6 ms·

> The problem is the business model based on the manipulation of individual behavior. I don't think this is the right target to blame. The much deeper reason i

by rqs 8y ago

> The problem is the business model based on the manipulation of individual behavior. I don't think this is the right target to blame. The much deeper reason is people ARE stupid, while think they are clever and correct. You, me, all the others included. And at the same time, the education once applied to us, failed. Simply put, it's not a technology problem, it's a sociology problem. Around the year 2002, when I was connected to the Internet for the first time, I thought it was a magic place where you can discuss with people on a topic until the truth emerges and learned, then everybody come to a conclusion and live happily ever after. That thought was the very first few which been destroyed. Because I instead found people are more likely to turn discussion into a "clan war" and mob each other instead. And that was long before Twitter or even Google is a thing. Here is a book that many people may already read, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind: https://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/1434100553 https://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/143410055...

acomjean 8y ago
I think Jaron's argument is that there was a choice to either "take payment for internet services" or "have them free and market". The later won out and now its not just marketing it manipulating to keep engagement so they can market more. that's my takeaway of Jaron's points in his Tavis Smiley interview. (The transcript seems to not be there anymore) part 1 https://wgby.org/episode/57812 https://wgby.org/episode/57812 part 2 https://wgby.org/episode/57813 https://wgby.org/episode/57813 edit:payback has the transcript (click to show) https://web.archive.org/web/20180206043916/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/computer-scientist-author-jaron-lanier-part-1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180206043916/http://www.pbs.or... https://web.archive.org/web/20180214180024/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/computer-scientist-author-jaron-lanier-part-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180214180024/http://www.pbs.or...
GW150914 8y ago
I connected quite a bit earlier, mostly Usenet and BBS’, and when EFnet came along a lot of that. People like to talk about Eternal September and other depredations of communities, but the truth is that while things functioned more smoothly earlier on, it was always a bunch of people and people more or less act like warring groups of primates. If someone had come back from the future and only told us about the extent of the internet in this time, I think that a lot of people could have extrapolates the shit-show of today from what we’d experienced back then. The only semi-surprise was the move to mobile devices opening the internet up to people who are almost too stupid to live. Not just tribal, not just willing to fight for their version of reality, but dumb as rocks. There used to at least be a filter (which steadily widened) of needing to know how to use a computer and get online. That is just gone now, and we’re in the true agora. It is not fun, and all of which is to say it is as you say, a sociology problem. BJT it exists in this form because of powerful and ubiquitous technology. It’s also true that the underlying sociological problem has been ruthlessly capitalized on by people who realized we warring primates could be readily exploited for attention and therefore, revenue. It was always going to be messy, but instead of people trying to fight against then current, some of the richest, most powerful and brightest people are actively trying to sweep people away for money.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  BBSes were never as great of an advertising buy as an image-adjacent to an Instagram pic. Nobody looking at a BBS could anticipate why BBSes would eventually vanish, while Instagram is truly here to stay.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Depends on how you define "here to stay." All fashions come and go. I am willing to absolutely guarantee that there will be no trace of Instagram in 50 years, maybe it would vanish in 20 years. It could be irrelevant even earlier than 10 years. Same with Twitter, Facebook, and other so-called giants. 50 years ago, Woodstock didn't even happen yet. A lot changes in that amount of time.
    - oblio 8y ago
      Depending on how big they are, they can sustain themselves. The pioneers have a high mortality rate, but the survivors are usually pretty rugged. Commodore and DEC went under, but Apple and Microsoft will probably bury us both. Facebook, via both its main site and also WhatsApp and Instagram, seems to be solidifying its position. Google's already there. Twitter: hard to say, they're the ones most likely to go under in my opinion.
  - jazzyjackson 8y ago
    I would be curious to know your theory on why BBS's vanished, and also why you suppose Instagram is here for good. Because of the advertising revenue, or something eles? For contrast, I just figure BBS died due to eternal September on the hardware scaling side - the rate at which people became computers users increased much faster than the rate at which people became sysadmins and moderators. So, the internet became unmoderated, un-administered.
- Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
  some of the richest, most powerful and brightest people are actively trying to sweep people away for money. This is a big part of the problem IMO. General loss of moral values. I'm not religious at all, and criticize religions all the time, but one has to admit that when Christianity was the driving force in the western world, there were at least some values that were kind of universally accepted. Yes, there was lots of hypocrisy, and people acted against said values routinely, but at the very least most would feel bad about it or fear for their public image, and try to not be needlessly extreme at breaking them. Now, Christianity has been replaced by ruthless capitalism, and people don't even have to pretend that they care about anything else than making piles of money. And if a company is criticized for using manipulative or exploitative techniques to make more money, regular people will even jump to defend it. I see it everyday on the Internet (e.g. forums for free games with monetizing techniques that border on inducing gambling addiction). They have accepted making money as the supreme value. These capitalist morals that place money in the center of everything must die and be replaced by something else, or we are headed for dystopia.
mcrad 8y ago
So you agree the business model is manipulative, but that the ones being manipulated should be the "target to blame" for their stupidity?
- rqs 8y ago
  How about I put it this way: Tech companies (at least in the beginning) didn't realize how easy it is to turn some people into mobs. Also notice, I'm not saying people are stupid so don't blame the business model. I rather going to say: Go blame the business model, and while you at it, don't forget to also notify people that maybe they should be more wiser when posting stuff.
- lmm 8y ago
  One man's manipulation is another's customer service. The business model is to give you more of what you read, share and reply to, and less of what you don't. I don't see how that's "manipulation" any more than my local coffeeshop selling me good coffee so that I'll keep coming back and buying more coffee from them is "manipulation". If your social media experience is "awful" I think that's a reflection of you rather than something inherent in the system. My social media experience is pretty positive, because that's what I engage with and respond to.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    What if the coffee shop were putting a lot more sugar in the drinks than they claimed?
    - lmm 8y ago
      If they were lying to me I'd have a problem with that. I don't think I see the analogy though? I'm told I'm getting an algorithmically prioritized feed of my friends' posts and that seems to be what I am getting?
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        It's a weak analogy. But the idea is that perhaps the algorithm is giving you what is good for them instead of what is good for you. So then you are in the much more difficult place of deciding how they are characterizing the feed and how that lines up with what they are putting into it and so on.
zhengwang 8y ago
I think you are massively underestimating the ability of social media to manipulate behavior. These things are built just like casinos, to occasionally give you a hit of dopamine and keep you playing until you get another.

by rqs 8y ago

acomjean 8y ago

I think Jaron's argument is that there was a choice to either "take payment for internet services" or "have them free and market". The later won out and now its not just marketing it manipulating to keep engagement so they can market more. that's my takeaway of Jaron's points in his Tavis Smiley interview. (The transcript seems to not be there anymore) part 1 https://wgby.org/episode/57812 https://wgby.org/episode/57812 part 2 https://wgby.org/episode/57813 https://wgby.org/episode/57813 edit:payback has the transcript (click to show) https://web.archive.org/web/20180206043916/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/computer-scientist-author-jaron-lanier-part-1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180206043916/http://www.pbs.or... https://web.archive.org/web/20180214180024/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/computer-scientist-author-jaron-lanier-part-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180214180024/http://www.pbs.or...

GW150914 8y ago

I connected quite a bit earlier, mostly Usenet and BBS’, and when EFnet came along a lot of that. People like to talk about Eternal September and other depredations of communities, but the truth is that while things functioned more smoothly earlier on, it was always a bunch of people and people more or less act like warring groups of primates. If someone had come back from the future and only told us about the extent of the internet in this time, I think that a lot of people could have extrapolates the shit-show of today from what we’d experienced back then. The only semi-surprise was the move to mobile devices opening the internet up to people who are almost too stupid to live. Not just tribal, not just willing to fight for their version of reality, but dumb as rocks. There used to at least be a filter (which steadily widened) of needing to know how to use a computer and get online. That is just gone now, and we’re in the true agora. It is not fun, and all of which is to say it is as you say, a sociology problem. BJT it exists in this form because of powerful and ubiquitous technology. It’s also true that the underlying sociological problem has been ruthlessly capitalized on by people who realized we warring primates could be readily exploited for attention and therefore, revenue. It was always going to be messy, but instead of people trying to fight against then current, some of the richest, most powerful and brightest people are actively trying to sweep people away for money.

doctorpangloss 8y ago
BBSes were never as great of an advertising buy as an image-adjacent to an Instagram pic. Nobody looking at a BBS could anticipate why BBSes would eventually vanish, while Instagram is truly here to stay.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Depends on how you define "here to stay." All fashions come and go. I am willing to absolutely guarantee that there will be no trace of Instagram in 50 years, maybe it would vanish in 20 years. It could be irrelevant even earlier than 10 years. Same with Twitter, Facebook, and other so-called giants. 50 years ago, Woodstock didn't even happen yet. A lot changes in that amount of time.
  - oblio 8y ago
    Depending on how big they are, they can sustain themselves. The pioneers have a high mortality rate, but the survivors are usually pretty rugged. Commodore and DEC went under, but Apple and Microsoft will probably bury us both. Facebook, via both its main site and also WhatsApp and Instagram, seems to be solidifying its position. Google's already there. Twitter: hard to say, they're the ones most likely to go under in my opinion.
- jazzyjackson 8y ago
  I would be curious to know your theory on why BBS's vanished, and also why you suppose Instagram is here for good. Because of the advertising revenue, or something eles? For contrast, I just figure BBS died due to eternal September on the hardware scaling side - the rate at which people became computers users increased much faster than the rate at which people became sysadmins and moderators. So, the internet became unmoderated, un-administered.
Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
some of the richest, most powerful and brightest people are actively trying to sweep people away for money. This is a big part of the problem IMO. General loss of moral values. I'm not religious at all, and criticize religions all the time, but one has to admit that when Christianity was the driving force in the western world, there were at least some values that were kind of universally accepted. Yes, there was lots of hypocrisy, and people acted against said values routinely, but at the very least most would feel bad about it or fear for their public image, and try to not be needlessly extreme at breaking them. Now, Christianity has been replaced by ruthless capitalism, and people don't even have to pretend that they care about anything else than making piles of money. And if a company is criticized for using manipulative or exploitative techniques to make more money, regular people will even jump to defend it. I see it everyday on the Internet (e.g. forums for free games with monetizing techniques that border on inducing gambling addiction). They have accepted making money as the supreme value. These capitalist morals that place money in the center of everything must die and be replaced by something else, or we are headed for dystopia.

mcrad 8y ago

So you agree the business model is manipulative, but that the ones being manipulated should be the "target to blame" for their stupidity?

rqs 8y ago
How about I put it this way: Tech companies (at least in the beginning) didn't realize how easy it is to turn some people into mobs. Also notice, I'm not saying people are stupid so don't blame the business model. I rather going to say: Go blame the business model, and while you at it, don't forget to also notify people that maybe they should be more wiser when posting stuff.
lmm 8y ago
One man's manipulation is another's customer service. The business model is to give you more of what you read, share and reply to, and less of what you don't. I don't see how that's "manipulation" any more than my local coffeeshop selling me good coffee so that I'll keep coming back and buying more coffee from them is "manipulation". If your social media experience is "awful" I think that's a reflection of you rather than something inherent in the system. My social media experience is pretty positive, because that's what I engage with and respond to.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  What if the coffee shop were putting a lot more sugar in the drinks than they claimed?
  - lmm 8y ago
    If they were lying to me I'd have a problem with that. I don't think I see the analogy though? I'm told I'm getting an algorithmically prioritized feed of my friends' posts and that seems to be what I am getting?
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      It's a weak analogy. But the idea is that perhaps the algorithm is giving you what is good for them instead of what is good for you. So then you are in the much more difficult place of deciding how they are characterizing the feed and how that lines up with what they are putting into it and so on.

zhengwang 8y ago

I think you are massively underestimating the ability of social media to manipulate behavior. These things are built just like casinos, to occasionally give you a hit of dopamine and keep you playing until you get another.