Live data from Hacker News

The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

newyorker.com

31–40 of 142 posts

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#31
post #9

> The problem is the business model based on the manipulation of individual behavior. I don't think this is the right target to blame. The much deeper reason is people ARE stupid, while think they are clever and correct. You, me, all the others included. And at the same time, the education once applied to us, failed. Simply put, it's not a technology problem, it's a sociology problem. Around the year 2002, when I was…

So you agree the business model is manipulative, but that the ones being manipulated should be the "target to blame" for their stupidity?

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#32
post #28
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I read is that random tweets gain extra credibility by being shown on a big screen on a news show. And they’re cherry picked to support whatever topic and angle is being covered. You could go out on the street; but finding and then having someone say something on camera is -very- different to finding and showing a tweet. I feel pretty confident in saying that a lot of people tweet stuff they’d never say live in…

> Hence the argued bad practice of presenting tweets on news shows as well thought through and relevant opinions. Why would they be irrelevant? It is opinion that people think. It migh be wrong, but they still vote on that, choose schools on that, make decisions and judgements about real life people around them etc.

They are irrelevant when they are cited as in any way representative.

"People are clamouring for more of X in Y" and then they show three tweets.

When really maybe nobody cares. Or maybe they care in the other direction entirely.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#33
The problem is the business model based on the manipulation of individual behavior. Social-media platforms know what you’re seeing, and they know how you acted in the immediate aftermath of seeing it, and they can decide what you will see next in order to further determine how you act—a feedback loop that gets progressively tighter until it becomes a binding force on an individual’s free will.

And that's why algorithmic order has won over chronological order in feeds.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#34
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever been to a large meeting when there's a hot political issue? People can be nasty in person too, unless there is very good moderation, and sometimes even then.

Mostly stupid/unsuccessful people. The elite is very good at disagreeing with each other on a polite manner. I work in the public sector, as a manager who is on a board that designs suggestions for our national digitization strategies. I know how to play the game now, but the most eye opening thing to me when I was starting out was how people disagree at those levels of society. If you want to say that you think some…

Note that this sort of thing is explicitly advised in books like How to Win Friends and Influence People, which is 90 years old—-So it is an old game.

> hopefully we’ll kick them out

I’d prefer that they learn. “Kick the bastards out” just leads to a cycle of interns building your product.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#35

" you know that you could leave at any time and you know that you will not." I have no problem. The press needs to take more responsibility for this as they are the primary enablers of Twitter. Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion, and often used as the basis for some kind of rally bad straw-man argument the author wants to make. I think Twitter will wane but it won't go a…

I feel that many regular people have given up the notion of actively tweeting their own content. The friends I follow on Twitter don't tweet very often nowadays, and when they do it's often in response to a tweet made by an account with a large following. I mostly stay on Twitter to keep up to date with news from certain groups and organizations (for example, YC). To me, at least, it doesn't really feel like "Faceboo…

>place where you can read and comment on casual thoughts and updates from your favorite celebs and companies

Sounds like hell

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#36
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hence the argued bad practice of presenting tweets on news shows as well thought through and relevant opinions. Why would they be irrelevant? It is opinion that people think. It migh be wrong, but they still vote on that, choose schools on that, make decisions and judgements about real life people around them etc.

They are irrelevant when they are cited as in any way representative. "People are clamouring for more of X in Y" and then they show three tweets. When really maybe nobody cares. Or maybe they care in the other direction entirely.

How you know they are not representative? If that tweet has considerable response, then those who liked it are represented by it. Most of those who retweeted it are too.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#37
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion What is it about tweets that would mean they're not legitimate expressions of opinion? People write them, and publish them, and it'd be a bit unreasonable to assume they have some motive other that stating their opinion, so I don't really understand why you think tweets are something else .

"What is it about tweets that would mean they're not legitimate expressions of opinion? " It's not about the legitimacy of the tweet or even factualness. When journalists want to create a fake narrative, what they do is say "people are saying this" and then show a few tweets to support them. Even though almost nobody really may be thinking in those term. For example, there's a lot of social justice clamour over thing…

That certainly explains your thinking a bit better. Thanks.

If you're reading things that say "Three people tweeted about this therefore it's fact" then sure, you're reading something that's nonsense. Articles need more than that to demonstrate there's a groundswell of opinion around something. But Twitter is no different to any vox populi source in that regard - in the things I read I don't think tweets are added to articles to prove anything; they're there for color and emotional connection. Without referencing the real world in their work reporters would write very bland and inhuman articles that would be horrible to read for most of their audience.

I think I'd rather read a properly researched article with those tweets than one without them. If the article isn't properly researched then no amount of tweets is going to rescue it.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#38
The most alarming part of the article for me was the reference to climate change and its impending consequences. I

I may say I've been living under quite a rock for I hadn't thought of it as mentioned here in this paragraph:

" The book’s most fascinating and disturbing chapter is about how the Internet, the primary vector of information about climate change, is increasingly a vector of the problem itself. The world’s data centers already have roughly the same carbon footprint as the global aviation industry, even as people continue to speak of “the cloud” as though it were a barely corporeal entity. As temperatures rise, our information technologies will function less efficiently—increased heat and humidity will hamper the flow of wireless transmissions and satellite communications—and a vicious cycle will commence. (Bridle makes a similar point about cryptocurrency, that supposedly revolutionary and transformative technology: if its rate of growth continues, by next year Bitcoin alone will account for the same level of carbon output as the entire United States.) Even more depressing is the contention that climate change could actually wind up making us stupider: he cites research showing that human cognitive ability decreases significantly with higher atmospheric concentration of carbon. “Carbon dioxide clouds the mind: it directly degrades our ability to think clearly, and we are walling it into our places of education and pumping it into the atmosphere,” he writes. “The crisis of global warming is a crisis of the mind, a crisis of thought, a crisis in our ability to think another way to be. Soon, we shall not be able to think at all.”"

I am genuinely in an odd state of distress at this point. While I continue to function normally in society and keep living as though it is something so far away in the future, a special place in a deep corner of my mind still seems to nudge every once in a while when I am alone and drive me to borderline insanity.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#39
post #9

> The problem is the business model based on the manipulation of individual behavior. I don't think this is the right target to blame. The much deeper reason is people ARE stupid, while think they are clever and correct. You, me, all the others included. And at the same time, the education once applied to us, failed. Simply put, it's not a technology problem, it's a sociology problem. Around the year 2002, when I was…

I connected quite a bit earlier, mostly Usenet and BBS’, and when EFnet came along a lot of that. People like to talk about Eternal September and other depredations of communities, but the truth is that while things functioned more smoothly earlier on, it was always a bunch of people and people more or less act like warring groups of primates. If someone had come back from the future and only told us about the extent…

some of the richest, most powerful and brightest people are actively trying to sweep people away for money.

This is a big part of the problem IMO. General loss of moral values. I'm not religious at all, and criticize religions all the time, but one has to admit that when Christianity was the driving force in the western world, there were at least some values that were kind of universally accepted. Yes, there was lots of hypocrisy, and people acted against said values routinely, but at the very least most would feel bad about it or fear for their public image, and try to not be needlessly extreme at breaking them.

Now, Christianity has been replaced by ruthless capitalism, and people don't even have to pretend that they care about anything else than making piles of money. And if a company is criticized for using manipulative or exploitative techniques to make more money, regular people will even jump to defend it. I see it everyday on the Internet (e.g. forums for free games with monetizing techniques that border on inducing gambling addiction). They have accepted making money as the supreme value.

These capitalist morals that place money in the center of everything must die and be replaced by something else, or we are headed for dystopia.

Re: The Deliberate Awfulness of Social Media

#40
post #22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweets are presented all the time in articles as expression of legitimate opinion What is it about tweets that would mean they're not legitimate expressions of opinion? People write them, and publish them, and it'd be a bit unreasonable to assume they have some motive other that stating their opinion, so I don't really understand why you think tweets are something else .

I believe the parent's point is that many of the opinions people tweet are somehow illegitimate. I won't hazard to guess what criteria or authority is supposed to determine legitimacy.

I think that the ultimate legitimacy could stem from the reticence of authors to comment on things that they don't know anything about.

Mother said "if you can't say something nice don't say anything" maybe we need to move to "if you can't say things that are novel and well found then leave it be"?

Post reply on HN