7 ms·

So true. Endless distractions taking up countless man-hours.

marcinzm 6y ago
So? You can argue that this form of distraction doesn't bring net-happiness but what is wrong with pointless distractions that make people happy? Before this we had TV and before that Radio and before that Books and so on and so on.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  I genuinely dislike Apple but their CEO has just shared some insights that very much go against your premise of social networks as just another harmless entertainment industry. "At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement -- the longer the better -- and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible" "What are the consequences of seeing thousands of users join extremist groups, and then perpetuating an algorithm that recommends even more?" "Will the future belong to the innovations that make our lives better, more fulfilled and more human? Or will it belong to those tools that prize our attention to the exclusion of everything else, compounding our fears and aggregating extremism, to serve ever-more-invasively-targeted ads over all other ambitions?"
  - dionian 6y ago
    and of course, we all know who gets to define 'extremism'
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      Could you clarify? I don't understand the implication here. The above language can apply equally to any number of large, sometimes violent, protests that are primarily built on and disseminate information via a social media platform.
      - JKCalhoun 6y ago
        I thought extremism pretty much defined itself. Any political position that is void of any factual evidence to back it up, that acknowledges no nuance.... Just off the top of my head, but I think we all know extremism when we see/hear it.
        TeaDrunk 6y ago
        Yes, that's why I'm asking what the parent meant by "we all know who gets to define 'extremism'" because the rhetoric suggests my assumption of a broadly applicable notion of extremism might be incorrect.
        chevill 6y ago
        >Just off the top of my head, but I think we all know extremism when we see/hear it. I think there's a substantial amount of people that don't. Or rather, they can easily identify extremism in people they don't relate to while completely ignoring it in people that they find even the tiniest amount of common ground with. This seems to be the natural and inevitable result of treating politics like a team sport for 200+ years.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Those things weren’t proven over and over again to lead to massive depression and mental health issues. TV ok somewhat bad but not all bad. It made us all on the same page, believing the same facts and entertained. Radio had to be pretty much all good. A kid listening to old radio shows laying in front of the console was in pure heaven. Facebook, etc. is purely detrimental to humanity like cigarettes or meth. I’d post the references but there are simply too many. I’ve never seen a study that didn’t find Facebook, Twitter, etc. detrimental to mental health.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Radio, books and TV often bring a lot more intellectual development and perspective than engagement-optimized content.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Only if you walk away from the experience thinking about it, processing it, perhaps thinking differently yourself. Few television shows did that for me — "Connections" is a HN favorite and changed my way of thinking. Several books by Kurt Vonnegut (and Dune as well, FWIW) also changed how I think about the world. Content is important is my point.
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    I don't know if this is true. The most popular and widely watched TV is reality TV drivel that is IMO no more intellectually stimulating than, say, 'Professional craftsmaker REACTS to viral TikTok videos!'.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sn_master 6y ago
And only accepted speech is allowed. No longer your own private blog space to say whatever you wanted..
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have had content moderation from the beginning. They're just like web forums. They were never "private blog spaces to say whatever you wanted". There's been a "Report" button on all these sites for years. Even Myspace routinely banned users and groups over content issues. Here's one from 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112224/http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933 https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112224/http://www.secula...
  - dionian 6y ago
    Its nothing like it was today. It wasn't part and parcel of politics and elections like it is today. People weren't being ruined by woke mobs
  - zoobab 6y ago
    Even Hackernews has censored entire threads.
    - throwaway3699 6y ago
      The scale really changes things though...
  - sn_master 6y ago
    I was talking about the Internet as a whole turning into these walled gardens rather than older times where blogs were common. Even in case of FB, there wasn't as much crackdown on political groups as its happening now.

So? You can argue that this form of distraction doesn't bring net-happiness but what is wrong with pointless distractions that make people happy? Before this we had TV and before that Radio and before that Books and so on and so on.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I genuinely dislike Apple but their CEO has just shared some insights that very much go against your premise of social networks as just another harmless entertainment industry. "At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement -- the longer the better -- and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible" "What are the consequences of seeing thousands of users join extremist groups, and then perpetuating an algorithm that recommends even more?" "Will the future belong to the innovations that make our lives better, more fulfilled and more human? Or will it belong to those tools that prize our attention to the exclusion of everything else, compounding our fears and aggregating extremism, to serve ever-more-invasively-targeted ads over all other ambitions?"
- dionian 6y ago
  and of course, we all know who gets to define 'extremism'
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Could you clarify? I don't understand the implication here. The above language can apply equally to any number of large, sometimes violent, protests that are primarily built on and disseminate information via a social media platform.
    - JKCalhoun 6y ago
      I thought extremism pretty much defined itself. Any political position that is void of any factual evidence to back it up, that acknowledges no nuance.... Just off the top of my head, but I think we all know extremism when we see/hear it.
      - TeaDrunk 6y ago
        Yes, that's why I'm asking what the parent meant by "we all know who gets to define 'extremism'" because the rhetoric suggests my assumption of a broadly applicable notion of extremism might be incorrect.
      - chevill 6y ago
        >Just off the top of my head, but I think we all know extremism when we see/hear it. I think there's a substantial amount of people that don't. Or rather, they can easily identify extremism in people they don't relate to while completely ignoring it in people that they find even the tiniest amount of common ground with. This seems to be the natural and inevitable result of treating politics like a team sport for 200+ years.
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Those things weren’t proven over and over again to lead to massive depression and mental health issues. TV ok somewhat bad but not all bad. It made us all on the same page, believing the same facts and entertained. Radio had to be pretty much all good. A kid listening to old radio shows laying in front of the console was in pure heaven. Facebook, etc. is purely detrimental to humanity like cigarettes or meth. I’d post the references but there are simply too many. I’ve never seen a study that didn’t find Facebook, Twitter, etc. detrimental to mental health.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Radio, books and TV often bring a lot more intellectual development and perspective than engagement-optimized content.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Only if you walk away from the experience thinking about it, processing it, perhaps thinking differently yourself. Few television shows did that for me — "Connections" is a HN favorite and changed my way of thinking. Several books by Kurt Vonnegut (and Dune as well, FWIW) also changed how I think about the world. Content is important is my point.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I don't know if this is true. The most popular and widely watched TV is reality TV drivel that is IMO no more intellectually stimulating than, say, 'Professional craftsmaker REACTS to viral TikTok videos!'.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sn_master 6y ago

And only accepted speech is allowed. No longer your own private blog space to say whatever you wanted..

tomjakubowski 6y ago
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have had content moderation from the beginning. They're just like web forums. They were never "private blog spaces to say whatever you wanted". There's been a "Report" button on all these sites for years. Even Myspace routinely banned users and groups over content issues. Here's one from 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112224/http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933 https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112224/http://www.secula...
- dionian 6y ago
  Its nothing like it was today. It wasn't part and parcel of politics and elections like it is today. People weren't being ruined by woke mobs
- zoobab 6y ago
  Even Hackernews has censored entire threads.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    The scale really changes things though...
- sn_master 6y ago
  I was talking about the Internet as a whole turning into these walled gardens rather than older times where blogs were common. Even in case of FB, there wasn't as much crackdown on political groups as its happening now.