Live data from Hacker News

The Social Dilemma

thesocialdilemma.com

381–390 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#381
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.

Except that the masses believe "documentaries" = truth. I know I did when I was younger. No documentary claims to be "agenda ridden 'movie' from biased individuals funded by even more biased individuals".

> If it's not defamatory I can post it on YouTube. If it's solid journalism with an original and interesting angle there's even a fair chance I'll be able to sell it a media network.

Except that you still depend on social media. You depend on youtube or netflix to give you preferential treatment.

> If I want to create my own global social network - that's a slightly more challenging project.

It's also challenging to get the money, not only produce the film, but get netflix to it special treatment and of course buy the "ad" push we see on social media ( ironically enough ).

"The Social Dilemma" isn't just a "documentary". It's a part of a well funded propaganda campaign. There is obviously political and financial backing for this behind the scenes. Not that I'm against the sentiment because social media monopolies or any monopolies are a threat to society. And I also include netflix as a monopoly threat.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the dynamics have always existed in previous platforms, it's just been ratcheted up to a higher level with social media. I remember a friend saying the "optimization is killing us". The whole economy is getting better at what it does and as it happens there are many side effects. Those with no ethics will manage to harvest the social media technology for their profit and not for society. It applies also to taxes…

Optimization per se isn't the problem, much like thinking isn't (and arguably one is quite likely synonymous to the other at a fundamental level). The problem is with what you optimize for , and how hard. So most companies aren't optimizing for a goal of "maximize our pockets AND maximize world happiness AND maximize the value our users get from us" with a proviso to not optimize too hard, so that unknown but desirab…

they just optimize for "maximize our pockets", and do it hard

That's not the case.

Consider the purest examples: Google routinely incorporates factors beyond short term profit into their ranking functions. For instance they ranked SSL using websites higher than non-SSL using websites, to encourage use of encryption. The ads "quality score" system penalises advertisers whose ads appear to be low quality, defined by users not finding them useful. The constant shovelling of social justice themes into the search engine homepage.

The biggest problem these firms have is that they are not focused exclusively on maximising profit. Profit is an excellent metric! It is the sum of all the happiness and utility you are creating across all your customer and userbase, minus effort expended, in a single quantifiable number. Think of all the happiness created by Apple, Amazon, Google and yes even Facebook and Twitter. Hundreds of millions of people use the services of these firms, often for free, and they use it because they like it.

The problem big tech firms have is they explicitly got on board with "let's maximize world happiness" as a goal. Dumb dumb dumb. Nobody agrees what world happiness is, but there sure are a lot of activists who will always be convinced you're not doing enough about it. Once you go down that path you'll never stop walking, and the further you walk, the more abusive the activists get. It's so subjective and unquantifiable you can never tell if you've done enough.

my belief is that we're in a tipping point where the market, as an optimizer, is getting out of control and needs to be reined in

Isn't that just a classical Marxist or Malthusian collapse proposal? People have been predicting that capitalism will somehow collapse in on itself for hundreds of years, it never has because it's a fundamentally natural, evolved and stable system. The alternatives, not so much.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#383
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with consumers. Congress created Google and Facebook with a stroke of the pen in 1996. They can delete them with another stroke of the pen anytime.

If they become liable for user content then yes but you’ll have the entire tech industry lobbying against you.

That's why I'm always talking about this on HN. Trying to spread awareness on the inside :)

Re: The Social Dilemma

#384
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blimey, that's super interesting. The ad model needs to die IMHO. We need regulation from a super-national level if you ask me. Bitcoin should pay the way for a paid-for internet. Anything to get ads off the web.

Ads are definitely a large part of the problem, but they are not the only problem. Ads are what turn us from customers into cattle, yes, but I think that online services could be almost as bad if we paid for them. Indeed, micropayments might actually result in many of the same issues as ads do: in a world with micropayments for each page load, publishers would still want to increase engagement, because that would dir…

Examining my own behavior, I do see a lot of the last part of your comment. Even as someone who recognizes the potential for abuse when you have incredibly detailed models of people and can use them to manipulate behavior, it's not as obvious as another subscription fee.

I have a strong bias against any sort of automatically recurring charge. In some ways I'm very illogical about it--yearly subscriptions like Amazon Prime or my VPN aren't too bad because I can see the cost and not worry about it for a while. But I've just been trained through experience to see anything monthly (or less) as a way to disguise the real cost through stretching it out (even if I can easily do the arithmetic and see the annual cost.

Regardless, knowing about the potential for abusing the data compiled on my behavior is enough to make me feel a bit "icky" or mildly uneasy. It's enough to make me avoid using anything from Facebook, for example. But it's not enough to keep me from checking my subs on YouTube or using Google navigation when I drive somewhere new.

If it was as simple as paying $100/year to use Google services without data collection it would be easy, but then what stuff would stop working? A good bit of the usefulness of Google nav or whatever comes from how it collects usage data or ties in with my calendar to remind me when I need to leave to make it to an appointment on time.

And then what about all of the other things I interact with that collect data? Do I need to figure out what they all are and pay them a yearly fee as well? What about the ones who decide it's still easier and more profitable to skip the whole thing and keep making their money by profiling my behavior?

Instead, I end up avoiding Facebook properties, blocking ads, never using rewards cards, trying to ignore the OG offenders (credit card companies), and still feeling uneasy about all the info being analyzed about me daily.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#385
post #219
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.

Isn't that true of all advertising, be it TV, billboards, magazines, or digital?

No

Re: The Social Dilemma

#386
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…

Used to waste so much time arguing on FB comments -- and now that I'm off of it all of that energy has been reclaimed. It's been a remarkably positive change in every way.

I got off Facebook a couple of years ago. A couple of months later, I got rid of my smart phone and went back to a Nokia 3310 for a full year. Actually was a huge relief and felt really good. I'm like many people here on HN, I suspect: I work a desk/computer job. My attitude: If I want something online, I'm in front of my computer 12-14 hours a day. If I'm not in front of my computer, then I WANT to be offline. If I'm offline, but you need to reach my for something important, you can text or call me.

One of the most interesting observations about not having a smart phone was not how my behavior changed, but how others behavior changed. As my friends became painfully aware that I don't have a smart phone, I'm not checking my email 24/7, their texts don't get read-receipts, and they don't see the ellipses as I type text replies... they became less demanding/insistent of my time (except for the urgent things, of course). It was really freeing.

I only got a smartphone again when I lost my Nokia 6 hours before I had to catch a plane for a week long trip -- I pulled an old smartphone out of my junk drawer, threw a SIM card in it real fast, and headed to the airport. I have hardly any apps on it now, and it's great.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp and its substitutes (iMessage, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, SMS) are where plans for richer interactions get made. If you don’t have any of these in common with a prospective social group, someone has to be highly motivated to relay plans to your landline.

Signal/SMS is not the same beast as WhatsApp in terms of surveillance, nudging and all of those things falling into "forced addiction". When is the last time a SMS app wanted to give you recommendation or force you online?

WhatsApp has never done any of those things for me; it is exactly analogous to iMessage, just with a different user population.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#388
post #26
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?

I see what you're getting at, but eh, I'm not entirely convinced. What is a social network? I think there's some gray area there. The Wikipedia article you shared calls out Social Media as being "Web 2.0" (which itself is a nebulous term). One could argue that HN is just a forum, not unlike news groups that predated Web 2.0. Like I said: I see what you're getting at, and maybe HN is social media, but I would still assert that when considered as social media, HN is a far cry from a network like Facebook in terms of platform-functionality/feature-set/behavior/agenda.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think these cloud companies could get away with the abuses that they do if users did have these key freedoms? The software doesn't run on the user's computer. You don't run Facebook - Facebook does, on their computers. The option rests with the users not to engage with their software. Being exploited by a corporation is not a universal right.

You're refusing to engage with the point I'm making (as is your right). But just to summarize: - "Nobody could have foreseen people getting sick when we fed them these poisoned cakes! Oh if only I hadn't made these millions of dollars making people sick!" - "Actually, many people over decades have argued that people should be able to see and modify the recipes that go into their food." - "No, that's completely differ…

You fail to see the simple point Facebook's software runs on Facebook's computers. The four freedoms are not touched by that. People voluntarily use the services they provide.

Besides that, the four freedoms include the freedom to use the software (Facebook's proprietary software, after all, runs on top of free software) for anything the user seems fit, including serving poisoned cakes and make billions of dollars out of that.

I am not engaging with your argument because it doesn't make sense. Facebook (and Google, and Twitter, and Hacker News) are services provided to us. We don't have a natural right to inspect the source of their software because the license it's under doesn't give us that right. Would it be better if we could? That's unclear, since a lot of the behavior is tied to the data that is collected and we can't inspect more than the data we have the right to see (our own).

Re: The Social Dilemma

#390
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the more accurate answer is Engagement. we made it maximize paperclips, it maximized paperclips. sadly the most engaging is the most extreme.

I agree with that. I think the question that's left unanswered is "why can't we make educational/scientific/historic content that drives up engagement?"

i mean, we kind of can. 3blue1brown is amazing and popular. Dan Carlin and Hardcore History.

its just that the 7 sins always win hands down. even for someone who's aware of their corrupting influence.

Post reply on HN