What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#121

Post by edmundsauto » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #92

dr_dshiv wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PNAS paper showed very small effect sizes, to be clear. But, yes.

Yes, that's true. At the same time the argument of "The Social Dilemma" is that at Facebook scale you just need a very small effect to influence the crowd in a way that matters. Paraphrasing the documentary (from memory): tuning human behaviours 1% in the direction you want, worldwide, is what Facebook sells and what their customers pay for.

Isn't that the goal of just about all human behavior, to influence other humans behavior? Is the issue with Facebook that they are too effective at it, or is it that most marketing & advertising behavior is unethical?

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#122

Post by Meph504 » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

I think the problem is, that the following statement may be true when you consider all post from all across the world.

"The overwhelming majority of content that people see on Facebook is not polarizing or even political—it’s everyday content from people’s friends and family. "

But in my case, and many of the people I know, you can't not even open facebook without seeing some highly charged political bullshit. I've largely abandoned the platform, as it seems all it is, is an echo chamber of people I know of all political leanings posting shit that strongly, and often inaccurately supports their political viewpoint.

Its no longer a platform of people causally sharing their personal lives, its seeming an endless stream of worthless shares and repost.

I really want to see a social network that limits the ability to repost and "share" content like this, maybe go so far as to even do copy and paste content checks to make sure its not just shitpost copy pasta.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#123

Post by dgellow » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #121

dgellow wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's true. At the same time the argument of "The Social Dilemma" is that at Facebook scale you just need a very small effect to influence the crowd in a way that matters. Paraphrasing the documentary (from memory): tuning human behaviours 1% in the direction you want, worldwide, is what Facebook sells and what their customers pay for.

Isn't that the goal of just about all human behavior, to influence other humans behavior? Is the issue with Facebook that they are too effective at it, or is it that most marketing & advertising behavior is unethical?

I don’t understand this hyper relativism.

I personally don’t see my goal, the goal of projects I work on, the goal of companies I work for, or anything else I contribute to, to be about manipulating people behaviors without their knowledge and/or consent.

Facebook has been doing completely unethical experiments since forever (are you aware of their role in Rohingya’s genocide in Myanmar?). They have been open about a lot of them, bragging how good they are at manipulating crowds.

And yes, they are crazy effective. And they have the scale. They have unethical behaviors, that are effective, applied at humanity scale.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#124

Post by edmundsauto » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #123

edmundsauto wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the goal of just about all human behavior, to influence other humans behavior? Is the issue with Facebook that they are too effective at it, or is it that most marketing & advertising behavior is unethical?

I don’t understand this hyper relativism. I personally don’t see my goal, the goal of projects I work on, the goal of companies I work for, or anything else I contribute to, to be about manipulating people behaviors without their knowledge and/or consent. Facebook has been doing completely unethical experiments since forever (are you aware of their role in Rohingya’s genocide in Myanmar?). They have been open about a…

My understanding of the Myanmar incident is that FB didn't swiftly block material used to inflame already existing ethnic tensions? From what I know, the fault there is they allowed communication in language that their AI and human reviewers couldn't understand.

Was there more to it than that?

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#125

Post by p1anecrazy » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

robmsmt wrote: post #97

grandmczeb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example is interesting because in retrospect Super Size Me was alarmist and unfair. Morgan Spurlock mislead viewers to believe that his health conditions were caused by McDonalds when they were in fact caused by alcoholism. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-ala...

McPaywall

https://archive.is/1WeM8

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#126

Post by searchableguy » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #117

searchableguy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That would be repressive and quickly invite censorship from influential people and state. Better solution: Limit freemium model on anti-competitive basis for software services. If facebook and instagram stops being free, I would think a huge portion of consumer base will quickly reconsider the value it provides them and alternative companies will have more chance to enter in the market when there is more leveling…

Are Facebook or Instagram even freemium? I think of them as being ad-supported in primary business model.

It will include free too. In general, I think they should add some barrier to entry and force platforms to provide an ad free way to consume media.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#127

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

> people in it want to do better

Profiting by deluding yourself is just lying and deflecting your guilt. Either give back the money you made from your "accidental" misbehavior, or stop pretending it's accidental.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#128

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #64

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Your example is interesting because in retrospect Super Size Me was alarmist and unfair. Morgan Spurlock mislead viewers to believe that his health conditions were caused by McDonalds when they were in fact caused by alcoholism. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-ala...

Super Size Me was a turning point where the power of dishonest propaganda as "documentary" became a major force in culture.

Super Size Me while dishonest about how bad McD is in just one month, was shooting fish in a barrel.

Waiting for Superman, a charter school infomercial featuring discredited superintendent Michelle Rhee, showed the danger of the form.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#129

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #86

ALittleLight wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty significant difference between "Facebook has done some research on changing moods" and "Facebook's product is changing your behavior." It's overly dramatic in the way that I could say "Axe weilding man splits homeowners door uninvited" and "Fireman had to break down a door" and both are technically true, but only one is apt. Facebook's product is influencing my behavior, technically, maybe, but it's a clumsy d…

I don't see what else you want. In 2014 it was revealed that Facebook did run experiments to see how much of an impact they can have on people's sentiments. Just check the study, it's public: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full . The researchers found out that Facebook's news does influence sentiments in a contagious manner. Which implies it does result in behaviors change on the platform, otherwise they do…

It's not that I "want" anything else. It's that Facebook's product is ads, even if they also ran experiments to change sentiment. If I want to make a million people sad, I can't buy that from Facebook (directly). Conversely, if I want to show a million people an ad for my widget, I can absolutely directly buy that from Facebook.