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

121–130 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#121

Post by tboyd47 »

ttul wrote: post #53
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…

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.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#122

Post by the_af »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #117
rapind wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfo…

I agree with much of your post, except this:

> 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.

Why do you think it's the poor who buy into these theories? I live in a relatively well to do neighborhood (not in the US) and I've seen plenty of anti-5G banners hanging from balconies, there are plenty of anti vaxxers, plenty of people who think COVID19 is a hoax, and I know some people tangentially related to flat earthers (via some new age beliefs). These are all educated people.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#123

Post by gtsop »

swyx wrote: post #103
elliotec wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money.

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 think money is more accurate really since noone cares about engagement for the sake of engegement, but rather for the money engagement generates.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#124

Post by kenjackson »

jhardy54 wrote: post #113
tqi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 res…

> When I go to the doctor I understand the scope and goals of my healthcare provider.

Are you sure about that? The fact that I have to sometimes argue for a test, and their counter argument isn't "the test isn't useful or even worse", but rather "the test is expensive" makes me wonder what their goal is. I'm paying for the test (or my insurance is), aren't I? It seems they're trying to optimize for something, but I'm not sure if its my health.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#125

Post by tempsy »

I find TikTok is the most insidious of all the social media apps out there. If Instagram is like candy, TikTok is like crack.

Worst part is the primary demographic is younger kids/teens.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#126

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

the_af wrote: post #122
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfo…

I agree with much of your post, except this: > 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. Why do you think it's the poor who buy into these theories? I live in a relatively well to do neighborhood (not in the US) and I've seen plenty of anti-5G banners hanging from balconies, there are plenty of…

> Why do you think it's the poor who buy into these theories?

It is not solely the poor and uneducated who buy into these theories. However, for several extreme movements in recent years, sociologists have noted that they mainly tend to attract people who are socially marginalized in some way. While the educated and even some elected politicians can become visible proponents of the given conspiracy theory, they are arising on top of a mass of less privileged supporters.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#127

Post by joshocar »

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…

When we watch ads it's pretty clear that the advertiser is trying to manipulate us. With social media it's different. They are manipulating us to keep us engaged so thay we see more ads. With TV, the network is trying to create a great show that engages people so that they can get more advertising money. I get that, most people get that, it's a win win. We get entertaining shows and they get more eyeballs for afs. With social media, they are doing it in a different way. They use algorithms that create silos of information meant to keep us scrolling. This leads to all kinds of negative effects on society. I would argue that cable news and social media are more alike than different in this respect.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#128

Post by vasilipupkin »

npunt wrote: post #94
vasilipupkin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the hypothesis that somehow social media is generating more misinformation than before is an exercise in ignoring all human history before 2004 ish. People were always misinformed, how do you explain the whole 20th century otherwise.

The dose makes the poison. Almost everything in life is about 'how much' not 'is or isn't'. The vectors we have to spread misinformation nowadays are far more powerful and readily available than ever before. What was once a (literal) walk from one village to the next is now an express line straight into the brains of thousands to millions. It's easier to destroy truth and reality than it ever has been.

Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that it’s easier than ever before ? Communists, Nazis had absolutely no trouble destroying truth. History is full of this.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#129

Post by clairity »

gkoberger wrote: post #35
clairity wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course everything looks rosy with rose-colored glasses on, but facebook not only encouraged those glasses, but made you believe the glasses didn't even exist. same with google. it only took a little perspective shift and foresight to realize the future dangers under a relentless profit motive. the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

The first time you loaded up TheFacebook in high school and saw your friend set his status to "Greg is making dinner!", you thought "ah yes, someday this will topple governments due to disinformation campaigns"? Are you sure you aren't conflating "it's obvious" with hindsight bias?

> "Are you sure you aren't conflating "it's obvious" with hindsight bias?"

no, i avoided facebook at the start because it was obvious what it was going to be. with google, it was 2005 or so (about a year after the gmail launch) that i started weaning myself off of google.

that folks wore blinders willingly doesn't mean it wasn't easy to connect the dots.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#130

Post by cm2012 »

Documentaries are the worst way to put forth a legitimate argument (in this case, the argument is that social media is bad). The Social Dilemma, like other docs meant to persuade, is shallow and one sided. Entertainment in the guise of information.
Post reply on HN