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

251–260 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#251

Post by b_ocu »

ImaCake wrote: post #42
elorant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I no longer getting into stupid Facebook arguments That's the one thing I absolutely loathe about Facebook. There's no constructive dialogue going on. Everyone is so full of themselves that any kind of argument derails pretty fast. And then there is the fact that the platform doesn't provide the structure for long conversations. After a couple of replies all text has the same indentation so it's hard to see who's res…

Sometimes I have commented on facebook forgetting it was not HN or another niche community. If you start talking about how your country's weather bureau monitors itself for forecast accuracy then you will almost certainly be met with silence if you try to do that on facebook.

You may need smarter friends, just saying. Also, facebook does have niche groups for such topics.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#252

Post by readicculus »

surround wrote: post #212
jwilber wrote: post #158

I really like this documentary/film, but if I’m being honest, it does leave a taste of typical SV virtue signaling in my mouth. The website explicitly states that their site allows cookies "set through our site by our advertising partners and may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant ads on other sites." Since visiting I received two ads for “Moment” in instagram, and one for Asana on You…

Not to mention the film is funded and owned by Netflix itself.

yea but the difference is you pay for a netflix subscription. Their main purpose is to keep you paying for a subscription, social media's purpose is to keep you engaged so they can advertise to you.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#253

Post by ccortes »

npunt wrote: post #40
gkoberger wrote: post #7

A lot of people are going to say this movie is filled with people who made their millions and are now on an apology tour. Their bank accounts are still large, and their creations are still at large. I agree. But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it. I've had so many non-tech people in my life be blown away by this movie. Nothing in it was new to me or anyone here, but most people don't hear…

> 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…

They are the best at this point because they were the ones that created it so the impact of their words is way bigger.

They might not be the best to talk about solutions tho, but I think the purpose of the movie is to make the problem known.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#254

Post by b_ocu »

rexpop wrote: post #29
auganov wrote: post #23

Can't help but see the anti social backlash as another reincarnation of luddism. The tech is what it is. Hating the biggest companies behind it won't change it. You not using it won't change the world either. Just like refusing to board a train wouldn't stop the changes its invention has brought about. The world is forever changed and looking at GDPs, it wasn't for the worse. Nothing short of a regressive global regu…

I don't think you understand the Luddites, to be frank. Theirs was a reasonable reaction to the evaporation of control, individual agency (as skilled workers) and political sovereignty of the laborer. They saw their livelihoods evaporating, their financial security being siphoned away. They worked their asses off for bosses who then built their automated replacements. It was a callous betrayal, and their response was…

>They saw their livelihoods evaporating, their financial security being siphoned away. They worked their asses off for bosses who then built their automated replacements. It was a callous betrayal, and their response was to destroy the technology which enabled that betrayal.

Just like old media.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#255

Post by jdc »

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…

I was with you until the last sentence.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#256

Post by buovjaga »

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.

Seems to be in line with the history of PR and advertising presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

Re: The Social Dilemma

#257

Post by ldubost »

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…

> > "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.

I believe it was "the product is the 'ability' to change your behavior"

So the difference here is that not only the sell it but it actually works because it can adapt to the people in realtime. This is probable what is scary..

Standard advertisement is already manipulation but it's more easy to know when it is advertisement (though it's arguable that there are also tricks to get around this for TV).

In my view it is indeed the advertisement industry going too far and being allowed anything. Social Media just build a product for its client and none of them have any doubt and limits when it comes to choosing between profits and ethics.

Advertisement is ok when it is honest and not manipulative.

In addition the product is sold for politics which is even more scary.

There are regulation in many countries about what's allowed or not in advertisement. In some cases it's not allowed to blatantly lie. Or it is not allowed to hide advertisement as content, etc...

It is possible to forbid micro-targetting and manipulative AI algorithms or other methods. Users & Regulators need to understand what is being done, and how the effects are harmful to society.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#258

Post by crearo »

What really resonated with me is one of the speakers talking about taxing companies on collecting users' data. They first establish that the sole driving factor for these companies is making more money than the previous quarter. Now, if companies had to pay financially for all the data they store, they wouldn't have as strong an incentive to collect every possible data point that they can.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#259

Post by inglor_cz »

amurthy1 wrote: post #157
soneca wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the extra step of social media is that they are not satisfied by changing your behavior from not buying a product to buying a product. They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more and be subject to more advertising on the future. So they make you more fanatic or more extremist or more polarized, because it will lead you…

> They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more How is this different than any other kind of media like TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.? All of them are trying to make their product engaging so that you consume more of their media and more of their ads. Just because those services also charge a subscription fee, doesn't change the…

The word "just" in your last sentence does not paint the full picture of the situation.

Imagine two villages. In one of them, it is customary to drink a glass of wine with dinner. On holidays, two.

The other village has a habit of drinking themselves stupid every single evening with gin.

Now: this is really only a difference in quantity. Both are consuming alcohol for pleasure. But the first village will probably be OK; there are tons of such villages in France, Spain and Greece, where people live to be 90.

The second village has a huge, deadly problem.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#260

Post by ldubost »

amurthy1 wrote: post #157
soneca wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the extra step of social media is that they are not satisfied by changing your behavior from not buying a product to buying a product. They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more and be subject to more advertising on the future. So they make you more fanatic or more extremist or more polarized, because it will lead you…

> They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more How is this different than any other kind of media like TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.? All of them are trying to make their product engaging so that you consume more of their media and more of their ads. Just because those services also charge a subscription fee, doesn't change the…

> So the dynamics have always existed in previous platforms, it's just been ratcheted up to a higher level with social media.

I remember a friend saying the "optimization is killing us". The whole economy is getting better at what it does and as it happens there are many side effects.

Those with no ethics will manage to harvest the social media technology for their profit and not for society. It applies also to taxes where companies are getting master at dodging them. Liers are getting masters at lying and we have to fight to rebuke the lies (the documentary has a quote about how much more effort is required to fight disinformation than to create it)

He also argues that optimization is poison to yourself ! But that's off subject.

Post reply on HN