3 ms·

Maybe not in those terms, but I don't see why the algorithm can't do internal work to basically take that into account, whether it's made explicit or not. You

Maybe not in those terms, but I don't see why the algorithm can't do internal work to basically take that into account, whether it's made explicit or not. You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? What do you think happens when it is determined that poor mental health increases ad revenue? Do you think social apps would refrain from manipulating their content in order to keep you in the sweet spot of poor mental health to increase ad revenue? Out of compassion? Or?

pests 3y ago
> You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? I do find it wrong and didn't say otherwise. Just where is this possible? How does a person or company target people with vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health? Do you mean in general, as in FB/Google are doing this to every person, all the time? I just don't believe this is a product or service you can purchase from any ad network right now. Its like asking: Don't you think its wrong for companies to use mind-reading technology to target sales?
- broscillator 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be explicit and on purpose. It can be something the algorithms slowly crawl towards, and someone working in them might notice. On the other hand, it's been well known for a while the effect of outrage in online engagement. Trolling and fake news became political weapons to recruit people, making them emotional, invested, it has shaped belief and behavior. There's people who get paid to spread this kind of content with this goal, for more sinister purposes than ad revenue. The negative emotion of anger is exploited to get people to stay engaged online. So this is not new, at all. Why would it be limited to anger? For what reason would FB/Google refrain from doing it? This is what I'm curious about, do you honestly think it's not possible to use the algorithms and AI for such a task? If not, surely you admit it would be possible soon? And if so, would they abstain for moral reasons?
  - pests 3y ago
    Of course it's possibly vle. Anything is possible. But you are just proposing a lot of scary sounding "what-ifs" without evidence. What if the tech companies use their influence to summon the Devil? What if they secretly are controlling all of the politicians? What if they are forcing pineapple on pizza? Why aren't they secretly running the world? Sure, lots of things will be possible soon. That doesn't mean it has to be happening.
    - broscillator 3y ago
      I'm exploring what would be the safeguards against this. I'm not trying to convince you, rather I'm seeking out other people to convince me of why this wouldn't be the case. Pineapple on pizza wouldn't profit them, so it's easy to see why they wouldn't go that route. What's more, it wouldn't affect me personally. Now if we consider that 1) they are capable, and they have done similar things in the past 2) there is a mental health epidemic 3) this could affect you and me personally, then isn't it reasonable to spread awareness about this, rather than sweep it under the table until some big revelation comes as evidence? For example, if there was a constant healthy discussion about how online rage was not only a problem on a personal level, but could be leveraged to sway an entire country's political compass before it happened, would it perhaps not have had a positive change? This is the mindset I'm coming from, not fear mongering.

pests 3y ago

> You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? I do find it wrong and didn't say otherwise. Just where is this possible? How does a person or company target people with vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health? Do you mean in general, as in FB/Google are doing this to every person, all the time? I just don't believe this is a product or service you can purchase from any ad network right now. Its like asking: Don't you think its wrong for companies to use mind-reading technology to target sales?

broscillator 3y ago
It doesn't have to be explicit and on purpose. It can be something the algorithms slowly crawl towards, and someone working in them might notice. On the other hand, it's been well known for a while the effect of outrage in online engagement. Trolling and fake news became political weapons to recruit people, making them emotional, invested, it has shaped belief and behavior. There's people who get paid to spread this kind of content with this goal, for more sinister purposes than ad revenue. The negative emotion of anger is exploited to get people to stay engaged online. So this is not new, at all. Why would it be limited to anger? For what reason would FB/Google refrain from doing it? This is what I'm curious about, do you honestly think it's not possible to use the algorithms and AI for such a task? If not, surely you admit it would be possible soon? And if so, would they abstain for moral reasons?
- pests 3y ago
  Of course it's possibly vle. Anything is possible. But you are just proposing a lot of scary sounding "what-ifs" without evidence. What if the tech companies use their influence to summon the Devil? What if they secretly are controlling all of the politicians? What if they are forcing pineapple on pizza? Why aren't they secretly running the world? Sure, lots of things will be possible soon. That doesn't mean it has to be happening.
  - broscillator 3y ago
    I'm exploring what would be the safeguards against this. I'm not trying to convince you, rather I'm seeking out other people to convince me of why this wouldn't be the case. Pineapple on pizza wouldn't profit them, so it's easy to see why they wouldn't go that route. What's more, it wouldn't affect me personally. Now if we consider that 1) they are capable, and they have done similar things in the past 2) there is a mental health epidemic 3) this could affect you and me personally, then isn't it reasonable to spread awareness about this, rather than sweep it under the table until some big revelation comes as evidence? For example, if there was a constant healthy discussion about how online rage was not only a problem on a personal level, but could be leveraged to sway an entire country's political compass before it happened, would it perhaps not have had a positive change? This is the mindset I'm coming from, not fear mongering.