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

111–120 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#111

Post by andrepd »

ppod wrote: post #60
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…

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.

Exactly, it's a class thing. People who can't afford to pay for services have less "trouble" with being exploited in return for a free product.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#112

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

Right, except in this case Google and Facebook are not paying the people who create the content (so-called "users")^1, however Google and Facebook are the ones getting paid by the advertisers. The so-called "users" are also paying for the internet access and bandwidth over which the ads are delivered.

In sum, the "users" are the ones paying for the costs of this particular advertising vector (the internet and web).

1. In most cases. There are exceptions where original authors can get a cut of Google/Facebook's take.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#113

Post by jhardy54 »

tqi wrote: post #109
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" Is there an industry anywhere that is not in the business of influencing behavior or actions? Why do you think that doesn't apply to news, education, healthcare, whatever?

There's a big difference when you take informed consent into account.

When I go to the doctor I understand the scope and goals of my healthcare provider. I'm not surprised when my behaviors are changed to enhance my health.

When the average person uses social media to connect with friends they aren't informed on the scope or goals of the social media provider. When I RSVP to a birthday party I only expect that my response will be sent -- I don't expect that I'll have birthday gifts suggested to me or have my relationships tracked by surveillance organizations.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#114

Post by adnzzzzZ »

burkaman wrote: post #84
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…

> What is the "documentary" trying to achieve? Change behavior. But will the filmmakers profit if they succeed? They don't make any money by successfully changing your mind.

You can profit in more ways than just with money. For instance, you can gain status in your sphere by successfully changing people's minds with your documentary, and I would assume that's partly what motivates people working on these projects.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#115

Post by rapind »

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…

It's a bigger problem than Facebook or Twitter. It's the business model. The advertising industry is 90% poison. Regulate it into the ground and protect user data.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#116

Post by jolux »

disown wrote: post #47
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.

> 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…

Well, we typically consider films to have intrinsic value that scam ads for boner pills and clickjacking attacks don't.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#117

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

rapind wrote: post #102
foxfired wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, people were misinformed from the dawn of history. But never before in history has the real information been so available. If you believed that pharaoh was a God, well there was no way to know otherwise. Not only you didn't know how to read, but if you did, all the writing did confirm he was, in fact, a God. Today, information about counter arguments is available for any claim. If it sounds suspicious,…

If the truth sounds suspicious, you can look that up to, and find plenty of counter arguments with pseudo or self proclaimed authorities. Flat earthers don't just read one article and suddenly they believe it. They spend a lot of time going down rabbit holes reading and watching all sorts of stuff. There's good information out there, but there's also a swamp of bullshit pretending not to be that you have to wade thro…

And not only do flat earthers not read reputable sources to soberly reflect on the matter, but often the truth or falsehood of their preferred conspiracy theory is not really the point. A lot of people are getting into Flat Earth, QAnon, or 5G-causes-whatever because those forums offer them a sense of community that satisfies their emotional needs. Perpetuating the conspiracy theory is just the ritual they must perform to keep the group vibe going, but in itself the conspiracy isn’t all that really important (as destructive as its side-effects are for the rest of the world).

I think the challenge for defeating those theories is providing the poor, undereducated and marginalized a more wholesome way to spend their time among other people. That is a hard challenge when community centers and churches are no longer a significant thing in many locations, and now the COVID lockdown means even less real-life socializing.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#118

Post by deckard1 »

gkoberger wrote: post #69
rbanffy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can call it a failure of imagination, but when you have a tool that knows a lot about your political views and your location, we should have predicted that information would be used to hypertarget political propaganda. And all advertising has the goal of swaying some election - which car you buy, where you get your groceries, what clothes you choose. You think you made those choices without external influence when…

That's my point, though – that wasn't true in 2006! Maybe, just maybe, I posted "Gregory is voting for ______" in 2008, but that's not how people used Facebook back then. There was no realtime location collection (no iPhones), no sharing of articles, no commenting on posts, no groups, no minifeed, etc. There wasn't any mechanisms for all the data to be used for targeting. When I started using Facebook, you literally…

> There wasn't any mechanisms for all the data to be used for targeting.

Facebook's original pitch deck from 2004 disagrees with you.

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-first-ever-ad-sale...

Look at the slide "Our Online Marketing Services" and the box labeled "Targeted Advertising"

> This site allows for targeted advertisement on the basis of any of the parameters listed below.

Then, of course, it lists gender, age, dating interests and... Political Views.

I vividly remember 2002-2005, and I even had a website once about disinformation. Fake news was a thing during the Bush administration.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#119

Post by npunt »

mdoms wrote: post #59
npunt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Not sure if she explicitly wrote about likes = teen suicide, but I'm sure danah boyd would have had something to say about it, given her research focus on the intersection of social tech and teens lives.

She was already well respected at that time and known to my team when I worked in Yahoo's online communities division in 2006 and went to her talks.

The relationship between suicide & social status has been well known for decades. It therefore would not have been a leap for someone in the know to conclude that a tool that conferred social status or approval (such as a like button, a list of friends, etc) would therefore have these social implications.

You can read her stuff here: https://www.danah.org/papers/

Re: The Social Dilemma

#120

Post by thelittleone »

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 literally what many parasites do. In the case of GI parasites they make you crave what they want.
Post reply on HN