The Social Dilemma

[ajeandy]

Like they said in the show, fake news spreads six times faster than real news. And that translates into more views, likes and shares. And that drives ad revenue.

Yup....all in the name of the dollar. To make money. Cause civil unrest / division to profit. It's disgusting.

 

[Ingomike]

Repost from another thread...

In its current state of use yes this form of media sucks.
But in some arenas it is stellar. It is how we use it that matters.

CM, we are discussing this in another thread but the last comment is really off base. If you have not watched it, please do, it changed several of my preconceptions, one being, that some users were misusing the platforms and that was the biggest problem. It is not, it is the deliberate dissemination of trash by the platform itself, in an effort to get clicks and therefore money, that is the biggest issue.

They learn your bias, likes, dislikes and feed that to you to make money. I previously believed that stuff was mostly spread organically, like when you send your friends an article or a post, but it is not, if one is a birther, pizzagater, whatever gets you to click, the platforms addict you to them like crack.

Come me over to the other thread and join the discussion...

 

[jamil]

Not the case. They're in it to make money. That drives views. It's all about views and to get you engaged / glued to the platform. They will feed you any bull**** that you will look at and that's the goal, regardless of the consequences. They can make money off of you by targeting you with paid ads and they just slide them into content they think you'll like / view.

It's kinda both. Along with social media, news companies have discovered that outrage porn makes for a lot of views and clicks. So they hire a bunch of activist journalists because they write news pieces that provoke outrage. But, because these activist journalists are ****ing crazy, they don't give a **** about money as much as ideology. So at the board level are people who are in it for the money, and then everyone else below is pretty much an ideologue who believes in the cause by any means necessary. So yeah, they'll subvert news to promote the ideology and as long as they're making money, the bosses don't care. If somehow people stopped this incessant desire to consume outrage porn, the bosses would likely fire the activists and hire people based on whatever else drove clicks and views.

 

[johny5]

It's kinda both. Along with social media, news companies have discovered that outrage porn makes for a lot of views and clicks. So they hire a bunch of activist journalists because they write news pieces that provoke outrage. But, because these activist journalists are ****ing crazy, they don't give a **** about money as much as ideology. So at the board level are people who are in it for the money, and then everyone else below is pretty much an ideologue who believes in the cause by any means necessary. So yeah, they'll subvert news to promote the ideology and as long as they're making money, the bosses don't care. If somehow people stopped this incessant desire to consume outrage porn, the bosses would likely fire the activists and hire people based on whatever else drove clicks and views.

**BINGO**

 

[Ingomike]

It's kinda both. Along with social media, news companies have discovered that outrage porn makes for a lot of views and clicks. So they hire a bunch of activist journalists because they write news pieces that provoke outrage. But, because these activist journalists are ****ing crazy, they don't give a **** about money as much as ideology. So at the board level are people who are in it for the money, and then everyone else below is pretty much an ideologue who believes in the cause by any means necessary. So yeah, they'll subvert news to promote the ideology and as long as they're making money, the bosses don't care. If somehow people stopped this incessant desire to consume outrage porn, the bosses would likely fire the activists and hire people based on whatever else drove clicks and views.

You did a switcheroo there. While I will agree social media companies have ideologues and they use outrage porn in the platform what they are doing is exponentially different than publishers...

 

[jamil]

You did a switcheroo there. While I will agree social media companies have ideologues and they use outrage porn in the platform what they are doing is exponentially different than publishers...

I do agree that they do have some ideological bias as well--they all come from left leaning places. But they are primarily motivated by money, and it seems to me that their alliance with ideologues is more strategic than ideological itself.

But what classifies that as a "switcheroo"?

 

[ajeandy]

Repost from another thread...




CM, we are discussing this in another thread but the last comment is really off base. If you have not watched it, please do, it changed several of my preconceptions, one being, that some users were misusing the platforms and that was the biggest problem. It is not, it is the deliberate dissemination of trash by the platform itself, in an effort to get clicks and therefore money, that is the biggest issue.

They learn your bias, likes, dislikes and feed that to you to make money. I previously believed that stuff was mostly spread organically, like when you send your friends an article or a post, but it is not, if one is a birther, pizzagater, whatever gets you to click, the platforms addict you to them like crack.

Come me over to the other thread and join the discussion...

100% They probably didn't realize they were spreading trash around at first, but once they did they're like....well if we don't we'll have less engagement aka less money....

It's an algorithm that decides what you see when you swipe down to refresh your feed.

 

[ajeandy]

It's kinda both. Along with social media, news companies have discovered that outrage porn makes for a lot of views and clicks. So they hire a bunch of activist journalists because they write news pieces that provoke outrage. But, because these activist journalists are ****ing crazy, they don't give a **** about money as much as ideology. So at the board level are people who are in it for the money, and then everyone else below is pretty much an ideologue who believes in the cause by any means necessary. So yeah, they'll subvert news to promote the ideology and as long as they're making money, the bosses don't care. If somehow people stopped this incessant desire to consume outrage porn, the bosses would likely fire the activists and hire people based on whatever else drove clicks and views.

I think it goes hand in hand. Take the QANON mysterious online group for example. A guy started it, made a website, starting raking in cash, and suddenly your idea or ideology turns into a giant cash machine. I don't see how it's any different than mega churches raking in cash hand over fist and creating millionaire pastors in the name of god. It's not anything new, but the tech behind it has made it much more effective."

Essentially they've made a money machine that profits when you see something you like or agree with. In turn, their algos spread this trash to others "like you" regardless of the subject matter. It could be racist, hate speech, or just flat out lies and it doesn't matter because there is money to be made by spreading it.

 

[BugI02]

For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

*.*

 

[BugI02]

I do agree that they do have some ideological bias as well--they all come from left leaning places. But they are primarily motivated by money, and it seems to me that their alliance with ideologues is more strategic than ideological itself.

But what classifies that as a "switcheroo"?

I think they have passed beyond being motivated by money and are now motivated by a perceived power to remake the world as they wish it to be, which is to say motivated by naive hubris and a lack of proper appreciation for the law of unintended consequences

They may live to regret their actions, but if they succeed probably not for long thereafter. Once Utopia is achieved that kind of power will no longer be tolerated

 

[Leadeye]

I think they have passed beyond being motivated by money and are now motivated by a perceived power to remake the world as they wish it to be, which is to say motivated by naive hubris and a lack of proper appreciation for the law of unintended consequences

They may live to regret their actions, but if they succeed probably not for long thereafter. Once Utopia is achieved that kind of power will no longer be tolerated

Over my many years in business I've noticed that about a lot of people, because they have money, they think they are right about everything. A person can work hard, be smart and lucky at something, and get rich. That's the American dream, but that's all it is. Being good at real estate doesn't mean you're a good plumber, let alone running a nation.

 

[BugI02]

Over my many years in business I've noticed that about a lot of people, because they have money, they think they are right about everything. A person can work hard, be smart and lucky at something, and get rich. That's the American dream, but that's all it is. Being good at real estate doesn't mean you're a good plumber, let alone running a nation.

Yes. If they get rich enough, they can rearrange their personal world to their liking- move to an exclusive town or enclave and live well among like minded people - and many are content to stop there. It just seems that it has become more common to find among the wealthy those who are not content with that and who set out to fix everyone else. Combine great wealth with personal control of twitter or facebook or google and that peculiar type of megalomania and you have a Bondian villian rather than a productive member of society

 

[jamil]

I think they have passed beyond being motivated by money and are now motivated by a perceived power to remake the world as they wish it to be, which is to say motivated by naive hubris and a lack of proper appreciation for the law of unintended consequences

They may live to regret their actions, but if they succeed probably not for long thereafter. Once Utopia is achieved that kind of power will no longer be tolerated

There is some truth to that as well. I don't think it's any one thing. Elitists are a thing. It still seems to me that the primary motivation, or at least the best evidence we have, is that they're primarily motivated by money. And borrowing from another thread, it's not absurd to speculate that because China seems very eager to help sow civil unrest in the US, and they're getting social media giants to help keep people in the dark in their own countries, what kind of deals is China making with the social media giants to help fuel strife here?

 

[Leadeye]

An amusing anecdote from experience that goes with this. A long time ago when I was going through instrument training other people were taking it at the same time. One guy in particular with a very nice new plane spent a lot of time arguing with the instructor. Clearly a successful guy at what ever he did for a living he had very few hours of stick time, and I thought it amusing that he was paying the instructor a lot of money to argue instrument details with a 16K hour MEII.

 

[ajeandy]

An amusing anecdote from experience that goes with this. A long time ago when I was going through instrument training other people were taking it at the same time. One guy in particular with a very nice new plane spent a lot of time arguing with the instructor. Clearly a successful guy at what ever he did for a living he had very few hours of stick time, and I thought it amusing that he was paying the instructor a lot of money to argue instrument details with a 16K hour MEII.

It's almost like the people who are telling scientist they are wrong about how a virus spreads and how serious / dangerous it is.

 

[Leadeye]

I will say that there were no politics involved in this story and the only money being spent was by the guy doing the arguing.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I just finished watching the social dilemma. I have to say that even though I thought I was adequately jaded and suspicious of The social media companies, I wasn't even close.

I think I agree with the PhD at the end who said we just need to shut them down. If we can't do that, as I said in another thread, then these entities have to be addressed as common carriers.

I did like the one lady's comment regarding regulating their markets. That we don't allow organs to be sold or people and we shouldn't allow people's attention to be sold either.

From a practical perspective that maybe the best solution.

That movie brings November in to a whole new focus.

 

[Redhorse]

I just finished it tonight. I run a Facebook group to my target market, run a lot of Facebook ads etc. I use my brain to try figure out what my target market is thinking, what they will engage with, what draws them in, so I can sell them my wares.

Big tech is using AI and algorithms to do this on a massive scale.

I said this in another thread, but FacebookGoogleAppleAmazon control what we see, think, and feel. They're in control now.

On that note, I don't think anyone should allow their children to have social media. Seems as if they contributors to that documentary feel the same.

As a former high school teacher, I can 100% agree children should not have social media access, including teenagers. When I was in high school smart phones were just starting to take over, but we had iPads and people still started social media arguments that lead to real life problems at school. It's even worse in schools now. I couldn't tell you the number of issues I had with students due to their social media (ab)use.

It's the positive feedback loop created by AI bias algorithms that are the bad part. INGO does have a bit of a bubble, sure, but there is a diverse enough spectrum of opinions. INGO's content related algorithm mostly consists of the list-o-threads you haven't read yet, and the subscribed threads with new posts, and email notifications.

I would say INGO has more of it's own bubble being it's designed for gun owners who live in Indiana. I don't think an algorithm has much to do with it, not as much as other social media platforms.

 

[Ingomike]

I just finished watching the social dilemma. I have to say that even though I thought I was adequately jaded and suspicious of The social media companies, I wasn't even close.

I think I agree with the PhD at the end who said we just need to shut them down. If we can't do that, as I said in another thread, then these entities have to be addressed as common carriers.

I did like the one lady's comment regarding regulating their markets. That we don't allow organs to be sold or people and we shouldn't allow people's attention to be sold either.

From a practical perspective that maybe the best solution.

That movie brings November in to a whole new focus.

It sure does! That those with TDS are fed a diet of TDS steroids means they can never be brought to a reality. I get NO news from a feed. I see content from a variety of sources accross the spectrum. I often share info with folks that have never heard even a hint of what I tell them and they are incredulous that it might possibly be true. They live in an unchallenged bubble fed to them...

 

[Redhorse]

Yup....all in the name of the dollar. To make money. Cause civil unrest / division to profit. It's disgusting.

Honestly gun and ammunition companies have been benefiting pretty greatly from the social unrest. I thought I read on here that one company has $80 million in back orders. Now I'm not saying that they are responsible for any of it, just that they're benefitting from the added business. Social media bombarding people with news of violence coupled with an openly very anti-gun candidate in an election year makes the firearms industry as a whole a pretty good profit. Social media helps with that.