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

131–140 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#131

Post by nikki93 »

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.

This is interesting. I wonder what it's like also to kind of... Not really make it about that at all. Say you're hanging out with your friends IRL, and you're not paying them to hang out with you, or didn't pay the grass to hang out with them among it. Are you still being a "product"? I think in that case we don't dig into it because it all seems part of some natural order of things. I guess we just need to keep living till we get there.

I feel like it seems worthwhile to have an angle that doesn't dichotomize your actions into product/non-product ones; maybe you just act in a space orthogonal to it and/or use your understanding of it to inform yourself but aren't driven by needing to be product or non-product. Capitalizing on that last desire is I think how the language ends up becoming too much ends and not means.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#132

Post by Sebb767 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #93
disown wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He refined it to, (rough quote), "Changes to your behavior and actions are the product" That's true of all media. Doesn't matter if you pay for it or not. Even netflix. Even this post. What is the "documentary" trying to achieve? Change behavior. Who is behind the social media campaign? "Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24468533 > That distinction made the…

Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary. What is Instagram? Is it a tool for sharing photos, or is a social engineering experiment intended to increase competitive anxiety and narcissism? What is Facebook? Is it a way to stay in touch with friends and family, or is it a social enginee…

> Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary.

But you could describe this as propaganda with anti social media agenda. I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but this argument can easily be flipped and feels a bit like going no true Scotsman [0] since there very much are documentations (as listed) with doubtful or undefined intent.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Re: The Social Dilemma

#133

Post by kenjackson »

ttul wrote: post #56

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,…

Why does it move us to a more radical position? Is it because the more radical you are the more time you spend on the platform?

I haven't seen it, but I'm somewhat confused. FB and Instagram just show me posts from friends and family? Most youth sports, social events (weddings, dinners), babies, etc... FB does have some political posting, but IG very little.

And YouTube has virtually nothing political. I never go to the News channel. Its just all sports highlights recommended to me.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#134

Post by wussboy »

Animats wrote: post #51
wussboy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like that particular issue could be resolved with even the most rudimentary reputation system. It’s how humans have solved the problem amongst ourselves. But I agree it will be a problem.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#135

Post by api »

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…

None of this is new in principle. The difference we are talking about here is more between a hunting rifle and an M-16. The depth, pervasiveness, and insidiousness of persuasion is so much greater with social media. It’s a wider channel, a bidirectional, channel, and a one on one channel.

Now when tech similar to GPT-3 gets out there it’s going to be like hunting rifle vs atomic weapons. Pretty soon we will have what I am calling “mechanized con artistry.” We are almost literally inventing the medieval demon whispering into everyone’s ear. Mass surveillance plus big data plus generative AI will be like the hydrogen bomb of propaganda.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#136

Post by iRomain »

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.

> I'm alone in my head a lot of the time.

Better than not!

Re: The Social Dilemma

#137

Post by pier25 »

I saw it a couple of days ago. I'm not the audience for this doc but I liked the interviews. The dramatizations were boring but I guess they make the point for younger audiences.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#138

Post by iRomain »

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.

I really liked the futures analogy. On top of my head:

> there are pork chops futures, oil futures, and now human futures.

This is so full of sense in all degrees.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#139

Post by bsanr2 »

nikki93 wrote: post #131
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.

This is interesting. I wonder what it's like also to kind of... Not really make it about that at all. Say you're hanging out with your friends IRL, and you're not paying them to hang out with you, or didn't pay the grass to hang out with them among it. Are you still being a "product"? I think in that case we don't dig into it because it all seems part of some natural order of things. I guess we just need to keep livi…

https://coolguy.website/writing/the-future-will-be-technical...

This may or may not be related, because I'm finding it difficult to parse your comment.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#140

Post by Jedd »

npunt wrote: post #75
gkoberger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

Oh I agree that the story 'I made it and I regret it' is catchy and very useful to add to the conversation. It's a 'man bites dog' type of headline in that it gets the general audience to pay attention. It's valuable to have that perspective. I like Tristan and Aza and CHT and think they're smart, well-meaning people who are doing their best, and I value what they bring. I especially like their focus on trying to exp…

> As far as whether tech people are the most effective people to talk about the problems they created, I don't agree. I'd prefer someone who has expertise in the implications of technologies, who can root what is happening in social dynamics, human psychology, etc. Someone whose voice in those areas is highly respected, not someone who read a few articles or a book and then translated it. We need more of a Carl Sagan of sociology/psychology/history who can integrate and explain these things.

Until you or someone else that fits this personal preference of yours, I guess the problem is that we don't have a lot of choices in terms of interesting, enlightening, clear, and coherent documentaries that describe this problem.

So, yes, you may be right that someone else could describe this situation differently ... but absent that actually existing, this is (in my opinion) a pretty fine documentary, even if some of the talking heads are / were 'tech people'

Post reply on HN