The Social Dilemma

> Bitcoin should pay the way for a paid-for internet.

Simple economics tells you that this will never happen. Companies simply have much more money to spend than consumers do.

Indeed, if you ban “ads”, companies will simply invest in “non-ads” to influence your behaviour - fake news, real news (more-or-less thinly veiled PR disguised as news, a la Paul Graham’s “submarine”) or buying whole news outfits (hint hint Bezos).

The only way to stop competition in marketing is to (re-)start competition in product / technology - but that seems a very difficult problem (we’re in the midst of a physics/tech stagnation).

It doesn't have to be a social network. They track how you use their apps and software and construct them with the goal of keeping you in their ecosystem as much as possible. Tristan Harris, one of the main people in the movie, worked on GMail when he started wondering why they weren't focusing on helping people use their apps in a more responsible, less addictive manner.

Their sources aren't convincing. The questions about loneliness don't support the conclusion.

https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

I didn't say social media usage isn't a public health concern, there are many things that drive addiction. Social media use is convenient and it doesn't expose you to risks. Perfect for any form of escapism.

I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

I still remain convinced that a lack of perspectives in life is probably a main cause. Maybe social media paints a wrong or a more realistic light, but it is probably not the source of increased suicide.

I specifically criticized the explanation about tribalism. It seems wrong and isn't underlined anywhere.

> In what way wouldn't "the fear of the unkown" or "the fear of loss" [...]

People have the fear that people are bonding while they are absent. Mostly the same sources that are the foundations of envy.

> What "other needs" are these?

Fulfilling companionship or friendship for example.

I think this is a case where the conclusion "social media sucks" was determined before the analysis of issues.

> How is the number of suicides 30 years ago relevant to a dynamic observed over the course of the past 15 years?

To have a reference. Especially if we only have social media for 15 years, it is self evident to lock back a few more years.

> https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

This is not a credible source for suicide data.

> I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

There are lots of complicated reasons why suicide may be under-reported.

In the US the work to get standard definitions, in the NVDRS, to be used across the country is relatively recent. This document is from 2011.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/Self-Directed-Vio...

> Despite the large volume of data on certain types of SDV, the utility and reproducibility of the resulting information is sometimes questionable. Mortality data are problematic for several reasons: geographical differences in the definition of suicide and how equivocal cases are classified; jurisdictional differences in the requirements for the office of coroner or medical examiner affecting the standard of proof required to classify a death as a suicide; and differences in terms of the extent to which potential suicides are investigated to accurately determine cause of death.18 The quality of the data on nonfatal suicidal behavior is even more problematic than that of suicides. The concerns about discrepancies in nomenclature19-23 and accurate reporting11,24 apply here even more than with suicides. Also, except for rare exceptions there is neither systematic nor mandatory reporting of nonfatal suicidal behavior in the United States at the state or local level, nor is there routine systematic collection of non-suicidal intentional self harm data.

> These “system” problems with data collection have been discussed for more than a generation. Over 35 years ago, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a conference on suicide prevention at which a committee was charged with recommending a system for defining and communicating about suicidal behaviors.25 More recently, two scientific reviews that addressed the state of suicide-related research also remarked on the need for consistent definitions. The Institute of Medicine issued a report entitled Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative.4 This report states ”Research on suicide is plagued by many methodological problems... definitions lack uniformity,...reporting of suicide is inaccurate.” “There is a need for researchers and clinicians in suicidology to use a common language or set of terms in describing suicidal phenomena.” The World Health Organization issued the World Report on Violence and Health.2 In the chapter addressing self-directed violence the authors note “Data on suicide and attempted suicide should be valid and up to date. There should be a set of uniform criteria and definitions and – once established – these should be consistently applied and continually reviewed.”

> There was one big light-bulb moment for me.

Mine was seeing the AI / algorithm visualized as 3 humans trying to figure out what the best plan of action was to make you engage.

That really made me think about how it's another group of humans out there trying to take time away from me for the sole purpose of making their company more money. That's a much stronger mental image than a vague algorithm that we all knew existed.

That concept of the documentary alone made it worth watching.