Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#201

Post by lopmotr »

mrguyorama wrote: post #153
cryptonector wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing wrong (and, really, lots good) with Soros' currency market trades of the 90s and elsewhen. The problem with Soros (if you're not on the Left) is that he's become the principal funding source for a number of hard-left movements. If you are on the Left, then this is good, while if you're not then this is bad. I won't tell you how you should feel about Soros though -- you figure that out for…

I personally view small groups of people having such large amounts of power to be undemocratic, whether they be the Koch brothers, or Soros. I may support the same causes he funds and supports, but I'd like it if people like him funding government choices was not possible

They're not directly funding government programs or departments are they? They're surely just giving money to politicians who spend it on advertising because - this is the real problem - Americans insist on only ever voting for candidates who spend enormous amounts of money advertising themselves. That's ultimately your fault if you refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't receive funding.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#202

Post by bpchaps »

jnordwick wrote: post #150
bpchaps wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video game addiction is recognized in DSM-V.

No its not. Internet gaming disorder is not part of the dsm-v, only that it should be studied further. > Internet Gaming Disorder is a “Condition for Further Study” in the DSM-5 (APA 2013). This means that it is not an "official" disorder in the DSM, but one on which the American Psychiatric Association request additional research. Upon further research, the APA may or may not decide to make the disorder "official" i…

Edit: I was wrong - you're right.

Have a look at the actual DSM-V section on it (starts at p795): http://displus.sk/DSM/subory/dsm5.pdf

As for how proposed criteria sets are actually recognized:

Proposed Criteria sets are presented for conditions on which future research is encouraged. The specific items, thresholds, and durations contained in these research criteria sets were set by expert consensus—informed by literature review, data reanalysis, and field trial results, where available—and are intended to provide a common language for researchers and clinicians who are interested in studying these disorders. It is hoped that such research will allow the field to better understand these conditions and will inform decisions about possible placement in forthcoming editions of DSM. The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups subjected each of these proposed criteria sets to a careful empirical review and invited wide commentary from the field as well as from the general public. The Task Force determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant inclusion of these proposals as official mental disorder diagnoses in Section II. These proposed criteria sets are not intended fo r clinical use; only the criteria sets and disorders in Section II of D S M -5 are officially recognized and can be used for clinical purposes.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#203

Post by tootie »

reaperducer wrote: post #173
quadrangle wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simplist…

Half of the science-heave PBS shows that are such a favorite of the SV crowd wouldn't be possible without Koch donations. So even if the Kochs really do end up killing all of the polar bears, it'll be well documented on TV.

The Kochs also exert editorial control over PBS content when they don't like what's reported.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#204

Post by wfo »

cryptonector wrote: post #136
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…

There is absolutely nothing wrong (and, really, lots good) with Soros' currency market trades of the 90s and elsewhen. The problem with Soros (if you're not on the Left) is that he's become the principal funding source for a number of hard-left movements. If you are on the Left, then this is good, while if you're not then this is bad. I won't tell you how you should feel about Soros though -- you figure that out for…

Small correction: Soros primarily supports pretty mainstream centrist liberal organizations. Stuff like the ALCU, pro-choice organizations, immigrant rights groups, mainstream minority advocate groups, public health and environmental advocacy groups. It is quite a stretch to call it "hard-left" unless your personal Overton window is so far extreme right that you think Jeb Bush is a revolutionary communist.

He definitely funds causes right wingers and Republicans oppose, but let's get the taxonomy correct here.

He is solidly liberal, not left. Think NAACP, not black lives matter. Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. The Democratic National Committee, not the Democratic Socialists of America.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#205

Post by wfo »

cryptonector wrote: post #156
mrguyorama wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally view small groups of people having such large amounts of power to be undemocratic, whether they be the Koch brothers, or Soros. I may support the same causes he funds and supports, but I'd like it if people like him funding government choices was not possible

Why? Via freedom of association we all can (and do!) pool our money very well, and we have more money altogether than the Soroses and Koches of the world.

"It's okay if my vote counts for 100 and everyone else counts for 1, since 300 people are voting".

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#206

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

freehunter wrote: post #197
leggomylibro wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a chemical addiction? I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when you see that 14 people liked your post? Okay, so maybe Facebook doesn't change the way that your brain's receptors work with long-term use, but don't deny that people keep going back for that hit of inclusion.

Is having a conversation a chemical addiction? If I say something that receives a negative response, will I not try to follow it up with something that receives a positive response? After I've received that positive response, will I not try to please my conversation partner more to keep feeling good about myself? Should we then ban conversations? Some people use "it releases dopamine" like that's a bad thing, like ou…

If I give you 5 dollars is that a chemical addiction?

Obviously not, but you believe gambling can be addictive right?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#207

Post by beachy »

oldcynic wrote: post #77
star-trek-fleet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one say bad, they just say these people invoke turmoil and crisis for their own profit. Is it good or bad or neutral, it’s your own judgement.

He hardly invoked turmoil. Joining the ERM invoked turmoil. It was a silly idea and the valuation being wrong wasn't exactly a minority view. We should be criticising and remembering the idiocy of Norman Lamont rather than of George Soros for profiting from that idiocy. Now I don't know enough about the rest of Soros' career to have a view of whether he's good or bad. The infamous ERM short is not a smoking gun here.

Exactly. I was living in the UK at the time and it remains the only time I've ever made any money playing forex.

It was obvious to increasingly.. everyone .. that the Bank was playing chicken with the markets.

Soros was on the winning side.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#208

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#210

Post by AlexandrB »

CandidlyFake wrote: post #167
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…

Has nothing to do with monetizing or social ill. Otherwise, soda, food, gambling, movies, etc wouldn't be allowed to advertise. And we'd ban most newspapers and cable news for being toxic for the masses. The war on social media is simply about who gets control over people's minds. Social media sites like Reddit, Google and even HN gave in to the elite. Facebook is holding out.

> Social media sites like Reddit, Google and even HN gave in to the elite. Facebook is holding out.

You're kidding, right? Facebook sells ad space to "the elite" at bargain basement prices. Never in history has micro-targeted propaganda been this cheap for someone looking to manipulate public opinion.

Post reply on HN