261–270 of 274 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow! And here was me naively thinking that we have for-profit companies to bring profit to their owners/shareholders. Yeah, that is pretty naive thinking. We're talking about society as a whole , but that line stops at the motivations of a particular actor in it. An ideal society allows for the seeking of personal profit, but only so long as the side effects of that profit-seeking are beneficial overall. When it is…
I’m pretty sure capitalism isn’t only interested in overall benefit to everyone in society, nor is it interested only in overall detriment to everyone in society. More simply, there are winners and losers. This is a side effect of a capitalistic system. I’m also pretty sure society isn’t ideal, and that corporate law dictates that corporations act in the best interests of their shareholders and the corporate entity i…
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…
We are still talking about a website , right? A totally optional website, in a browser with a close button? This isn’t a chemical addiction or gambling.
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.
What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the pervasive availability and highly engineered and data driven optimization for engagement that are possible with phones and social media create a novel condition. You couldn’t play Everquest on the bus, in the toilet, in class, and in bed, but it’s now possible to basically never not be on Facebook. Also, Everquest and TV didn’t have anything like the degree of user data and monitoring that we have now. It…
People are certainly talking about excessive social media use whether FB likes it or not. The goal of propaganda is not to make people think a certain way; it's to get people to act a certain way. Entertainment is centered around consumption, not interaction. If I can get people who dislike something to read entertaining articles about how it's bad instead of going out and protesting or canceling accounts, then I've…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downs…
There's a growing body of research suggesting fb is worse due to frequency. It might have a smaller effect than tv or heroin but it happens way more often than either of those.
People behave differently due to new technology, sure, that's a given. Is it catastrophically worse than easy access to extremely potent drugs? The outcomes suggest no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I restated a summary of my original post. Same goalposts. Same location.
I don't find that a consistent representation of your statements: "Is having a conversation a chemical addiction?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343850 "My point is, dopamine is addictive." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344356 This means your argument isn't over whether or not social media (or other dopaminagenic activities) are or aren't addictive. You've conceded that point. Which ryandrake had ex…
Same point. Same goalposts. Same location. Feel free to disagree, but I know what I wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It makes him an intelligent investor. It makes him an amoral investor. We need more rich people with morals, not those who use the letter of the law to destroy things and then claim they're not to blame because they played by the rules. Because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.
Here's the reality. The people that CREATED the situation were the immoral and unethical ones. If he doesn't cash in, someone else does. Or even worse, it grows exponentially until it collapses in on itself. Maybe look at the idiots running those governments and their finance people when you want to pass judgment. Easy money is easy money. He had to have the capital to take advantage anyway.
That doesn't make it right. It just makes him amoral.
"I had to murder this guy, because if I didn't, someone else will!"