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

51–60 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#51

Post by Animats »

wussboy wrote: post #34
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.

If the distributed social networks ever get enough users to attract spammers, they'll have an even worse spam problem than the centralized ones. They don't collect enough info network-wide to detect spammers.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#52

Post by tubularhells »

_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…

No offence, but you are arguing on HN, Reddit, Chan boards, /. now. Where is the difference? I did similarly but keep getting sucked into these communities simply because I'm alone in my head a lot of the time.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#53

Post by ttul »

pgrote wrote: post #33

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…

I'm not sure how you go about ending Facebook and Twitter. Facebook's market capitalization is $720B. Twitter is a relative minnow at $32B. Neither will go down without a pretty enormous fight; the resources at their disposal outflank the most well funded political campaigns in history.

It's not realistic to think that these large social networks can be put back into the box. Ultimately, consumers like them, even if they aren't good for us. In a democracy, it's very tough to implement measures that destroy something that people actually like.

I think that social networks should be regulated in the same way as other harmful, yet enjoyable vices such as cigarettes and alcohol. A first pass would be to create a tax on social network data harvesting that starts to recognize the value they extract from us. The revenue from this tax could be invested into research that helps to understand the impact the social networks have on our lives and on democracy itself.

As with cigarettes, while we did not at first realize they were harmful, once it became clear through research that they caused harm, additional funding into high quality research allowed governments to eventually create science-guided policies that have largely put a lid on the problem. We are in the 1950s of social networking: i.e. doctors still recommend it. That needs to change.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#54

Post by d3ntb3ev1l »

If an ex heroin dealer (who made lots of money selling the drug) came forward and talked about the problem and how to stop it, it’s more powerful given his previous association.

We shouldn’t discount the people speaking out because they created it.

We should criticize them if all they do this time is continue to make money on the problem versus resolving it with the same greed and passion they put into creating it

Re: The Social Dilemma

#55

Post by gkoberger »

npunt wrote: post #40
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…

The Center for Humane Tech's founders, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, were the main people interviewed. You can't say they don't know what they're talking about, and then cite their organization.

I think it means a lot coming from people who created the technology. Maybe not to me or you, but it definitely does to non-tech people.

It's like how a thousand people can say K-Cups are bad for the environment, but it's way more shareable that the creator regrets it.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#56

Post by ttul »

The moment that got me in this film was when they described how social network monetization algorithms gently move us toward a more radical position. We are better targets for advertisers when we spend more time on the platform. The platform doesn't care _why_ we're on the platform; it just wants us to be there as much as possible.

If the platform nudges us toward radical right-wing conspiracies, so be it. Similarly, if it helps us become a fervent Democrat, so long as we're on the platform, that's all that matters.

I deleted Facebook and Instagram Friday night after watching, and I suspect many of you will as well. I've had a great weekend with so much free time...

Re: The Social Dilemma

#57

Post by _mkef »

tubularhells wrote: post #52
_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…

No offence, but you are arguing on HN, Reddit, Chan boards, /. now. Where is the difference? I did similarly but keep getting sucked into these communities simply because I'm alone in my head a lot of the time.

As mentioned below hacker news is a niche website, the dialogue here is much more intelligent than on Facebook.

For now I don't see talking on hacker news as stressful, but I definitely will stop using this site if it becomes so.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#58

Post by cassianoleal »

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".

I believe in most Latin languages there isn't a separate word.

At least in Portuguese and Spanish, both advertisement and propaganda are simply "propaganda".

Re: The Social Dilemma

#59

Post by mdoms »

npunt wrote: post #40
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…

> There were, in fact, people who could have predicted this.

Did they?

Re: The Social Dilemma

#60

Post by ppod »

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…

Also there is an underlying class thing going on with "you are the product". Choosing to pay for a service is not just an equal alternative to a free service for most people. Most people have to work hard to afford paid services, many of them at low wages. Sneering at people who choose to use a free service rather than sell their time for $15 an hour is not a great look.
Post reply on HN