Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#121

Post by aylmao » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81

vinceguidry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this. Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies. People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, the…

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others. Besides when you say: >The world su…

This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware of, for the sake of constructive debate.

> What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries.

No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love.

Better examples: Valentines day, Christmas day, or the mere idea that you have to celebrate someone's birthday. I have seen movies about the tragedy of a kid not getting a christmas present like it's traumatizing. This is marketing. As a result you have hordes of parents playing into an objectively ridiculous legend that has transformed St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, 2nd century into a Coca-cola developed mascot of consumption.

Anyone who's gotten married can see how ridiculous the "love" and "affection" marketing gets. Facebook isn't as much in this business; it actually is on the business of attention, and there's stuff to be said about that.

> Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children?

I get that Facebook keeps being compared to cigarette companies under the whole addiction narrative, but lets not forget the big reason cigarettes aren't marketed to children; they kill a lot of people, and perhaps most distressing, they kill people who don't smoke them. They are also physically addictive; this is a big issue.

I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#122

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #118

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it different from gambling?

Facebook addiction is not recognized by the pros as a mental disorder and gambling addiction is?

Sure, but there was contestation about adding it to the DSM. Actually in DSM-V it's recommended to pursue further study into internet addiction.

What I'm really asking though is what lines you draw between something like 'social media addiction' and 'gambling addiction'? Or is the only difference in your mind the inclusion in the DSM?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#123

Post by skybrian » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

I think a good habit to pick up would be realizing you're curious about something and reading the Wikipedia page. The one on George Soros is pretty extensive.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#124

Post by neuromantik8086 » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

Slansitartop wrote: post #20

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

> I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros > He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. Those characterizations may have their origins in an element of truth, dating from the early 90s. Paul Krugman described his Soros's actions thusly: > [N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not onl…

Just as a nitpick, it should be spelled "Soroj" instead of "Soroi" since George Soros's surname is in Esperanto, and that's the proper way to form a plural noun.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#125

Post by quadrangle » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #87

spinchange wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to know more about him or his philanthropic work, I suggest checking out what his charitable foundation: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about He's also written a number of books, some a better read than others, but I find all of his ideas interesting, even if his communication of them is at times a little dense. (It's clear he is or wants to be a philosopher at heart) It is striking the way he's d…

> When you press people (like in person, not on the internet) why they think he's the devil incarnate, you usually get some really wild ad hominem not rooted in reality or a realization that they don't really know why they hate him so much other than he's a benefactor of their political opposition and they were told to. Sure, but we could probably say the same of the Koch brothers. They both occupy similar positions…

The Kochs are widely misunderstood. They are typically seen as effectively a free-money-pit for generic Republican views that promote Capitalist exploitation, laying waste to the environment, and destroying any real grassroots movement to bring democratic power to the people.

From my understanding, the reality is more like: The Kochs are typical dogmatic Libertarians who aren't anti-environment but have this simplistic economic model in their heads that insists that regulations are nearly always counterproductive. They don't support just any conservative view. They have good intentions and aren't about pursuing their own selfish power. They want to empower others. It's just that they are misled by their simplistic dogma (which certainly has a lot of actually fine ideas, but it's the holding them as a dogmatic set in the stereotypical Libertarian way that they go wrong). So, their opposition to mass incarceration and to regressive Nationalism… those things all fit their particular dogma that is simply not a plain polar opposite of progressive ideas but is more orthogonal in many ways.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#126

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

aylmao wrote: post #121

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others. Besides when you say: >The world su…

This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware of, for the sake of constructive debate. > What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to…

>No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection.

Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar. But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of affection/sex.

>This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love.

Well yes, that's what commoditization does. It turns something into a marketable commodity. That people bargained over dowries/marriage like they do over other goods is exactly the point.

I think what you and many of us feel is that there is some intrinsic quality to our affection that is degraded when it's turned into a commodity and I'm using that to suggest that there is something similarly degrading about turning our attention into a commodity, to be bought and sold and exploited for profit whenever possible.

I do like the example of Christmas, you could draw a parallel between the message of a Charlie Brown Christmas and the message of a Target Christmas commercial that would prove a similar point.

>I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.

You're right, cigarettes are an overblown comparison. I was just hunting for something which is pushed on children, fortunately gambling isn't usually. (maybe csgo lotteries are something are an exception here which would be a good example)

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#127

Post by InternetUser » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

What are 2 or 3 of the "4channish/the_donaldish" media outlets you are referring to, other than 4chan and The_Donald?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#128

Post by aylmao » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

_m8fo wrote: post #38

jnordwick wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tv is exactly in the same league as Facebook. Video games is pretty close too. Neither one are recognized as addictions.

What? Does TV track what you're doing when you're not watching and change the ads when you return? You're being silly.

It did something worse: it severed everyone the same ads and propaganda. The phrase "Television rules the Nation" didn't just occur to Daft Punk because it sounded cool.

It was a broadcasting-only service with a high cost of entry. You need big money to put your thoughts on TV. As someone from a country where the big media conglomerates and the government are helplessly colluded, social media comes as a very welcome break and counter-force.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#129

Post by aylmao » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #4

I honestly find myself scratching my head every time George Soros speaks. He almost comes across as someone desperate to be taken seriously, to be viewed as a visionary, a thought leader, a prognosticator. But what has he down to justify this? Nothing as far as I can tell. He made a bunch of money as a currency speculator, most famously breaking the British pound. Sure. Good for him. But if we're going to talk about…

Why is this comment getting down voted?

EDIT: And why did I get down voted? Genuinely curious; he didn't say anything inflammatory, polarizing or _wrong_. Replies are not even disagreeing, just "explaining".

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#130

Post by Brockenstein » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

Slansitartop wrote: post #100

dao- wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.

You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.

>We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so.

Naive people do. However, part of the problem is what people believe is moral differs, it's not an absolute. Lots of people project their moralities onto society and the law and are just dumbfounded when they don't match. Is that a problem with society or the individual?