3 ms·

Dude you misunderstand. So does Mr. Doctrow. Everyone who has shelled out cash for marketing and advertising knows its crap. People who work in adtech know it

by paox 5y ago

Dude you misunderstand. So does Mr. Doctrow. Everyone who has shelled out cash for marketing and advertising knows its crap. People who work in adtech know its crap. Politicians know. CEOs know. They pay the bills. BUT its better than the previous crap and all other alternatives thanks to more data. Which is why anyone who want to influence, persuade or control others sits 24*7 on social media. When it comes to the Game of Persuasion if everyone is using crap tools who ever uses it more has an advantage. Momentarily atleast untill someone else has more energy or outspends you. Attacking the crapiness of the tool wont reduce disinformation. Billions have been spent on reducing the crapiness and its unsolvable, because you never reduce the number of mindlessly ambitious chimps, who will use whatever crap tools exist, to gain influence, persuade and control others.

simonh 5y ago
Right, the point is you have to be in the game. If you were to pull out because the game is crap and ceded it to your opposition, it wouldn't be crap anymore. They'd dominate the channel and own the signal. Better to pay your money, keep in the game and spoil it for everybody than let anyone else win. Also Corey correctly identifies, but dismisses the real power of FB and similar tech, which is connecting people with stuff they're interested in. "Seen in that light, “online radicalization” stops looking like the result of mind control, instead showing itself to be a kind of homecoming — finding the people who share your interests, a common online experience we can all relate to." We know this. Algorithmically tuning your feed into torrents of stuff you already like is the issue. He is right that yes we can relate to this. The reason we use search is to find stuff we know we want more of, but being dumb chimps the uncomfortable fact is we don't always know what's good for us. Hence Oxycontin, it feels great until you depend on it to feel anything at all, and then you're dead. Or slagging off humans with vaginas for being TERFs. Or storming the capitol building chanting "shoot him with his own gun". The problem then is, who gets to decide what's good for us? Maybe it's our right to die or become brainwashed however we choose. I don't know, I've got no easy answers for you here.

by paox 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

Right, the point is you have to be in the game. If you were to pull out because the game is crap and ceded it to your opposition, it wouldn't be crap anymore. They'd dominate the channel and own the signal. Better to pay your money, keep in the game and spoil it for everybody than let anyone else win. Also Corey correctly identifies, but dismisses the real power of FB and similar tech, which is connecting people with stuff they're interested in. "Seen in that light, “online radicalization” stops looking like the result of mind control, instead showing itself to be a kind of homecoming — finding the people who share your interests, a common online experience we can all relate to." We know this. Algorithmically tuning your feed into torrents of stuff you already like is the issue. He is right that yes we can relate to this. The reason we use search is to find stuff we know we want more of, but being dumb chimps the uncomfortable fact is we don't always know what's good for us. Hence Oxycontin, it feels great until you depend on it to feel anything at all, and then you're dead. Or slagging off humans with vaginas for being TERFs. Or storming the capitol building chanting "shoot him with his own gun". The problem then is, who gets to decide what's good for us? Maybe it's our right to die or become brainwashed however we choose. I don't know, I've got no easy answers for you here.