Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

#61

Post by thu2111 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:57 AM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #51

thu2111 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't have a naive trust companies, and that's good. Consumer's trust in companies is far more nuanced and complex: we may for example trust that if we buy an Apple device it will be well built, but we don't trust that we're getting good value for money because we know Apple has a reputation for being expensive. This is an excellent feature of capitalism. Incentives are front and centre, people don't (usu…

I don't see why I wouldn't trust a charity to do what they claim, filtered by their brand reputation and public opinion (exactly like I would for a corporation). I can't trust the government (and education) to do anything but try to hoard more money at the expense of citizens. The only problem is the governmental parasites polarising and dividing the people, while increasing spending every year.

Charities don't really develop reputations except among a tiny subset of people who are unusually interested in that specific charity. That's because the people who give them money aren't getting anything in return whose quality they can judge. Money goes into a black hole, you hope it does some good but short of reading lots of obscure reports and paperwork, you can't find out.

Example: Wikimedia Foundation. How many people who donate realise that their money isn't paying for Wikipedia but rather a huge very well paid staff that work on separate websites? How many people realise the Foundation has plenty of money and doesn't need more? Virtually none - they just take it for granted that a charity would never mislead them by claiming it was essential that you donate RIGHT NOW to stop Wikipedia going offline or being covered in ads.

That's what I mean by capitalism working very well. When dealing with a company you give them some money but also get something in return that you can judge. There are also lots of review sites, magazines, friendship circles and other forums where people can compare notes to see how their experiences match up. Reputations roughly correlate with actual quality of results. Outside of capitalist interactions reputation is often entirely artificial or even circular, for instance, in academia "this person has a great reputation because everyone says they have a great reputation" is de rigour.

Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

#62

Post by cafard » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #7

I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…

OK, but at the same time there can be a lot of investment in helping that erosion along.

Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

#63

Post by anm89 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #57

anm89 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth noting that the news being biased is a fairly new phenomenon. They didnt just expose some long standing problem with prtisan media. The partisan media barely existed 20 years ago.

Eh, that depends. There was plenty of biased news in 2000. Media consolidation has started long before that.

I'm definitely not arguing that biased news started after that but it was much more niche then. And if you go back 20 years from that, it was incredibly fringe.

Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

#64

Post by dawg- » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

notmyname9173 wrote: post #10

Hypocrisy and PR spin aside, he’s not wrong. I think, on the balance, that social networks are a net negative development for humanity and should be destroyed.

I think you are absolutely right about mass social networking, where people/pages can have millions of followers and advertisers have access to extremely granular filters. This form of the internet is not good for us. It's too big, too impersonal, and too public.

I would be fine if Facebook and co. continued to exist - but the whole thing is maybe a little bit too connected. I really hope that the future of social media can focus on smaller and more intimate groups that (mostly) know each other IRL. For example I love my family's group chat, my little fitness group, etc. and all of those things happen on social media. Social media just needs to be scaled down to be a more human-friendly environment.

Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

#65

Post by Arnt » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

ludocode wrote: post #9

Arnt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the search term you type is what you want to see, so in a sense you're right. But that wasn't what you meant, right? Google selects a large set of search results based on what it thinks your query means, then weighs each result according to many, many criteria, I've heard there are about 140 but that's a long time ago, and finally orders them by aggregate weight. You may assume that all of those criteria ar…

Google doesn't just use the search term. It also uses your search and browsing history. This is why if you're a programmer, you're more likely to get results from StackOverflow because your search is more likely to be about programming. It's one reason why people can get better search results from Google than, say, DuckDuckGo. If you've been watching lots of conspiracy YouTube videos and reading lots of conspiracy bl…

Google uses many things. Search for IBS where I live, and the company called IBS here is among the top result. There are also quite different companies called IBS in several neighbouring cities, but those aren't shown on the first page. We both know why: One of Google's factors is geography.

Perhaps IBS is also a relevant abbreviation to your work, and Google can tell that you often search for that, so it'll also boost results that pertain to that sense of IBS if you search.

None of this is about what you like. One is about where you are, the other is about your work. Perhaps your work interests you, perhaps one may say that your work necessarily interests you, in a compelled sense of "interest". But it's not about preferences or opinions.

So you could say, fairly and honestly, that your interests as indicated by search history influences how Google interprets the search term. Returning to the "IBS" example, your search history hints to Google which IBS you have in mind. This is good, not bad, as long as there are more senses of IBS than will fit on the search results page.