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

401–410 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#401

Post by maigret »

closeparen wrote: post #387
maigret wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal/SMS is not the same beast as WhatsApp in terms of surveillance, nudging and all of those things falling into "forced addiction". When is the last time a SMS app wanted to give you recommendation or force you online?

WhatsApp has never done any of those things for me; it is exactly analogous to iMessage, just with a different user population.

It looks like the same in the interactions, but it has critical differences beneath the surface. Start with the money - their business incentive is totally different. Apple sells devices, Facebook sells ads. One of those two companies have been regularly in the news regarding privacy breaches and disregard of their user data. And if you don't like or trust Apple, take Signal.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#402

Post by moosey »

nradov wrote: post #370
moosey wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet we are now looking at the obesity epidemic from the production side, rather than blaming people. The food itself hijacks important systems that are parts of our hardware. As the movie demonstrates, social media all too often does the same thing: hijacks the hardware. And as humans, we have a lot of important social instincts that are built in. Companies should not be permitted to take advantage of it: Artific…

If you think the blame lies on the production side then how do you explain the low obesity rate in Japan? They have no significant restrictions on food production. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Extreme social compliance and social comparison, two things that are also built into the hardware.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#403

Post by HeavyStorm »

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.

Agree, that was the biggest insight in the movie.

I do question whether it's a problem. No one likes the idea of being manipulated, but... Aren't we being influenced by others all the time? What is really genuine and what is external influence?

Re: The Social Dilemma

#405

Post by kenjackson »

nradov wrote: post #392
kenjackson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I go to the doctor I understand the scope and goals of my healthcare provider. Are you sure about that? The fact that I have to sometimes argue for a test, and their counter argument isn't "the test isn't useful or even worse", but rather "the test is expensive" makes me wonder what their goal is. I'm paying for the test (or my insurance is), aren't I? It seems they're trying to optimize for something, but I'm…

Physicians have an ethical obligation not to order unnecessary treatments, especially those that could cause iatrogenic harm. That applies regardless of who is paying. Most tests produce some level of false positives, which can potentially lead to more unnecessary treatments. From an evidence-based medicine standpoint, how likely are those tests to actually optimize your health?

In this case the doctor explicitly said it was to reduce costs, although the other test is preferable from a diagnosis perspective. Like I mentioned previously, if the reason the doctor gave was that the more expensive test was also less useful or had other negative consequences I didn't think of, then I'd appreciate that. To simply rule out the more expensive test based on cost seemed at ends with what I wanted - again as insurance was paying the tab.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#406

Post by EmilioMartinez »

madjam002 wrote: post #394
EmilioMartinez wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there was a lot of denouncing evil practices, and very little instrospection. Like with every human vice, there being bad agents exploiting the phenomenon shouldn't overshadow the fact that its deep rooted in how we work, because it risks precluding self-examination and self-awareness as a way out. Remember when the Flappy Bird guy removed the game from the store because it was too addictive for his liking? It…

Huh, I forgot about Flappy bird!! That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I agree blaming corporations sells better, but they really exaggerated it. I just rewatched some of it and got to the bit on A/B testing and how it is mind control and we are all guinea pigs being manipulated... apparently every marketing department in every business, and every advertising company is now some evil puppet master controlling…

Ironically, I recall a discussion on HN about people being irrationally afraid of A/B testing, and how overcoming it could greatly benefit society (the centerpiece topic at the moment were variants of hospital posters about hand-washing, ircc). A/B testing is just another neutral tool, but productions like this feed on those fears.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#407

Post by vasilipupkin »

sjy wrote: post #95
vasilipupkin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the hypothesis that somehow social media is generating more misinformation than before is an exercise in ignoring all human history before 2004 ish. People were always misinformed, how do you explain the whole 20th century otherwise.

People were always misinformed, but now misinformers operate at web scale. Thus, more misinformation.

Information is also operating at web scale, so it’s not obvious that the net effect is more misinformed population than before.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#408

Post by messo »

JackPoach wrote: post #374
messo wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This film was not made for you. Techies like us have been up to speed on these topics for years, but most people have not. Many people might have a creeping feeling that something is wrong in the world of social media, but almost none understands the actual mechanics of an algorithm and what it can do when applied on a global scale. This film is made for them, and judging by the reactions to the movie from non-tech p…

Maybe not. I am 40+ years old and I clearly remember how the 80s and the 90s were full of stories about satanism. How listening heavy metal will turn kids into satanists. How there are satanist societies with child sacrifices. That's exactly the feeling I got after watching this documentary. Oh, social media is the next satanism and Zach is new Anton LaVey. Got it.

Yeah, I'm not that far from 40 myself and having grown up in a charismatic church in the 90ies, I sure remember the scare around heavy metal (or any rock for that matter) and that most things in fact was satanic. Fun times.

This docudrama explains hard-to-understand concepts by telling emotional stories that most people can relate to, which frankly should be done more often for technical stuff affecting society in not so obvious ways. Again, this film is not for developers and engineers who mostly prefer dry facts. It's for everyone else.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#409

Post by rexpop »

b_ocu wrote: post #254
rexpop wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the Luddites, to be frank. Theirs was a reasonable reaction to the evaporation of control, individual agency (as skilled workers) and political sovereignty of the laborer. They saw their livelihoods evaporating, their financial security being siphoned away. They worked their asses off for bosses who then built their automated replacements. It was a callous betrayal, and their response was…

>They saw their livelihoods evaporating, their financial security being siphoned away. They worked their asses off for bosses who then built their automated replacements. It was a callous betrayal, and their response was to destroy the technology which enabled that betrayal. Just like old media.

> Just like old media.

The jury is still out on that one, I believe.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#410

Post by rexpop »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #79
lozf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always liked: "Advertising robs you of your dignity, and sells it back to you at the price of the product."

With the arguable exception of therapy/counselling, you can never retrieve your dignity and self-worth by buying a product. So all it really does is sell the promise .

So advertisements deplete dignity, with no recompense or amelioration? No wonder our society's replete with indignity.
Post reply on HN