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

What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#91

Post by Ma8ee »

thinkloop wrote: post #41
Ma8ee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it over dramatic? They are trying to make you buy something, sign up for something, or vote for someone.

Take "make you buy" - are they "making" you do it, or are you in the market for a camera and they're providing you with a really nice choice of one that will likely suit your needs? The answer of course is somewhere in between depending on context. People don't have zero agency, but they also don't have 100% agency.

They are making you associate brands or products with certain lifestyles, beautiful people, or status. This will bias your choices towards spending too much money on things that do quite little for your happiness in the end.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#92

Post by dgellow »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #88
dgellow wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what else you want. In 2014 it was revealed that Facebook did run experiments to see how much of an impact they can have on people's sentiments. Just check the study, it's public: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full . The researchers found out that Facebook's news does influence sentiments in a contagious manner. Which implies it does result in behaviors change on the platform, otherwise they do…

The PNAS paper showed very small effect sizes, to be clear. But, yes.

Yes, that's true. At the same time the argument of "The Social Dilemma" is that at Facebook scale you just need a very small effect to influence the crowd in a way that matters. Paraphrasing the documentary (from memory): tuning human behaviours 1% in the direction you want, worldwide, is what Facebook sells and what their customers pay for.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#93

Post by tr352 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #76
aaron695 wrote: post #11

I have to say I'm normally on Facebook's side (it's not the toxic, fair election destroying, divisive hole Twitter is) but this document is junk. The Social Dilemma explains how the stupid 'you are the product' meme is incorrect, for instance. It also explains the emergent behaviours are not planned, so equally they are hard to stop from planned actions.

How is "you are the product" incorrect? Facebook's customers buy eyeballs, so how are eyeballs not the product? Compare the parallel logic of "steers are not the product: this ranch is funded by meat buyers so it remains free for cattle." Go da we da peyeting. (follow the money)

> How is "you are the product" incorrect?

I think the point is not that this statement is incorrect, but rather that it doesn’t accurately convey the severity of the situation. More accurate would be: “manipulation of their audience is their product”.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#95

Post by aaron695 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #76
aaron695 wrote: post #11

I have to say I'm normally on Facebook's side (it's not the toxic, fair election destroying, divisive hole Twitter is) but this document is junk. The Social Dilemma explains how the stupid 'you are the product' meme is incorrect, for instance. It also explains the emergent behaviours are not planned, so equally they are hard to stop from planned actions.

How is "you are the product" incorrect? Facebook's customers buy eyeballs, so how are eyeballs not the product? Compare the parallel logic of "steers are not the product: this ranch is funded by meat buyers so it remains free for cattle." Go da we da peyeting. (follow the money)

Watch The Social Dilemma.

It will explain it and other concepts for you better than me. It's a good doco to start on.

I'm not my eyeballs. Facebook et al don't care about most of me.

My sex and age is 90% of the metrics they know how to use. The other 10% is stuff I've searched recently.

What they are buying is time.

The product concept is from TV, social media is different - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/16/product/

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#96

Post by searchableguy »

fn1 wrote: post #57
adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

> If feels to me that FB is mega coorp where the people in it want to do better but the machine is so much bigger than the people in it they are currently lost on how to do it Maybe it's just that the whole concept - Algorithmic curation of content, instead of human editors - is flawed and impossible to fix. Maybe YouTube has the exact same problem only fewer clearnames and a higher barrier-to-entry (no text posts).…

No. That would be repressive and quickly invite censorship from influential people and state.

Better solution: Limit freemium model on anti-competitive basis for software services.

If facebook and instagram stops being free, I would think a huge portion of consumer base will quickly reconsider the value it provides them and alternative companies will have more chance to enter in the market when there is more leveling.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#97

Post by robmsmt »

grandmczeb wrote: post #64
adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Your example is interesting because in retrospect Super Size Me was alarmist and unfair. Morgan Spurlock mislead viewers to believe that his health conditions were caused by McDonalds when they were in fact caused by alcoholism. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-ala...

McPaywall

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#98

Post by nl »

d3nj4l wrote: post #63
adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Apart from the bad points, posting a PDF press release in response to a documentary people watched on Netflix is kind of stupid. How many people who watched The Social Dilemma will actually see this press release, let alone evaluate its points?

The press release is for press to read and report on which they can then pass on to policy makers.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#99

Post by searchableguy »

rijoja wrote: post #80
blablabla123 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they should put more effort into it and more than 1 page to argue against a 1.5h documentary. Speaking about McDonalds, they should also show that they are able to learn from other related businesses and not suffer from Not Invented Here. News about elections exist since hundreds of years. For instance in Germany during election day the media can only do limited news coverage about the election until the polls a…

meh Documentaries are way less information condense compared to written text. For a very quick approximation: - Speed of speech ~ 120 wpm. - So 1.5 hours constant talking would mean roughly 10'0000 words. Keep in mind that that is without all the pauses and dramatic music. - An A4 page would roughly come out at 500 words. - Which means that you could fit 1.5 hours of _constant_ speech in 20 A4 pages. Since this is in…

I can condense it in one line:

Social media companies sell the ability to influence you. That's why the product is often free.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#100

Post by bot41 »

I think this is a pretty good response. My only issue with it is:

"The overwhelming majority of content that people see on Facebook is not polarizing or even political—it’s everyday content from people’s friends and family."

When I used FB I didn't find it polarizing or political but I did find I couldn't see content from people I knew. Other pages and crap overtook it and filled my feed. It was essentially useless to me.

I don't think FB is evil.. I think they are just about competent. Everything from them has been crappy. Remember when they spammed emails, chat was terrible, the apps were terrible, the notification icons didn't work on the website, FB messenger didn't work well.. etc, etc. Some things have been improved now but their talent is pretty lacking for a big tech company.

Post reply on HN