Man what a PoS this guy was. he started as a lame re-poster >His head was turned by the substantial sum of money: “I told my wife, wow, it’s £1,000.” >Then, to his annoyance, TikTok immediately deleted his account because he was just stealing other people’s videos and reposting them. and dove straight into fabricating hate, and worst of all after directly confronted seems to literally have no concept of what he was d…
This endemic of much of the “creator” economy. Anything goes if it gets you clicks. And TikTok does have lose moderation. If this happened on YouTube he would have been demonetised sooner.
An extent presentation (IMHO) by Sam Vaknin on how the very way modern social networks operate even down to their structure are deeply destructive and anti-human. Hate has been and always will be the easiest and most monetizable emotion used by platform operators. Hate requires little complexity or nuance making it ideal for short form viral content where every second counts.
The "Internet Hate Machine" is real and it was created that way by design by anti social deeply narcissistic nerds. Youtube Link: https://youtu.be/Ef7bqgeHenU
In one thread I am defending anonymity online from government mandated ID laws. Then I think to the persistent, malevolent, destructive lies that people spread with complete impunity and with faked video and photo evidence. This is not what the first amendment was designed to protect. Wary of making government the arbiter of truth, I don't know what society should do to combat this evil. In a fantasy world where I we…
Thought here: perhaps the answer is a restriction on promotion of material that doesn't expose a real identity.
I agree with this entire article, except that it's not just a right-wing phenomenon. Both sides distort the truth for financial gain and from a quantitative POV it's not a false equivalence.
To quote you from an earlier comment of yours: "This is exactly the sensational take (devoid of nuance and information) that we should collectively push back against." The left has been traditionally anti-capitalist and in favor of improving rights and living conditions. Who on the left is gaining financially from distorting the truth to the level of someone like Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the Koch Brothe…
Seems to be an extension of something we are dealing with across multiple parts of many societies. Monetary pursuit has become a guiding principle for alot of people, and its been revealed that such thinking is leading to major societal consequences. The current Technocratic idealization of efficiency by those in powerful positions is missing the second order consequences of financializing everything, and it appears…
There is a very, very clear and specific problem: "free" advertising supported sites incentivizes farming user engagement. Farming user engagement needs be sharply curtailed because it's proven to be broadly damaging to society and the direct way to do that is to reduce the incentive, advertising revenue. It's as straightforward as that.
Oddly enough, this comes from Google having a monopoly on web advertising. If you're an advertiser, let's say for the sake of argument you're a company with $80 billion in revenue, and you find your ads placed next to a ragebait post, you might complain to Google, and they will promptly send you a canned response and send your email to Gemini for use in training data. If human eyes ever chance to see your email, it's a good chance that people in that department aren't working hard enough and they should do a layoff.
Michael Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" covers it quite well. Markets create unfairness by systematically disadvantaging the poor when money becomes necessary to obtain certain goods or quality of goods. Market values corrupt non-market spheres by changing the meaning and value of goods being exchanged (e.g., paying for grades undermines intrinsic desire to learn). Monetary incentives cro…
This is one of the most amazing comments I have read on HN. You absolutely get to the core of why and how 'leaving it to the market' and money-oriented choices remove social cohesion, trust, and fairness.
Thank you, but again I'm just paraphrasing Sandel's work. He really puts into words that which I've personally felt without having the vernacular to put it into words myself (alongside one of his inspirations, Michael Young). I attended a couple of his lectures while he was in the UK, and he was fantastic.
Michael Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" covers it quite well. Markets create unfairness by systematically disadvantaging the poor when money becomes necessary to obtain certain goods or quality of goods. Market values corrupt non-market spheres by changing the meaning and value of goods being exchanged (e.g., paying for grades undermines intrinsic desire to learn). Monetary incentives cro…
One objection here: pay-for-sterilization doesn't match with the rest of these because this is treating it solely as a cost to the woman, rather than recognizing that there's a benefit in not bringing a child into a horrible life.
The objection is that offering cash exploits vulnerable women's desperation, treating their reproductive capacity as a commodity to be purchased. Even if the outcome might prevent more suffering, which is an individually subjective outcome, the means matters: it degrades the women involved by reducing a profound personal decision to a market transaction under conditions of coercion, where drug addiction makes the offer 'too good to resist.'
Seems to be an extension of something we are dealing with across multiple parts of many societies. Monetary pursuit has become a guiding principle for alot of people, and its been revealed that such thinking is leading to major societal consequences. The current Technocratic idealization of efficiency by those in powerful positions is missing the second order consequences of financializing everything, and it appears…
Culture is a pendulum, but humans are consistently greedy. "Journalistic integrity" was a marketing concept designed to sell newspapers at a time when there were hundreds and most were inaccurate. It was extremely profitable to have ethics. (A good reminder that noble minded Benjamin Franklin ran his own periodical that he regularly and intentionally slandered others in.) Now we have an entrenched media (with their o…
Yes, humans can be greedy - but the question is whether we design our society to encourage and legitimize that greed in every sphere of life, or whether we maintain non-market norms that check it. The journalistic integrity example proves my/Sandel's point; when ethics became profitable, the market accidentally aligned with civic good. But the concern is precisely about areas where market logic systematically corrupts rather than improves outcomes - ie. where introducing money changes the nature of the good itself (like turning civic duty into a fee, or learning into a transaction). The pendulum swings, yes - which is exactly why we need ongoing public debate about where markets belong, rather than passively accepting their expansion into every domain and hoping the pendulum swings back on its own.
Michael Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" covers it quite well. Markets create unfairness by systematically disadvantaging the poor when money becomes necessary to obtain certain goods or quality of goods. Market values corrupt non-market spheres by changing the meaning and value of goods being exchanged (e.g., paying for grades undermines intrinsic desire to learn). Monetary incentives cro…
This is one of the most amazing comments I have read on HN. You absolutely get to the core of why and how 'leaving it to the market' and money-oriented choices remove social cohesion, trust, and fairness.
I don't think it's even the money. It's the numbers and numerical "scoring".
You see all the same evil dishonest shit behavior in contexts where the $$ is negligible, fixed or not a KPI individuals are really scored on. Organized religion, academia, Internet comments, etc, etc.
I agree with this entire article, except that it's not just a right-wing phenomenon. Both sides distort the truth for financial gain and from a quantitative POV it's not a false equivalence.
To quote you from an earlier comment of yours: "This is exactly the sensational take (devoid of nuance and information) that we should collectively push back against." The left has been traditionally anti-capitalist and in favor of improving rights and living conditions. Who on the left is gaining financially from distorting the truth to the level of someone like Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the Koch Brothe…
In the favor of improving living conditions? If and only if it is through their ideology. If it is through something which goes against their ideology the goalposts move at the speed of light and out comes some rationalization like "it wasn't really important, what we need is community".
When communism had claims to being more productive growth was the most important thing in the world and why we should adopt their ideology. Now look at the 'degrowth' people what a coincidence and they are literally arguing for worsening living conditions....