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

31–40 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#31

Post by elorant »

_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 no longer getting into stupid Facebook arguments

That's the one thing I absolutely loathe about Facebook. There's no constructive dialogue going on. Everyone is so full of themselves that any kind of argument derails pretty fast. And then there is the fact that the platform doesn't provide the structure for long conversations. After a couple of replies all text has the same indentation so it's hard to see who's responding to what comment. I've been online for twenty years, and I've never seen a environment more hostile to conversation than Facebook.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#33

Post by pgrote »

I thought the movie was well made and did a good job explaining things, especially to people who don't follow the business.

There is one consideration no one seriously thinks about when it comes to social media companies, in particular Facebook and Twitter. They cannot be fixed. They are failed experiments and need to end. The whole premise of the companies is to guide people's emotions for profit whether where they guide is good for society or not.

There is no way they will be ended due to the money they make and the fact they do some good, but there is also no way they can be fixed. Regulations, corporate leadership or a set of ethics won't do the trick. The framework is diseased and is a net negative on society.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#34

Post by wussboy »

bayareabronco wrote: post #27

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 c…

I’m interested. But you’re not the first person to think of this. What do you see as the reasons why other similar efforts have failed? Why will you succeed?

I’m not trying to be negative. I’m just strongly of the opinion that making this happen will take much more than saying “we should make a better social media”, and I’m wondering if you’ve got that far.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#35

Post by gkoberger »

clairity wrote: post #24
gkoberger wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first time you loaded up TheFacebook in high school and saw your friend set his status to "Greg is making dinner!", you thought "ah yes, someday this will topple governments due to disinformation campaigns"?

Are you sure you aren't conflating "it's obvious" with hindsight bias?

Re: The Social Dilemma

#37

Post by wussboy »

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…

The problem is that if you have two competing products and one has no funding and one has billions in revenue, the one with the most money will tend to dominate. So removing the ad revenue from your own product while not being able to remove it from your competitor really just hamstrings yourself.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#38

Post by gkoberger »

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…

You should watch the movie. You'll find that it's closer to your opinion than you're assuming here.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#39

Post by ffggvv »

i tried to watch the movie and i honestly don’t get the hype. It really seems to be confirmation bias where those who already hate social media just rave about the movie.

and i actually think it did a very poor job at explaining things to people completely unfamiliar with the issues. i wonder if it will change a single mind or just preach to the choir

Re: The Social Dilemma

#40

Post by npunt »

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…

> But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it.

Nope nope nope. While tech people might have some insight into how some of the tech works, they're still lost in how to both define the problem [1] and describe how these technologies may shape society [2]. Nothing in their professional or personal experience has adequately prepared them to answer these questions.

The thing tech people can do now is listen carefully to people who study and understand the many areas tech touches in society, and work with them on solutions that are well-vetted and considered. Tech people need to open their minds and use their power to give voice to those who can more clearly see and explain what's wrong [3].

> I believe him that he didn't for-see it would someday cause a rise in suicides among young women. How could anyone?

There were, in fact, people who could have predicted this. They study things like... teens and mental health. Not things people in tech tend to study. Lets not assume what we don't know must not be known.

We got into this mess because of hubris. That same hubris will not get us out of it.

[1] you will note they struggled with this part in the documentary.

[2] beyond facile doom and gloom.

[3] Center for Humane Tech's podcast has some good interviews with experts, but those voices were largely absent in this doc, and the response I see to this doc still largely falls in the camp of 'techies should evangelize/solve it', which is what I'm responding to here.

Post reply on HN