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

The Social Dilemma

thesocialdilemma.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#11

Post by voidhorse »

seveneightn9ne wrote: post #6

I'd passed this over on Netflix, assuming it would be too introductory. Is it interesting enough for someone who's already familiar with the premise from having been around on HN?

Last month I read a bunch of academic papers on modern surveillance theory (Zuboff, who appears in the film briefly, only represents one stand of contemporary thinking about surveillance, the field is much richer), and, like others, I still found this movie interesting even though it is fairly introductory. The presentation is both entertaining and effective, which I think is a major reason this movie has early signs of having been far more successful than previous attempts to highlight the same problems.

The fact that many of the voices in the film had a hand in developing the technologies they raise the alarm about also adds an intriguing edge--especially since it's easy to interpret their participation in either a positive or negative light.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#12

Post by crystaln »

seveneightn9ne wrote: post #6

I'd passed this over on Netflix, assuming it would be too introductory. Is it interesting enough for someone who's already familiar with the premise from having been around on HN?

Roughly no, if you’ve followed this topic, it will be the same drumbeat. It still might be worth watching since it’s an important issue and this is the most high profile exposé.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#13

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

erentz wrote: post #5

I would like to see the ad driven model removed as an option. I think it would help. And I think there is a separate case to be made to end ad targeting for other (privacy) reasons. But while watching this I realized that wouldn’t be the entire solution. Social platforms would seemingly still be incentivized to drive up engagement and to keep users addicted to their platforms vs other platforms. So what are some othe…

I think the broader issue is just engagement metrics, financial and non-financial, that reward wasting time. I think there's a very achievable alternate equilibrium, where social media companies see themselves as stores to browse for great content rather than TV-style engagement factories, although I don't have a great story for how to get from here to there. If some people spent hours every day aimlessly wandering around Walmart, everyone including Walmart would see the problem - they can't find what they're looking for, the store must be laid out poorly!

Re: The Social Dilemma

#14

Post by gkoberger »

ouid wrote: post #2

I wish they had plugged adblockers at all in the movie.

Hmm, I don't think that was the point of the movie. It was more about social media, and no adblocker in the world will save you from Facebook or Google or YouTube tracking your usage and recommending ex boyfriends or "rabbit hole" videos to you.

In fact, with the exception of one scene, I don't think a computer was even shown – all the interactions were apps on phones.

(They did mention, at the end, extensions for blocking recommendations.)

Re: The Social Dilemma

#15

Post by crystaln »

ForHackernews wrote: post #4

This film is full of hypocrites who got rich off social media and then found religion.

They were in their early 20s trying to build a company not knowing if they would succeed, and the downside of social media is still not well understood.

People who realize their past actions caused harm should be praised not denigrated.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#16

Post by clairity »

gkoberger wrote: post #7

A lot of people are going to say this movie is filled with people who made their millions and are now on an apology tour. Their bank accounts are still large, and their creations are still at large. I agree. But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it. I've had so many non-tech people in my life be blown away by this movie. Nothing in it was new to me or anyone here, but most people don't hear…

> "Most people in this movie were early employees, before we knew how bad it could get. Back then, social media was connecting people in new ways. Facebook in the early days was fucking magical."

no, before facebook, there was myspace and friendster (and more primitive social networks before that). we all knew exactly how bad it could get. facebook was not fucking magical. it was a psychological exploit for profit's sake. zuck said as much when he let his guard down. he and facebook are not to be venerated nor absolved for this bare-naked blight on humanity.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#17

Post by gundmc »

codysc wrote: post #3

I just watched this last night. A lot of the content will already be well known to the HN audience. There was one big light-bulb moment for me. One of the speakers was clarifying the "If you're not paying then you are the product" idea. He refined it to, (rough quote), "Changes to your behavior and actions are the product" That distinction made the insidiousness much more clear than the former statement.

> "Changes to your behavior and actions..."

Isn't this the definition (or goal) of all advertising? I don't see the connection to the first half of the statement tying it to free products and services.

There are plenty of paid services that are riddled with ads as well. Movies, Cable TV, airline flights, etc. The fact is that people and organizations are _constantly_ trying to influence your behavior. It's not obvious that's only a bad thing.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#18

Post by amelius »

erentz wrote: post #5

I would like to see the ad driven model removed as an option. I think it would help. And I think there is a separate case to be made to end ad targeting for other (privacy) reasons. But while watching this I realized that wouldn’t be the entire solution. Social platforms would seemingly still be incentivized to drive up engagement and to keep users addicted to their platforms vs other platforms. So what are some othe…

Another solution is to break the network effect. Allow people to move to different (less intrusive) platforms without losing their contacts.

For example, I would quit Facebook if "events" were public, and I could easily see which events my friends go to without logging in to Facebook, perhaps through some open protocol.

I think universities should be more active in inventing secure, open protocols.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#19

Post by gkoberger »

clairity wrote: post #16
gkoberger wrote: post #7

A lot of people are going to say this movie is filled with people who made their millions and are now on an apology tour. Their bank accounts are still large, and their creations are still at large. I agree. But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it. I've had so many non-tech people in my life be blown away by this movie. Nothing in it was new to me or anyone here, but most people don't hear…

> "Most people in this movie were early employees, before we knew how bad it could get. Back then, social media was connecting people in new ways. Facebook in the early days was fucking magical." no, before facebook, there was myspace and friendster (and more primitive social networks before that). we all knew exactly how bad it could get. facebook was not fucking magical. it was a psychological exploit for profit's…

I think we had different experiences.

MySpace and Friendster and message boards and IRC were all pretty benign. I don't think MySpace had a single "algorithm". There was no newsfeed; it was just a personal Geocities basically. How were they "bad"?

Facebook WAS magical for anyone who was in college around the time it started. All of a sudden, you could connect with thousands of people around you. You could organize events, stay in touch with friends, share pictures and talk about your life. Back then, it was a very different site than it is now.

If you told me in 2005, when I signed up for Facebook, that someday the election would be swayed by it? I would have laughed at you. The biggest fear back then was a drunken picture costing someone a job someday. Now governments are being crippled.

I'm not venerating anyone. I'm talking about 15 years ago, not now. That was the whole point of the movie. Social media isn't inherently bad; human connection is a good thing. It's bad when it's fueled by a limitless need for growth and profit.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#20

Post by _mkef »

Great movie that I agree with 1000% . I suggest Lost Connections and 10 Arguments for deleting your social media ( mentioned in the movie) as well. I stopped using all social media as of last year and the results have been amazing.

I'm more at peace , I no longer getting into stupid Facebook arguments. Online you aren't interacting with whole people, so being absurdly mean is easy.

Most people online are just their for validation( or are bots , see the Ashley Madison hack and the FTC complaint against the Match Group). At this point in my life I'm no longer seeking that. Plus , as the movie points out constant validation seeking will wreck your mental health.

I was having an amazing time meeting folks pre Covid and I have a plan to become more active whenever this ends. I'm thinking I'll try improv. Being around people does something for you that internet interactions simply can't.

Post reply on HN