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

91–100 of 421 posts

Re: The Social Dilemma

#91

Post by neilk »

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.

That was Jaron Lanier.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/ if you're interested in more. He was an early pioneer in VR tech, and is a person with generally interesting ideas. He is more known today for his critiques of the tech industry and Silicon Valley culture.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#93

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

disown wrote: post #47
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.

> He refined it to, (rough quote), "Changes to your behavior and actions are the product" That's true of all media. Doesn't matter if you pay for it or not. Even netflix. Even this post. What is the "documentary" trying to achieve? Change behavior. Who is behind the social media campaign? "Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24468533 > That distinction made the…

Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary.

What is Instagram? Is it a tool for sharing photos, or is a social engineering experiment intended to increase competitive anxiety and narcissism?

What is Facebook? Is it a way to stay in touch with friends and family, or is it a social engineering experiment designed to promote "engagement" through ever-increasing political and emotional extremism?

If I want to make a documentary I can use the camera in my cellphone and maybe a cheap lapel microphone, buy some cheap studio lights, and edit it with cheap software. The research would be harder to buy, but still not impossible for someone with good basic journalism skills.

If it's not defamatory I can post it on YouTube. If it's solid journalism with an original and interesting angle there's even a fair chance I'll be able to sell it a media network.

If I want to create my own global social network - that's a slightly more challenging project.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#94

Post by npunt »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #73
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.

The dose makes the poison. Almost everything in life is about 'how much' not 'is or isn't'.

The vectors we have to spread misinformation nowadays are far more powerful and readily available than ever before. What was once a (literal) walk from one village to the next is now an express line straight into the brains of thousands to millions.

It's easier to destroy truth and reality than it ever has been.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#95

Post by sjy »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #73
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.

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

Re: The Social Dilemma

#96

Post by justapassenger »

gkoberger wrote: post #7

A lot of people are going to say this movie is filled with people who made their millions and are now on an apology tour. Their bank accounts are still large, and their creations are still at large. I agree. But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it. I've had so many non-tech people in my life be blown away by this movie. Nothing in it was new to me or anyone here, but most people don't hear…

> For example, the inventor of the Like button talked about how the goal was to spread love and appreciation. I believe him that he didn't for-see it would someday cause a rise in suicides among young women. How could anyone?

Every single thing in the world has upsides and downsides. Cars made transportation affordable to people but people die in car crashes. Farming is feeding billions of people but also polluting environment. Internet brings information to people but also disinformation. Medicine saved 100s millions of people, but also messed up with natural selection as a way of making our spice stronger.

You can (and should!) look for bad things about each technology and try to minimize it and make sure there’s right trade off. But trying to present something as pure evil, just because it’s also doing harm, is intellectually dishonest.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#97

Post by un_montagnard »

I watched it last night. It's pretty good for non HN crowd that might not know this already. But I personally felt that they forgot the most important question: what pushed algorithm to recommend what they are recommending? Why are Youtube's rabbit holes more likely to be conspiracy theory related and/or inflammatory content? In the beginning, the algorithm was probably equally pushing for this type of content and more educational content. Why can't we make science related/educational content interesting enough for it to become a rabbit hope recommended by algorithms?

Re: The Social Dilemma

#98

Post by [deleted] »

dbtc wrote: post #85
gundmc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 advertisers are the buyers, the platforms are the sellers whose product is your well-trained eyes.

[deleted]

Re: The Social Dilemma

#99

Post by mattgreenrocks »

ppod wrote: post #60
gundmc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Also there is an underlying class thing going on with "you are the product". Choosing to pay for a service is not just an equal alternative to a free service for most people. Most people have to work hard to afford paid services, many of them at low wages. Sneering at people who choose to use a free service rather than sell their time for $15 an hour is not a great look.

Can’t they just not use the thing? Usually this critique is applied to social media, which is not an essential human need. Ubiquitous and handy, yes. But not essential.

Re: The Social Dilemma

#100

Post by elliotec »

un_montagnard wrote: post #97

I watched it last night. It's pretty good for non HN crowd that might not know this already. But I personally felt that they forgot the most important question: what pushed algorithm to recommend what they are recommending? Why are Youtube's rabbit holes more likely to be conspiracy theory related and/or inflammatory content? In the beginning, the algorithm was probably equally pushing for this type of content and mo…

Money.
Post reply on HN