Yes, economic inequality is a major issue and ‘intersects’ with everything.
But the dynamics of social networks are absolutely a problem independent of that, and it’s important for people to be able to reason about that without collapsing it into ‘capitalism bad’.
No i'm saying economic equality becomes more important than those issues. When money isn't a problem, you have the time and resources to care about those things, when money is a problem, money becomes more important because
I wouldn't ignore the case where those higher level issues start to cause you to have less money, food and water because you are being manipulated to act against your own interests.
You say ‘no’ but then you present an argument which seems to evaluate to ‘yes’.
If you are saying that a person who actually doesn’t have access to food, water, and shelter don’t have time to think about the problems of social media, I’d say there is merit to that.
But then that seems like a clear ‘yes’ to my question.
It also supports my original comment about how terrible the piece is.
By your logic, someone in such a position can’t or shouldn’t be reading a Slate article discussing the relative importance of these issues.
Are social networks inherently bad on their own as you seem to imply though? Don’t you think maximizing profit is one of the root problems. Don’t you think the platforms aren’t built to have the most social good, but instead to maximize shareholder value?
Maximizing profit is only a problem if the user model in the code isn't tied directly to the customer payment model. In the case of a social network like Twitter or Facebook, the payment models are embodied in advertiser customer classes, not user classes. If you sign up for Twitter, for example, you don't get a payment model assigned to you that is then optimized to encourage you to continue to pay for the service. Yes, Twitter has user payment models, but those are payment models for self-promotion, which ends up making your interests (as a customer model) more important than mine (as a user model), which just ends up being the same problem all over again.
Code that unifies the user and customer models are likely to be more "user friendly" given they don't put a priority on growth of a model that lies outside the user model. Those types of models can focus on what the users want, collectively, and may even profit from making the user's lives better from the use of the product.
If anyone here has built or maintained an app and that app has separate user and customer models, then you are part of this problem!
I agree that free products like Twitter or Facebook create this problem since advertisers, politicians, and media become the customers, and user attention and engagement becomes the product.
I still think the underlying problem is profit though, since these companies offer free product in order to get the largest user base (since social networks benefit from this scale). Maximizing user base size leads to more profit since they have more and larger media, politician, and advertising customers. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram would not be anywhere near as successful if all the users were required to pay a subscription fee.
It's an inherent contradiction between social networks and profit that cannot, in my view at least, be resolved.
They wouldn’t be as successful, but maybe that is just a transient stage. It’s possible that as people come to experience and understand how painful they are, there may be more willingness to pay for alternatives.
Do you realize broadcast TV is free, and it is profit oriented. In Britain, bbc is funded by direct tv taxes from people who own television sets and for years no private broadcast company was allowed because they wished to prevent the spread of commercial propaganda through the airwaves. The American model of advertisement funded broadcast proved them wrong and American broadcast industry grew by bounds and leaps while the British were stunted despite the television set being invented in Britain.
It can't be directly compared to social media since it is not a social network, but a broadcasting platform. Not everyone can get on cable TV, there is a barrier to entry. Now they have YouTube, their own websites, and plenty of other revenue streams to generate money for them.
Also, I never implied that broadcast TV doesn't have it's own subset of issues. I actually think broadcast TV has a few big problems. It moves from manufactured panic to panic, limits the acceptable discourse in order to be subservient to its donors and funding sources (people with certain political opinions never get a platform), and it benefits in a similar way to social media from social division and disfunction. Media manufactures moral panic and plays in a similar way on human emotion in order to keep viewers watching so that they can make more money.
> The American model of advertisement funded broadcast proved them wrong and American broadcast industry grew by bounds and leaps while the British were stunted despite the television set being invented in Britain.
I mean maybe we should be asking ourselves "at what cost?" and "who benefited from that?". A bunch of media execs got rich, but did broader society really benefit? It's easy to always defer to "growth" as good and completely ignore the costs.
I think it’s a valid question, but one I’d say ‘yes’ to.
In the absence of shareholders or a profit motive, the networks would have the same capacity to influence and manipulate, and so there would still be an incentive for people to seek to control them to obtain this power, for which money is just a proxy.
There is no counterfactual ‘on their own’ to compare to.
I think we absolutely should be thinking about how to mitigate the incentive problems, which is exactly why I think the article is bad.
See kordlessagain’s comment which is a peer to mine here. I don’t necessarily think kordlessagain is right (although they may be), but this is exactly the kind of constructive thinking the article is discouraging, which is why I see it as so terrible.
I think in a world where profit is not the motive, you can have room for things like decentralized social networks, worker owned cooperatives with social good as the incentive instead of monopoly and capital. I think that makes power centralization and corruption harder, but it is certainly not immune. I think you're right though that any analysis that does not account for power will lack substance.
We have room for worker owned cooperatives and decentralized social networks already.
A world where profit is not the motive, honestly sounds great to me, but it’s not a real counterfactual unless someone explains how it would work.
Without such an explanation it’s like talking about a world where nobody needs to eat. You can imagine it would be good, and somehow possible in some sci-fi future, but there are no actual examples.
I actually think this is an interesting problem we face currently. I really liked Mark Fisher's book "Capitalist Realism" in which he touches on how we can no longer imagine a society outside of our capitalist one. I agree though, it's a hard future to sketch out.
Yes, I actually would like to see one imagined. I’m curious about whether there is a tldr about why we can no longer imagine a society outside of capitalism?
Why? You’re able to box this out in a customized context (and it is since social political intuition is subjective to one’s experience).
It’s important to be able to think critically and with nuance, of course, why must avoiding “harming capitalism” when capitalism causes tons of harm across contexts of science and culture, be avoided?
It’s not a person it’s ideological guidelines. Surely jabbing at any ideology as frequently as the public wishes must be tolerated in a free society.
So why the boxing in and protectionism of capitalism at all? Whatever this reality is it’s obviously only moving towards it’s destruction.
Why should clinging to historical emotional objects be a priority of our critical thinking education in a universe smashing itself apart?
Why capitalism? Or Catholicism? Certainly other frameworks would achieve a similar statistical balance of haves versus have nots, since real logistical distribution mirrors monarchism, and other historical hierarchies.
If that’s what we’re going for, why the pretense? Just legislate gamed logistical distribution as a goal. No need for syntactic jargon unless the real goal is obscurantism.
Numbers don’t lie: capitalism is just another generational emotional game, obligation to defer to hierarchy, like the others humanity binned. What’s so important about it?
I do not think you understand capitalism, which can only be done in historical context, and is a misnomer. The actual term is private property rights. Do you believe that if I build a house, the mob either directly or through a central authority should be empowered to take it from me and give it to someone else ? The counterparts to capitalism are feudalism where a small set of people - the aristocrats are empowered to take resources from everyone else, or communism where the state is empowered to do the same, or some version of socialism where the general public is. The important thing about capitalism is you have rights to your own resources and no one , absolutely no one should be able to take it from one without assent. Assent to taxes is a different beast because there is a social contract between government and people to provide common goods which either are too expensive for individuals to provide themselves or the returns from investments are public like basic education is a requirement for a cohesive society and understanding of basic democratic concepts through the spread of education, so this is a public good that taxation should be used for, others include national defense, impartial judiciary, policing, transportation networks, public regulation.
> Ultimately, this omission of experts and lack of nuance results in The Social Dilemma feeling like a missed opportunity. On the plus side, it informs a wide audience about issues like surveillance, persuasive design practices, and the spread of misinformation online, which may encourage them to hold big technology companies accountable. But who gets to convey this information and how it is framed are also crucial. Amplifying voices who have always had a seat at the table and continuing to ignore those who haven’t will not lead us any closer to resolving the dilemma the film claims to present.
I'm very very grateful that the film exists, and for the conversation it's started. But I agree with this assessment. The film paints a dark picture and then leaves viewers on their own to figure out what to do-- beyond maybe taking their kid's phones away.
I disagree with TFA's notion that diversity at tech companies would help address the core problems of intrusive surveillance tech. Only stronger countervailing social institutions can do that.
To take my own medicine: vote, ask your representatives for regulation, use your technical expertise to draft bills or run for office, engage your community on issues that matter.
That’s difficult when yes-man culture advances the velocity of desired features, and by extension happy boards. There is an often unspoken violence (to human expression) in conformity.
The point of the film is to warn that the main goal of a social media silo is to extract maximum attention, while externalizing all costs. They don't care if their platform gives rise to another Stalin and Hitler, as long as it helps the next quarter's numbers. Any gain you get out of the platform is just their cost of supplying bait to get you hooked.
The algorithms deployed serve a simple purpose.... find a rabbit hole near where they measure your position in the space of ideas... and tilt what you see towards it... then measure how long you stay down there.... optimizing for maximum time in the hole.
The solution is simple, switch to systems where you decide what you're going to pay attention to. RSS, Blogs, human curated communications.
You might still fall into a rabbit hole that leads to extremism, but at least there won't be a billionaire incentivized to push you into it. Society, on the other hand, and normal social pressures, should be sufficient to help you find your way back out.
23 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 63.9 ms ] threadYes, economic inequality is a major issue and ‘intersects’ with everything.
But the dynamics of social networks are absolutely a problem independent of that, and it’s important for people to be able to reason about that without collapsing it into ‘capitalism bad’.
Money == food,water and shelter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
If you are saying that a person who actually doesn’t have access to food, water, and shelter don’t have time to think about the problems of social media, I’d say there is merit to that.
But then that seems like a clear ‘yes’ to my question.
It also supports my original comment about how terrible the piece is.
By your logic, someone in such a position can’t or shouldn’t be reading a Slate article discussing the relative importance of these issues.
Code that unifies the user and customer models are likely to be more "user friendly" given they don't put a priority on growth of a model that lies outside the user model. Those types of models can focus on what the users want, collectively, and may even profit from making the user's lives better from the use of the product.
If anyone here has built or maintained an app and that app has separate user and customer models, then you are part of this problem!
I still think the underlying problem is profit though, since these companies offer free product in order to get the largest user base (since social networks benefit from this scale). Maximizing user base size leads to more profit since they have more and larger media, politician, and advertising customers. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram would not be anywhere near as successful if all the users were required to pay a subscription fee.
It's an inherent contradiction between social networks and profit that cannot, in my view at least, be resolved.
Also, I never implied that broadcast TV doesn't have it's own subset of issues. I actually think broadcast TV has a few big problems. It moves from manufactured panic to panic, limits the acceptable discourse in order to be subservient to its donors and funding sources (people with certain political opinions never get a platform), and it benefits in a similar way to social media from social division and disfunction. Media manufactures moral panic and plays in a similar way on human emotion in order to keep viewers watching so that they can make more money.
> The American model of advertisement funded broadcast proved them wrong and American broadcast industry grew by bounds and leaps while the British were stunted despite the television set being invented in Britain.
I mean maybe we should be asking ourselves "at what cost?" and "who benefited from that?". A bunch of media execs got rich, but did broader society really benefit? It's easy to always defer to "growth" as good and completely ignore the costs.
In the absence of shareholders or a profit motive, the networks would have the same capacity to influence and manipulate, and so there would still be an incentive for people to seek to control them to obtain this power, for which money is just a proxy.
There is no counterfactual ‘on their own’ to compare to.
I think we absolutely should be thinking about how to mitigate the incentive problems, which is exactly why I think the article is bad.
See kordlessagain’s comment which is a peer to mine here. I don’t necessarily think kordlessagain is right (although they may be), but this is exactly the kind of constructive thinking the article is discouraging, which is why I see it as so terrible.
A world where profit is not the motive, honestly sounds great to me, but it’s not a real counterfactual unless someone explains how it would work.
Without such an explanation it’s like talking about a world where nobody needs to eat. You can imagine it would be good, and somehow possible in some sci-fi future, but there are no actual examples.
It’s important to be able to think critically and with nuance, of course, why must avoiding “harming capitalism” when capitalism causes tons of harm across contexts of science and culture, be avoided?
It’s not a person it’s ideological guidelines. Surely jabbing at any ideology as frequently as the public wishes must be tolerated in a free society.
So why the boxing in and protectionism of capitalism at all? Whatever this reality is it’s obviously only moving towards it’s destruction.
Why should clinging to historical emotional objects be a priority of our critical thinking education in a universe smashing itself apart?
Why capitalism? Or Catholicism? Certainly other frameworks would achieve a similar statistical balance of haves versus have nots, since real logistical distribution mirrors monarchism, and other historical hierarchies.
If that’s what we’re going for, why the pretense? Just legislate gamed logistical distribution as a goal. No need for syntactic jargon unless the real goal is obscurantism.
Numbers don’t lie: capitalism is just another generational emotional game, obligation to defer to hierarchy, like the others humanity binned. What’s so important about it?
Why are you talking about ‘not harming capitalism’? What has that got to do with anything?
I'm very very grateful that the film exists, and for the conversation it's started. But I agree with this assessment. The film paints a dark picture and then leaves viewers on their own to figure out what to do-- beyond maybe taking their kid's phones away.
I disagree with TFA's notion that diversity at tech companies would help address the core problems of intrusive surveillance tech. Only stronger countervailing social institutions can do that.
To take my own medicine: vote, ask your representatives for regulation, use your technical expertise to draft bills or run for office, engage your community on issues that matter.
The algorithms deployed serve a simple purpose.... find a rabbit hole near where they measure your position in the space of ideas... and tilt what you see towards it... then measure how long you stay down there.... optimizing for maximum time in the hole.
The solution is simple, switch to systems where you decide what you're going to pay attention to. RSS, Blogs, human curated communications.
You might still fall into a rabbit hole that leads to extremism, but at least there won't be a billionaire incentivized to push you into it. Society, on the other hand, and normal social pressures, should be sufficient to help you find your way back out.