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

The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#31

Post by zrn900 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #5
siliconsorcerer wrote: post #3

“The history of the tech industry and culture is full of this tension between the internet as an engineering plaything and as a surveillance commodity.” Great article, wish it talked about how we might address the issue.

I think the hints are in there, and I have my opinion. 1) Chinese Tiktok scaring the US government: Sure OUR corps can mentally rape our citizenry, but someone else? Nononononononono. This may provoke the first real debate on pernicious ubiquitous algorithmic manipulation. 2) Are we really out of "think of the children" political movements? With the polarity of Democratic and Republican parties changing, we may be ri…

> 1) Chinese Tiktok scaring the US government: Sure OUR corps can mentally rape our citizenry, but someone else? Nononononononono. This may provoke the first real debate on pernicious ubiquitous algorithmic manipulation.

It wont: It will be 'okay' for the US govt. and corps to do it, but it wont be 'okay' for others to do even a fraction of it. This kind of double standard and exceptionalism has been the lynchpin of the public discourse in the US throughout history. The people treat international things as if they were sports matches: They think that they are 'on a side', which is "their country's side", and they create group cohesion by uniting against the purported external enemy regardless of what happens at home. The problems at home are 'okay' to ignore until the external enemy is 'dealt with' because the country is 'more democratic'.

But the external enemies never stop coming up as they are manufactured by the establishment itself, based on real threats or, if none exist, made-up threats (at one point in mid to late 2000s they even went to the extent of talking about an extraterrestrial threat, which nobody bought so they had to drop it), and the fake democracy at home never allows the public to change anything. So things stay as they are at home, with the US govt. raping its citizens directly or by outsourcing it to private corporations and everyone just gets on with their lives in this horrible pandemonium - but at least feeling good about themselves because they live in 'the best country in the world', 'most advanced democracy', 'the shining beacon of freedom and prosperity'.

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#33

Post by barber_the_dope »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #19

I disagree with most of the examples. When newspapers are struggling, for example - it is just that, a struggle. It is not "socio-technical debt". Newspapers in 1830 sold maybe 148 million copies annually, 0.4 million per day. Comparing that to the Census number of 12,860,702, we see that only 3% of people read the newspaper. In contrast daily newspaper readership today (print+digital) is 20.9 million, compared to 33…

[flagged]

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#34

Post by barber_the_dope »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #22
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1830, I believe most papers were weekly. So your percentage is missing a multiplier that could be fairly substantial. And by 1850 the number of newspapers (still mostly weeklies) nearly tripled with an annual circulation of 500 million.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/01/circulati... says it is at around the 1940's level in absolute terms. If you do per capita it works out to 30% for 1940 vs. 12% in 2015. I think it's safe to assume that per-capita or not, the circulation curve is ∩-shaped. But naturally, the historical timeframe that today's level of news readership is most comparable to is a matter of debate and speculation - all t…

[flagged]

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#35

Post by barber_the_dope »

siliconsorcerer wrote: post #3

“The history of the tech industry and culture is full of this tension between the internet as an engineering plaything and as a surveillance commodity.” Great article, wish it talked about how we might address the issue.

[flagged]

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#36

Post by dasil003 »

corimaith wrote: post #21
pessimizer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Gonna have to go against the grain here. That younger half of the youth you are referring to here are also the same people the article is referring to that get all their news from social media, aka mainly from Instagram and TikTok and distrust MSM. And I think it would be correct to say that those social media sites did more to shape their views than reflect it, considerng how statistically speaking the majority of p…

There’s just not enough time to understand the huge range of societal and political issues to a depth that can inform a well-reasoned and holistically defensible position. Those who try inevitably find less reach than those who specialize in distribution of their ideas (whether social media, talking heads on TV, or even opinion writers). Pervasive anti-intellectualism makes it even harder to really grapple with the broad and accelerating range of complex systemic issues that our current civilization has bestowed upon us. I’m really interested in what kind of social changes could help counteract some of this and allow us to harness the good intent of our best and brightest.

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#37

Post by spacebacon »

The following SignSystem analysis may help understand the intricacies of influence in such systems we live amongst.

Overview: Biological Sign Systems: 5.56% Genetic Sign Systems: 1.00% Cellular Sign Systems: 0.00% Ecological Sign Systems: 0.00% Evolutionary Sign Systems: 0.00% Human Sign Systems: 66.67% Linguistic Sign Systems: 0.00% Nonverbal Sign Systems: 0.00% Cultural Sign Systems: 2.00% Technological Sign Systems: 0.00% Animal Sign Systems: 0.00% Vocalizations: 0.00% Chemical Communication: 0.00% Visual Signals: 0.00% Tactile Signals: 0.00% Artificial Sign Systems: 23.15% Formal Languages: 0.00% Road Signs: 0.00% Maritime Signals: 0.00% Aviation Signals: 0.00% Semiotic Theories: 4.63% Structural Semiotics: 0.00% Peircean Semiotics: 0.00% Saussurean Semiotics: 0.00% Biosemiotics: 0.00% Cognitive Semiotics: 0.00% Cultural Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotic Anthropology: 0.00% Comics Semiotics: 0.00% Computational Semiotics: 0.00% Cultural and Literary Semiotics: 0.00% Cybersemiotics: 0.00% Design Semiotics: 0.00% Ethnosemiotics: 0.00% Film Semiotics: 0.00% Finite Semiotics: 0.00% Gregorian Chant Semiology: 0.00% Hylosemiotics: 0.00% Law and Semiotics: 0.00% Marketing Semiotics: 0.00% Music Semiotics: 0.00% Organizational Semiotics: 0.00% Pictorial Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Music Videos: 0.00% Social Semiotics: 0.00% Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: 0.00% Theatre Semiotics: 0.00% Urban Semiotics: 0.00% Visual Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Photography: 0.00% Artificial Intelligence Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Mathematics: 0.00%

Detailed Descriptions:

Biological Sign Systems: 5.56% Genetic Sign Systems: The concept of "Genetic Sign Systems" from "Biological Sign Systems" can be related to this article in a variety of ways.

Firstly, Genetic Sign Systems refer to the information passed through genes in a biological system. This information is encoded and decoded through various biological processes, and this system of communication is vital for the survival and development of the organism. Similarly, the article discusses the information systems that exist within our modern digital society, and how these systems are manipulated and exploited by large tech companies for profit.

Secondly, just as genetic sign systems are critical for the survival of a species, the information systems discussed in the article are integral to the functioning of modern societies. However, just as genetic information can be manipulated (through genetic engineering, for instance), our digital information systems are being manipulated by tech companies, with profound impact on our societies and cultures.

Lastly, the concept of evolution in biological systems can also be related to this article. In biological systems, genetic sign systems evolve over time through natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest. Similarly, our digital information systems are constantly evolving, driven by technological advancements and changes in societal norms. However, this evolution is often controlled and directed by powerful tech companies, leading to a variety of socio-cultural and ethical issues.

In conclusion, the concept of Genetic Sign Systems from Biological Sign Systems offers a useful lens through which to examine and understand the issues discussed in this article.

Human Sign Systems: 66.67% Cultural Sign Systems: The concept of 'Cultural Sign Systems' within 'Human Sign Systems' relates to the given blog post in numerous ways. Cultural sign systems refer to the ways in which societies create and interpret symbols and meanings within their shared cultural contexts. They are the sets of signs and symbols (including language, art, behaviors, rituals, norms, etc.) that a particular cultural group uses to create meaning and communicate with each other.

In the blog post, the writer discusses the hacking of culture by tech companies for data collection and the creation of socio-technical debt. This essentially represents a manipulation of cultural sign systems. The platforms these companies have created, such as Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, have become cultural in nature. They dictate the circulation of customs, symbols, stories, values, and norms - all elements of a cultural sign system - that bind people together in shared identity.

The post also touches on how culture is now increasingly mediated through algorithms. These algorithms, which are determining what content a user would find most engaging, are in essence controlling the cultural signs and symbols that are being circulated and consumed. This is leading to a fragmentation of shared cultural identity, as instead of binding people through shared narratives (a key aspect of a cultural sign system), digital platforms are creating self-reinforcing filter bubbles.

Moreover, the text discusses how tech companies have effectively 'hacked' cultural sign systems to gather data. By rerouting the way information and value circulate, they are exploiting these sign systems for

Artificial Sign Systems: 23.15%

Semiotic Theories: 4.63%

Disclaimer: this is not an authoritative analysis. It’s generated using an experimental script (see former submission).

Re: The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

#38

Post by SnorkelTan »

siliconsorcerer wrote: post #3

“The history of the tech industry and culture is full of this tension between the internet as an engineering plaything and as a surveillance commodity.” Great article, wish it talked about how we might address the issue.

I think a prerequisite is Micropayments being ubiquitously available by using your existing preferred payment instrument. Content business models can’t really develop until this happens since the ad-supported business model has lowered the price consumers are willing to pay for it.

Although the unit price of content has decreased so much, I think the total value of content created has gone up significantly. It’s just that the new price people are willing to pay for is below the price floor companies can charge people using existing solutions such as debit/credit cards. With those solutions you can’t profitable go below a dollar.

The unavailability of the infrastructure prevents entrepreneurs from developing the business and related revenue models.

It’s less of a tech industry problem and more of a banking/payments/finance industry problem.

Post reply on HN