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

71–80 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#71

Post by madjam002 »

I don't understand this movie. I agree with the sentiment that social media is bad for people, especially youngsters, but I fail to see how advertising and corporations are to blame for the UX practices of social media websites (notifications, infinite scroll, liking posts etc), especially to the level that the movie makes it out to be.

Sure, it is in Facebook's best interest to keep you on the site for as long as possible so that they can drive ads. But the same issues with social media existed before Facebook had ads. People would still be checking their feed constantly, checking if their post had new likes, seeking the approval of their peers.

One of the interviewees said he was addicted to his email... what bad practices does Gmail employ and how exactly are advertisers to blame for this as well? Gmail has a couple of ads but that's about it? It also said Whatsapp was one of the apps responsible for the spread of fake news, this is simply a texting client with the ability to send messages to groups.

Maybe it turns out that if you put technology and instant messaging in the hands of social circles, messages, whether fake news or not, spreads faster than ever.

If Facebook had no financial incentive, sure, maybe they would have realised the negative effect it is having on people and shut the whole thing down. But then another site would have come along doing exactly the same thing. Maybe the issue is that people don't cope well when being connected with hundreds of "friends", constantly seeing updates from their lives and feeling compelled to also share updates of their own.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#72

Post by lozf »

hapticmonkey wrote: post #67
dgudkov wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As my ex-colleague says "Any advertisement is propaganda".

I prefer David Foster Wallace's description of advertising: "It did what all ads are supposed to do: create an anxiety relievable by purchase.”

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

Re: The Social Dilemma

#73

Post by vasilipupkin »

foxfired wrote: post #50

The film does play a major role. Many of us here on HN don't even have an face/insta/twi/tube account. We've known about this for years. But explaining it to the layperson makes you sound like you are paranoid. The movie explains it very well. (although they omit Netflix as a culprit). Here is one thing that I have a hard time explaining to people. Fun is the enemy. Or at least the enemy is disguised as. When you sha…

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.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#74

Post by swader999 »

gundmc wrote: post #17
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.

> "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…

The implications for election advertising are that votes and even revolutions are available to the highest bidder.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#75

Post by npunt »

gkoberger wrote: post #55
npunt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it. Nope nope nope. While tech people might have some insight into how some of the tech works, they're still lost in how to both define the problem [1] and describe how these technologies may shape society [2]. Nothing in their professional or personal experience has adequately prepared them to answer these questions. The thing tech people can do now…

The Center for Humane Tech's founders, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, were the main people interviewed. You can't say they don't know what they're talking about, and then cite their organization. I think it means a lot coming from people who created the technology. Maybe not to me or you, but it definitely does to non-tech people. It's like how a thousand people can say K-Cups are bad for the environment, but it's wa…

Oh I agree that the story 'I made it and I regret it' is catchy and very useful to add to the conversation. It's a 'man bites dog' type of headline in that it gets the general audience to pay attention. It's valuable to have that perspective.

I like Tristan and Aza and CHT and think they're smart, well-meaning people who are doing their best, and I value what they bring. I especially like their focus on trying to explain some complex stuff in terms and ideas that are simple enough for people to grasp. I'd love to see more well-vetted solutions from them; screen time was a valuable concept they advocated for.

As far as whether tech people are the most effective people to talk about the problems they created, I don't agree. I'd prefer someone who has expertise in the implications of technologies, who can root what is happening in social dynamics, human psychology, etc. Someone whose voice in those areas is highly respected, not someone who read a few articles or a book and then translated it. We need more of a Carl Sagan of sociology/psychology/history who can integrate and explain these things.

Any sufficiently complex topic and area of power needs checks and balances, people with different perspectives and backgrounds who help define the boundaries for discussion and consideration. My concern is we're always hearing from tech people; by default they have a seat at the table because they're in the seat of power in this domain. Their voices need no further elevation nor does their lack of expertise in relevant fields warrant it. We need their counterbalance.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#76

Post by stagehn »

madjam002 wrote: post #71

I don't understand this movie. I agree with the sentiment that social media is bad for people, especially youngsters, but I fail to see how advertising and corporations are to blame for the UX practices of social media websites (notifications, infinite scroll, liking posts etc), especially to the level that the movie makes it out to be. Sure, it is in Facebook's best interest to keep you on the site for as long as po…

Well said, it's not a problem unique to Facebook, Twitter is as much of a problem but they don't get dragged as much because they're more willing to take a knee to the woke religion

Re: The Social Dilemma

#77

Post by shajznnckfke »

gundmc wrote: post #17
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.

> "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…

Not just advertising, but any communication. You wrote this comment to influence me and everyone who else who read it.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#79

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

lozf wrote: post #72
hapticmonkey wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer David Foster Wallace's description of advertising: "It did what all ads are supposed to do: create an anxiety relievable by purchase.”

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.

Post reply on HN