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

21–30 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#21

Post by dgudkov »

gundmc wrote: post #17
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 obviou…

As my ex-colleague says "Any advertisement is propaganda".

Re: The Social Dilemma

#22

Post by seesaw »

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…

I concur. My friends and relatives, who never cared about what I (a techie) said about online tracking, are all now trying to educate me about the harm done by google and Facebook.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#23

Post by auganov »

Can't help but see the anti social backlash as another reincarnation of luddism. The tech is what it is. Hating the biggest companies behind it won't change it. You not using it won't change the world either. Just like refusing to board a train wouldn't stop the changes its invention has brought about. The world is forever changed and looking at GDPs, it wasn't for the worse.

Nothing short of a regressive global regulatory crackdown can change the new reality.

I think it's worth for people to examine what it is and how it's different. But an alarmist and hostile tone isn't too conductive to that.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#24

Post by clairity »

gkoberger wrote: post #19
clairity wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 ev…

of course everything looks rosy with rose-colored glasses on, but facebook not only encouraged those glasses, but made you believe the glasses didn't even exist. same with google. it only took a little perspective shift and foresight to realize the future dangers under a relentless profit motive. the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#25

Post by sailingparrot »

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…

> we all knew exactly how bad it could get.

You were very smart then, congratulations.

Back in 2006 there was no mention anywhere of "fake news", "bias bubbles" and such because there was almost no news sharing in Facebook, and your feed was not curated to only show you what you were most likely to like. There was no political advertising on Facebook for a long time, and even no ads at all until like 2007 or 2008.

User tracking was almost non existent as well until 2010 or so.

So sure, there was already some concern about privacy back then, it was mostly about people voluntarily over-sharing thins they shouldn't, not about being tracked and manipulated against your wish.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#26

Post by Kiro »

_mkef wrote: post #20

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 f…

> I stopped using all social media as of last year

You're posting this comment on social media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

> 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.

What makes HN different?

Re: The Social Dilemma

#27

Post by bayareabronco »

I'm launching an open source initiative supporting several social media platforms, starting with Matrix/Element, a messaging app similar to WhatsApp; and then Mastodon, a microblogging platform similar to Twitter. The overall effort is being called the "Resiliency Network" in reference to creating a social media platform that will foster resilience in relation to the significant social, environmental, and political challenges we're facing today. If you're interested to get involved, please respond to this comment. Thank you!

Re: The Social Dilemma

#28

Post by rexpop »

dgudkov wrote: post #21
gundmc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 obviou…

As my ex-colleague says "Any advertisement is propaganda".

And all propaganda is political.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#29

Post by rexpop »

auganov wrote: post #23

Can't help but see the anti social backlash as another reincarnation of luddism. The tech is what it is. Hating the biggest companies behind it won't change it. You not using it won't change the world either. Just like refusing to board a train wouldn't stop the changes its invention has brought about. The world is forever changed and looking at GDPs, it wasn't for the worse. Nothing short of a regressive global regu…

I don't think you understand the Luddites, to be frank. Theirs was a reasonable reaction to the evaporation of control, individual agency (as skilled workers) and political sovereignty of the laborer. They saw their livelihoods evaporating, their financial security being siphoned away. They worked their asses off for bosses who then built their automated replacements. It was a callous betrayal, and their response was to destroy the technology which enabled that betrayal.

"Hating the biggest companies behind it" will change things. Hatred, skepticism, cynicism, and distrust will change things. In a world where "regulatory capture" is almost complete, only neo-Luddism (properly understood) can hope to change things.

We should be raising alarms, and we should be hostile to those institutions which siphon away our agency.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#30

Post by unclebucknasty »

gkoberger wrote: post #14
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 bl…

I think your parent's point is that ultimately these platforms run us down the algorithmic rabbit holes that keep us on the platform in order to show us more ads. So, ad blockers might undermine that incentive.
Post reply on HN