram about an hour later. "I'm ok with all these ads, some are useful". So though it should help parents navigate this…

I think that advertising is the main problem. Most issues caused by social media ultimately originate from this way to generate money out of wasting people's time. Cut that source of revenue and suddenly there is no longer any incentive to get people addicted, encourage outrage, promote misinformation/clickbait, etc. Related: http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html (I totally agree with all of it)

I think you may be right. I've always hated ads, but never thought about why.

They have never done anything good.

If I need something, I can search for it. If I don't need it, I don't want an ad to try to instill some desire in my heart.

If something is really useful, word-of-mouth is a good way to learn about it.

What would it be like to live in an ad-free society (that still promotes healthy mutually beneficial capitalism)? Is it even possible?

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#245

Post by Allower »

timeuser wrote: post #77

It was a good explanation of some issues with current social media platforms. But I don't think that ad driven business models and algorithmic content manipulation are the biggest problems we are facing in all this. The fundamental problem is we humans aren't wired to deal with information and social connection and this scale and speed. It's too easy for just about anyone to find and confirm anything they want to bel…

That's a weird way of saying people are really fucking stupid

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#246

Post by ricksharp »

nip180 wrote: post #31

It was very ironic that Netflix, who once said that sleep is there biggest competition, releases a documentary about how it’s rivals in the attention economy are harmful. Yes, Netflix doesn’t advertise directly to me, but many of the effects are still present. The way I think and behave can be changed by programming I watch on Netflix. Netflix uses a recommendation engine to keep me engaged. Netflix has implemented s…

I think there is a huge difference. Netflix gives me the freedom to cut out ads and watch what I want (from what is available anyway). That is why I have always loved Netflix and have always enjoyed not having cable tv (which always felt like it was a net negative experience).

I will admit that I have binge-watched episodes when I should have been doing something else, but I also believe Netflix provides a beneficial role in my life.

Also, it saves Netflix money if I don't bindge watch everything - as long as I still value the subscription and plan to come back - it doesn't matter to them how much I watch.

In fact, this might convince me to purchase Youtube Premium just to signal that I value ad-free paid-for-content and I believe we can build a world without ads.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#247

Post by kbenson »

Osiris wrote: post #167
save_ferris wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that people spend lots of time on social media just demonstrates that they derive something from it, not that it’s addictive or harmful. I was totally with you until this moment. This is like arguing that people with alcoholism get something out of drinking too much. It’s one thing to say that you’re comfortable with the amount of information that’s collected about you and how it’s used, but how can you ig…

> The fact that people spend lots of time on social media just demonstrates that they derive something from it, not that it’s addictive or harmful. I can't tell you how many times I hear my wife say "I need to get off Facebook" but never does. There's very much an addiction. I use Facebook, but I've found that I spend nearly all my time in specific groups (for me that's motorcycle related groups) because it's a great…

> I can't tell you how many times I hear my wife say "I need to get off Facebook" but never does. There's very much an addiction.

My wife says that too. Then while watching this, she said wasn't that interested, got bored, and decided to use Facebook and Instagram next to me instead. It was surreal and disturbing to watch it in that situation. :/

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#248

Post by kbenson »

afarviral wrote: post #222
skummetmaelk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good old personal responsibility. It's your responsibility not to walk into traps laid out to catch you. Why stop people from laying out the traps? They're just trying to make a living, it's perfectly fine!

Absolutely. Let's lay out traps for the trap layers then, and find a way to do it for a living. You're saying that's fine, so lets do it.

Except the trap layers are bigger (more money), stronger (good lawyers from that moeny), and there are more of them than you (lots of people and lawyers).

How do you fight that? With a bigger group of people. Since they are so large, that means a nation or state (if you're a big one, as if you're small they probably won't care, that's how big they are).

If there's a pride of man-eating lions roaming about, you don't set out by yourself to fix the problem. That's just an imaginative attempt at suicide. You get a large group of people. That's why regulation is what we need, because that's what it means when you get a really large group of people to impose their will in the modern age.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#249

Post by kbenson »

anigbrowl wrote: post #204
blueterminal wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some basic rules and regulations would be great :) Any specific ones? I personally can't think of any at all that would work.

I personally can't think of any at all that would work. This rhetorical technique is called 'poisoning the well,' preemptively injecting doubt into whatever follows. The GP gave several examples of regulatory mechanisms that already work to some degree, and an argument for why, but you chose to ignore that completely for some reason.

The GP gave examples of regulatory mechanisms that work for other situations, but I also am unsure of what specific regulatory mechanism would work well for this, and those examples don't really bring anything to mind, even though I am in favor of a regulatory solution. I think coloring the question as poisoning the well might be a bit premature.

That is, what are traffic lights and safety lanes for social networks? How do we enforce those for private products when generally they are things why apply to our public spaces? A social network is much more of a mall than a public park, so what restraints are we willing to make towards a private property, and what will actually work? I think those are very valid questions, and while the argument from blueterminal may have gotten there in a roundabout way (and in a way that some consider not in good faith), I they are well worth considering in detail.

To me it's blatantly obvious something needs to be done, I'm just not sure what that is, and am slightly afraid we'll implement a fix that if not as bad as the problem, is still much worse than it needs to be unless we consider it carefully.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?

#250

Post by anigbrowl »

kbenson wrote: post #249
anigbrowl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally can't think of any at all that would work. This rhetorical technique is called 'poisoning the well,' preemptively injecting doubt into whatever follows. The GP gave several examples of regulatory mechanisms that already work to some degree, and an argument for why, but you chose to ignore that completely for some reason.

The GP gave examples of regulatory mechanisms that work for other situations, but I also am unsure of what specific regulatory mechanism would work well for this , and those examples don't really bring anything to mind, even though I am in favor of a regulatory solution. I think coloring the question as poisoning the well might be a bit premature. That is, what are traffic lights and safety lanes for social networks?…

It's the pre-emptive foreclosure of discussion I find objectionable, negating the attempt rather than exploring the problem space.

I would personally reduce the private property privileges substantially since a social network by definition derives its value from the number and variety of people that use it. I'd like if FB were at least as searchable to its users as to advertisers, for example; arguably FB knows more about many of its users than they know about themselves.

Post reply on HN