3 ms·

I agree. It's been deliberately designed to cause strife. They are genuinely anti-human companies that seem to want conflict and tension to occur. https://www

I agree. It's been deliberately designed to cause strife. They are genuinely anti-human companies that seem to want conflict and tension to occur. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/30/facebook-sad-manipulating-emotions-socially-responsible-company https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/30/facebo... This article was very on-the-nose, that really should have been the writing on the wall.

Zak 3y ago
I think this is a partial attribution error; the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers. The fact that strife is one of the most effective ways to do so, and the companies appear utterly unconcerned about the resulting damage to society makes it look like strife is the end goal, but it is merely a means to make money. They would change their algorithms immediately if large advertisers applied financial incentives. We've seen some of this with Youtube's policies leading to videos with censored profanity where its use was previously normal and neologisms like "unalived" to mean killed. Musk's Twitter may be a partial exception since it's decisions are now driven by a single man's preferences rather than an amoral mechanistic imperative to increase shareholder value. That doesn't seem to have improved things.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers I mean, how do you know that? How do you know that the goal isn't actually to perform social engineering on a huge scale and that the advertising is just the way that goal is being funded?
  - Zak 3y ago
    I suppose I don't. It could be that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and TikTok are all actively trying to create chaos, but greed adequately explains their behavior. One thing that points more strongly to greed is that the companies, aside from Twitter post-Musk, rapidly change their behavior when it impacts their revenue. With TikTok, there's some chance geopolitics is a factor as well.

Zak 3y ago

I think this is a partial attribution error; the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers. The fact that strife is one of the most effective ways to do so, and the companies appear utterly unconcerned about the resulting damage to society makes it look like strife is the end goal, but it is merely a means to make money. They would change their algorithms immediately if large advertisers applied financial incentives. We've seen some of this with Youtube's policies leading to videos with censored profanity where its use was previously normal and neologisms like "unalived" to mean killed. Musk's Twitter may be a partial exception since it's decisions are now driven by a single man's preferences rather than an amoral mechanistic imperative to increase shareholder value. That doesn't seem to have improved things.

15457345234 3y ago
> the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers I mean, how do you know that? How do you know that the goal isn't actually to perform social engineering on a huge scale and that the advertising is just the way that goal is being funded?
- Zak 3y ago
  I suppose I don't. It could be that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and TikTok are all actively trying to create chaos, but greed adequately explains their behavior. One thing that points more strongly to greed is that the companies, aside from Twitter post-Musk, rapidly change their behavior when it impacts their revenue. With TikTok, there's some chance geopolitics is a factor as well.