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

'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 411 posts

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#381

Post by deevolution »

apatters wrote: post #149
hodgesrm wrote: post #144

I don't buy the idea that smartphones are extinguishing the life of the mind. Sure, smartphones provide access to almost unlimited trash. But they also provide access to Wikipedia, perhaps the most successful encyclopedia ever developed by humans. They can show you newspapers from across the planet. They let you read Latin histories of the Norman conquest of Southern Italy in the middle ages. [0] C'mon folks, this is…

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have aged. "With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users..." The idea of a program controlling its users must have seemed very esoteric when that quote was first penned in 1985, at a time when home PCs (let alone ones with GU…

Couldnt agree more with that you said. Desktops/laptops are very different mechanisms for delivering content. Its alot harder to be the one in control when using a smartphone because of how closed off the app ecosystem is. Its very difficult to mod the software on phones compared to on a desktop/laptop. Cellphones are instruments of control. Laptops and computers are instruments of creation.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#382

Post by erikpukinskis »

OtterCoder wrote: post #366
psyc wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only valid if, coincidentally, the market value of hashing happens to be in the ballpark of the revenue the content producer needs.

That's true of advertisement as well.

Can you flesh out the analogy? I don't understand what you're saying

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#383

Post by erikpukinskis »

ironic_ali wrote: post #237
archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

After 18 years as a (mainly contract) BA with some PM work on govt and big Corp business and/or software solution contracts, I'd had enough and did a diploma in enology and viticulture (wine making and growing). In one of my first assignments I referenced Wikipedia on malolactic fermentation and sent it in for marking. The lecturer gave me a b+ and went on to berate me for using Wikipedia as a source that was not to…

What you did would be fine for a commercial report, or an internal memo. In that case you are just looking for the best information you can find, and Wikipedia is as good a source as many so it can be part of the research.

But you're not understanding academia when you lump Wikipedia in with other sources. The purpose of publishing is not just to write down what you have reason to believe. The purpose is to build up a verifiable chain of trust. It's a lot like a block chain actually.

When you publish in Nature, and note that you are employed at Stanford, what is happening is you, Nature, and Stanford are all "signing" the paper. Then when someone cites you, they are building on your chain. That allows you to read a paper published somewhere and be able to rely on its truthfulness, to some degree, without manually verifying each source.

Part of what you learn in academia, what your professor was trying to get you to learn, is how to write a paper which could be published. If you cite a Wikipedia page, that can no longer be published because there aren't enough "signatures" on it to verify a chain of trust. Yes, you can verify it by hand, but that doesn't scale. The point of scholarship is to scale verifiable knowledge.

It's a little sad your instructor capitulated. It's possible they realized you were in a professional program and you weren't supposed to learn how to do scholarship... that your task was just to be able to write a professional research report, and for that Wikipedia is fine. It's also possible they assessed that they're not being paid enough to argue with indignant students and gave you the grade that would shut you up.

But regardless... you should know that what you did is not scholarship. That requires you to participate in the consensus algorithm and the verifiable chain of previous work.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#384

Post by psyc »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #382
OtterCoder wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of advertisement as well.

Can you flesh out the analogy? I don't understand what you're saying

I'm also not seeing the analogy. Ad revenue is part of the market/ecosystem for ads and sites. Hash power just is what it is, and the value of it does not seem to be connected to the content.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#385

Post by [deleted] »

deepGem wrote: post #167
apatters wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have aged. "With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users..." The idea of a program controlling its users must have seemed very esoteric when that quote was first penned in 1985, at a time when home PCs (let alone ones with GU…

If the program controls the users, and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of unjust power. I'd modify this statement as the program can potentially be an instrument of unjust power. I like to believe that the opposite of this will most likely occur. What if such a program manipulates people's minds towards the good, what if it can turn terrorists against terrorism. Whenever we think…

[deleted]

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#386

Post by TACIXAT »

rubinelli wrote: post #73

Can we hijack this loop to create or reinforce good habits instead of selling ad space? Can we use the skinner box to dole out intangible rewards for activities with real, long-term benefits like exercising and eating better? This looks like an obvious opportunity to me, so what work is being done in this area?

I've been trying to figure out how to implement this for myself. Increase friction to tasks that do not provide long term reward (e.g. video games, social media) and decrease friction to tasks that work toward goals I'll be stoked to have achieved 2 years from now. What I haven't figured out yet is how to do a reward system. I need random jackpot noises to play each time I get something done.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#387

Post by confounded »

GuB-42 wrote: post #373
archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

Wikipedia is not really ad-free, they advertise for themselves. I know that many people don't consider self-advertising and appeal to donation "true" ads, but I do. Here are my arguments. - Appeal to donation banners are not content, they are a purposely made distraction with a money-making goal. Just like real ads. - Most people agree that when Windows 10 gives you a popup to buy another Microsoft product, it's an a…

I imagine that they are deciding to run ads for donations, because they need donations to keep running. Are you suggesting it’s because they like running ads?

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#388

Post by uoaei »

ekianjo wrote: post #232
kwhitefoot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that misrepresents Stallman's concerns. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html for instance. It is clear that free software is a tool for political ends not merely an end in itself.

That piece is from 1997. RMS 10 years before that had a much more down to earth concern about software. Like everyone he has evolved in his thinking.

Why has it stayed up on gnu.org if it no longer supports his/their philosophy?

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#389

Post by l1feh4ck »

archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

Whatsapp in their initial days before getting acquired by Facebook had a similar revenue model. They asked $1/year from a user. I am starting to wonder if $1/year was enough from a user to keep their service running. If it is the case why are we willing to risk our privacy for an evil revenue model while we can retain it with just $1?

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#390

Post by Grustaf »

Scarblac wrote: post #353
freshhawk wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the choice of "engagement" as the success metric directly stems from the advertising revenue model. That's why it is chosen as the definition of success. Because it triggers ad payments. All the "customer value", "customer happiness" and all the rest is inward facing PR. Creative people need a better motivation to build these attention traps than "suck em in so they watch ads" so it has to be phrased differently…

I think it was chosen as definition of success because it is _easy to measure_. From the beginning of the Web onwards, you had very little idea of what people actually did on your site, but the fact that they visited was an easily counted line in a plain text log file. The moment something else was available (e.g. actual clicks on an ad, or conversion rate), that was used.

Even if a site gets micro-paid for each video viewed or article written, they still have an incentive to nudge viewers to keep viewing. If you think about it, even if they have a pure subscription model they will want people "engaged", i.e. addicted.
Post reply on HN