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

311–320 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#311

Post by gfxgirl »

ldubost wrote: post #257
gundmc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 wha…

Well, for movies/tv it's well known they were used to get people to buy wedding rings, cigarettes, and many other things. Not the ads, the actual movie/tv show. When you see some character light up a cigarette with a cool pose IIRC that whole idea was started by the tobacco companies to the point now that most people just seem to assume you show someone smoking to make them appear cool. It's portrayed as cool either because of the way the shot is made the person acts, or because knowing their bad for you clearly this person likes take risks, live dangerously, so they're exciting.

https://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/history

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...

Re: The Social Dilemma

#312

Post by gfxgirl »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #308
shajznnckfke wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just trying to take the ideas in this thread seriously. If we are going to argue that it’s bad to try to influence people’s behavior, we ought to think through what that means when applied to entities other than Facebook. That will help us figure out if we really mean what we are saying. Is it an actual value we hold, or only a rhetorical point when we are taking about a few tech companies?

Intent matters. Intent of 1:1 conversations between people is usually win-win, or at least win-neutral. Advertising beyond the point of informing that a product exists is exploitative; it's intent is very much win-lose. Put another way: if your friend came to you and started manipulating and pressuring you the way ads do, for the reason ads do, they'd very quickly stop being your friend.

I don't think that quiet puts the finger on the distinction.

Apple trying to sell me an iPhone claiming it's more secure and more privacy respecting might be true so if buy one it's a win-win if (a) it is true and (b) I actually wanted those features.

> Advertising beyond the point of informing that a product exists is exploitative

Okay, so, Apple showing silhouettes dancing was exploitative? The should only say "we made a device, it plays music, it's this size, the batteries last this long"?

Was the 1984 ad exploitive? I'm just trying to think of famous ads. Is the Ikea add "Time To Leave Home" ad exploitive?

I guess I don't see them as win-lose.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#313

Post by ricardo81 »

hazz99 wrote: post #305
ricardo81 wrote: post #295

Nothing new in it for the HN crowd I suppose. For me, privacy is the core issue, though "free" is part of the problem. A social network charging a dollar a year wouldn't be great for investors but would essentially pay for itself. (As a Brit, I'd be more inclined to pay that dollar than the BBC license fee at ~170x the expense for all the "soft power" it has.). With the monetary dial removed, filter bubbles are still…

I don't remember where I saw this, but I remember reading something about each user costing Facebook about $8 a year due to all the complex DB querying they do. That'd probably shrink if they didn't need targeted advertising, but a lot of the complex friend graphs might result in some hefty computation at scale.

Interesting. Searched around and found [0] (and others with same info) but I suppose there'd be more information if digging deeper. They mention previous years costing $0.40 and $0.60 per month, not sure if the number includes capital investment rather than YoY costs of hardware/electricity etc. Point taken though.

[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/05/16/186064/the-bigge...

Re: The Social Dilemma

#315

Post by tilolebo »

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 problem isn't only the dynamics, but the regulation that comes with the technology.

In many countries, TV is highly regulated: can't advertise for alcohol or cigarettes, political speech time is measured to make sure each "camp" get the same exposure, etc.

There's no such thing on social media.

Same goes for Uber, Airbnb & co, by the way, although this is easier to regulate.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#316

Post by raxxorrax »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #286
hervature wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be the first to tell you that humans are social beings that need social contact. I'll also be the first to tell you that social media is not necessary for that. I assume you're being hyperbolic with Whatsapp being vital for life, but do you honestly not know how humans got their fill of social interaction 12 years ago? And no, the answer isn't Facebook.

It's hyperbole, but it still indicates a hidden very real and well known social dynamic: humans have an intrinsic drive to belong to a tribe. This is a very real behavioral mechanism which was essential to human survival as early as the paleolithicum and the emergence of the first hominid species. Not belonging to a tribe meant being exposed to hardships that you might not survive. Feeling lonely is part of that mech…

There are some mechanisms like that but I think this explanation, as well as that from the video, is layman psychology at best. Yes, there are factors or mechanisms that drive your desire for belonging, but it is a pretty unconvincing observation. It doesn't have to be tribalism to prefer being around people you trust.

But if so, being enlightened about the failures and limits of human psychology certainly would constitute a tribe of its own, no? Because it seems to be en vogue to have simple explanations. FOMO is more connected to the fear of the unknown and fear of loss in my opinion. A "tribe" would shield you of course, but it is mostly a sign of other needs not being met. Advertisers use it to their advantage for decades. Some appeal to their audiences to be the source of other peoples FOMOs. "think different" instead of "stay connected".

There are less suicides than in the 90s. That there is a suicide epidemic is a media scare. The main factor reducing the numbers seem to be economic perspectives, not some facebook group where taste was made illegal.

A much worse effect is that social media seems to push questionable characters in focus. Naive viewers and exploitative "influencers" can do quite some damage.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#317

Post by Kosirich »

Shinchy wrote: post #300
Kosirich wrote: post #282

Does anyone see a tipping point or an event that could in scale drive people from social media of Facebook, Twitter. By that I don't mean to a competitor.(perhaps a naive question) Also, is there a common denominator among people here who have stopped using social media? I mean, other than self awareness, retrospective ect. which people here generally have more than the average population. What was the "I need to red…

I could possibly see the upcoming US Election causing a bit of an exodus from Social Media platforms as more people become drained by the fatiguing constant flow of extreme views from both sides (mind, I thought that last time). I will say the big thing for me that made me put my mobile device down (of which I now barely use) was the sheer quantity of hours a day I was wasting away looking at it - this was being ampl…

Wow, thank you! You nail down the issue with a very personal and relatable story. I think only difference between you and I is that I never had a need to go into arguments over posts/tweets I considered wrong (I was a mazohist that just read them). What 'got to me' was not the sheer untruthfulness of things shared on twitter nor insults that flow there and back, but the behavior of people that I think could and should know better. Another lightbulb moment was the realization that any nuanced conversation after 5 to 10 comments goes into the extremes (usually two) that it can boiled down to. There are no different shades of gray, just black or white. In case of covid19, this changed to 3 comments. Another lightbulb moment was the so called "twitter/facebook isn't real life" where I realized that in my surroundings I have a hard time finding a single person that has ever participated in twitter ststorms or facebook comment fights.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#318

Post by kuu »

creato wrote: post #290
gherkinnn wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either Apple, Microsoft, nor Amazon were mentioned. All of which collect data. The difference being neither run a social network. Well, LinkedIn is one, I suppose.

Does Google run a social network? There was plus, but that's gone. Youtube is kind of a social network I guess? But I don't know anyone that uses it as anything other than a one way means of communication.

For Google they talk about how the same search can give you different results depending on the user, so for instance they mention search about "climate change" it can return you first neagtionism or confirmation news, based on what Google estimates that will make you to engage more, not by which one is the most relevant / accurate / true

Re: The Social Dilemma

#320

Post by dalbasal »

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.

In my experience, the best way to get people who have only seen the consumer side is in the third person.

We tend to underestimate the influence advertising (and media, etc.) have on us, but are relatively objective in observing the effects of advertising on other people, society, and such. Being influenced by advertising reads as being duped to most people, and we resist this conclusion.

This is a little different to many subjects, where we tend to empathize more with examples that have us as the object.

Post reply on HN