5 ms·

> The extreme personalization of the internet/modern life can lead to a feeling of isolation. The extreme manipulation, not personalisation. The latter would b

> The extreme personalization of the internet/modern life can lead to a feeling of isolation. The extreme manipulation, not personalisation. The latter would be for your benefit, Youtube would study how to make their users happy, have better sleep, be better informed, not fall for scams, etc. But instead they are studying how to make us spend most time on the most clickbait cospiracy theories.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
It's a for-profit company and they have never tried to hide that. If you know a way to make money from exclusively showing users content that makes them happier, better informed, better rested, etc., then by all means go ahead -- I sincerely wish you the best. But you won't need my good wishes, because you will soon outcompete YouTube and all the rest with your healthy-yet-still-profitable alternative.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  It's almost as though basing our society around profit maximization yields negative outcomes. But I'm sure this is just a blip that the Market will correct for.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    You're right. I think we should instead base society on theories that pretend that humans are better to each other than we actually really are. If it turns out that people don't behave as we had hoped, we can always say that the approach that was implemented is not the true approach.
    - Tade0 3y ago
      Or we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that, instead of leaving the decision to the most selfish of our kind. That was never a good system to begin with.
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago
        >we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years -- and TTBOMK the system that gets chosen has so far had capitalism as an important component every single time, despite the option to vote for parties that eschew it partly or completely.
        Kbelicius 3y ago
        This is ignoring a lot of history where people democratically chose something different just to be "invaded" by those that chose capitalism.
        Tainnor 3y ago
        Maybe, but nobody has invaded the US or Western Europe for a while now. I think the counterargument that I would mount is that what people want, or think what they want, isn't necessarily what is good for them. This is obviously a very dangerous line of thought - because it can justify all sorts of oppression - but I think it's nevertheless true.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        The 'capitalism' of FDR looks very much like socialism these days. Maybe our definitions are just fluid.
        mistermann 3y ago
        >>we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that >That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years Not sure what country you live in but in Canada they just give you a list of 4 or 5 names of people and you choose one, there's no asking of people what they'd like to do in the slightest. In fact, it's even worse: the folks campaign with certain sales pitches, but rarely follow up on their promises. It is fascinating how well done story telling can make people oblivious to what physically occurs.
        3y ago
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Because there are only ever two options... I find solace in knowing that I don't have a say in it. Because regardless of what the idea was, whenever someone tried to force everyone to go along with it and base a society on it, it turned out disastrously. The only thing we can all do it be open minded, honest, and set a good example for the next generation who will take over and hopefully improve on what we did, while making their own mistakes.
  - jkhdigital 3y ago
    Profit-maximizing business is the engine of economic growth. Looking over the past couple hundred years, I’d say the outcomes have been nothing short of spectacular.
    - majewsky 3y ago
      Just because something has had lots of positive effects, doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing the negative effects.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      Unregulated profit maximising business has killed how many people through the trans atlantic slave trade? Without regulation, this is what happens - the bank would collect your organs for payment if they could. Buinesses have no ethical standards. Profit maximing business did not invent antibiotics, did not invent sanitation, did not create public sewers, running water, soap, GPS, and clorination of water.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        Without industrialization, you never end slavery anywhere.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Why did you conflate 'profit maximizing business' with 'industrialization'?
        woooooo 3y ago
        Because I'm generally aware of western economic and political history from 1600-1800. I'm not conflating them, they were in fact conflated. Soviet russian and chinese industrialization was different, but later and not relevant to the Atlantic slave trade that parent poster was talking about.
        3y ago
- account42 3y ago
  It's an entity permitted by society under the premise that allowing such entities is a net benefit. We can and should continuously re-evaluate that benefit and adjust what we allow accordingly.

akoboldfrying 3y ago

It's a for-profit company and they have never tried to hide that. If you know a way to make money from exclusively showing users content that makes them happier, better informed, better rested, etc., then by all means go ahead -- I sincerely wish you the best. But you won't need my good wishes, because you will soon outcompete YouTube and all the rest with your healthy-yet-still-profitable alternative.

idle_zealot 3y ago
It's almost as though basing our society around profit maximization yields negative outcomes. But I'm sure this is just a blip that the Market will correct for.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  You're right. I think we should instead base society on theories that pretend that humans are better to each other than we actually really are. If it turns out that people don't behave as we had hoped, we can always say that the approach that was implemented is not the true approach.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    Or we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that, instead of leaving the decision to the most selfish of our kind. That was never a good system to begin with.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      >we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years -- and TTBOMK the system that gets chosen has so far had capitalism as an important component every single time, despite the option to vote for parties that eschew it partly or completely.
      - Kbelicius 3y ago
        This is ignoring a lot of history where people democratically chose something different just to be "invaded" by those that chose capitalism.
        Tainnor 3y ago
        Maybe, but nobody has invaded the US or Western Europe for a while now. I think the counterargument that I would mount is that what people want, or think what they want, isn't necessarily what is good for them. This is obviously a very dangerous line of thought - because it can justify all sorts of oppression - but I think it's nevertheless true.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        The 'capitalism' of FDR looks very much like socialism these days. Maybe our definitions are just fluid.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        >>we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that >That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years Not sure what country you live in but in Canada they just give you a list of 4 or 5 names of people and you choose one, there's no asking of people what they'd like to do in the slightest. In fact, it's even worse: the folks campaign with certain sales pitches, but rarely follow up on their promises. It is fascinating how well done story telling can make people oblivious to what physically occurs.
        3y ago
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Because there are only ever two options... I find solace in knowing that I don't have a say in it. Because regardless of what the idea was, whenever someone tried to force everyone to go along with it and base a society on it, it turned out disastrously. The only thing we can all do it be open minded, honest, and set a good example for the next generation who will take over and hopefully improve on what we did, while making their own mistakes.
- jkhdigital 3y ago
  Profit-maximizing business is the engine of economic growth. Looking over the past couple hundred years, I’d say the outcomes have been nothing short of spectacular.
  - majewsky 3y ago
    Just because something has had lots of positive effects, doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing the negative effects.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Unregulated profit maximising business has killed how many people through the trans atlantic slave trade? Without regulation, this is what happens - the bank would collect your organs for payment if they could. Buinesses have no ethical standards. Profit maximing business did not invent antibiotics, did not invent sanitation, did not create public sewers, running water, soap, GPS, and clorination of water.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Without industrialization, you never end slavery anywhere.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        Why did you conflate 'profit maximizing business' with 'industrialization'?
        woooooo 3y ago
        Because I'm generally aware of western economic and political history from 1600-1800. I'm not conflating them, they were in fact conflated. Soviet russian and chinese industrialization was different, but later and not relevant to the Atlantic slave trade that parent poster was talking about.
        3y ago
account42 3y ago
It's an entity permitted by society under the premise that allowing such entities is a net benefit. We can and should continuously re-evaluate that benefit and adjust what we allow accordingly.