Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
No Self

Holding Zuckerberg to account

10 posts in this topic

I think this deserves its own thread.

Social media AI algorithms are intentionally designed to mesmerise, radicalise and divide people. Nothing has been done about this problem except for ad hoc censorship. Before lashing at your political opponents, what about the for-profit machine that literally breeds hatred and terrorism around the world?

Less educated societies may lack critical thinking or oppose nonconformity in general, or the emotional drama of social unrest can make people susceptible. The degree to which people have been manipulated is downright horrific. Trump was president simply because he was grotesque, entertaining and glued people to their social media feed. Zuckerberg is now approaching $100 billion dollars in worth as a result. If Zuckerberg is not stopped, there will be plenty more Trumps to come.

Tristan Harris has made a documentary bringing attention to the issue. The statistics are concerning to say the least. For example, he says social media algorithms promoted Alex Jones more times than all of Fox News, CNN, NY Times, etc. combined. Democrats and Republicans hold very distorted images of one another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@No Self

Yes because social media companies are for-profit enterprises. And as long as profit dictates gluing people to their screen as long as possible, we will keep seeing these distortions.

And up the chain of for-profit enterprises, we could look at how our economic system demands continual growth in order to function. We could look at how capitalism creates monopolies like Facebook via competition.

So let's not even just blame Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg is not evil, he is largely just responding to systemic incentives, along with every other CEO. Sure if he was more conscious he might stop, but he is not even incentivized to be more conscious. He is incentivized to look the other way.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is simply running a technology. He didn't invent social media. 

People will use social media whether Zuckerberg exists or not. 

It's how people handle social media. 

It's the same as with anything else, as long as you use responsibly it's fine. 

You could make the same case for psychedelics. If people used psychedelics irresponsibly, they would suffer 

Same way. 

Zuckerberg like a corporate marketer is simply capitalizing on what people like. 

If someone sells Harry Potter t shirts because there is a huge demand for Harry Potter t shirts, you can't blame the person trying to profit from selling them 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

If someone sells Harry Potter t shirts because there is a huge demand for Harry Potter t shirts, you can't blame the person trying to profit from selling them 

What if the selling of those shirts is one of the main causes for radicalization and an increasing polarization of (parts of) societies all around the world?

I see what your point is, it's not the salesman's fault, but by selling those shirts he definitely pours oil into this fire, don't you think that's kinda reprehensible? 

It might not be his fault but it has become his responsibility (at least to some extent). 

 

"Selling a gun to a hitman is the same as pulling the trigger."

Quote from Rick and Morty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tim R said:

What if the selling of those shirts is one of the main causes for radicalization and an increasing polarization of (parts of) societies all around the world?

I see what your point is, it's not the salesman's fault, but by selling those shirts he definitely pours oil into this fire, don't you think that's kinda reprehensible? 

It might not be his fault but it has become his responsibility (at least to some extent). 

 

"Selling a gun to a hitman is the same as pulling the trigger."

Quote from Rick and Morty 

I understand your point. But it's not that simple. Because this is not like handing someone a gun. It's not that direct. 

Almost any word can be propaganda depending on perspective. 

Someone sees a piece of information as radicalization or hatred, whereas another person can see it as truth or knowledge. 

But a gun is a gun and everyone knows that it's a weapon. 

It's very difficult to put words in the context of a weapon. Of course words can be weaponized. 

Let's take the example of Trump. If Trump says anything against Mexicans, Mexicans might say that he is using his words as a weapon. But Trumpers might say that he is showing a truth. 

That's why the meaning of words is generally ambiguous and is subject to the perception of the interpreter 

So this problem is too complex and difficult to prove in one of another way. 

 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tim R said:

What if the selling of those shirts is one of the main causes for radicalization and an increasing polarization of (parts of) societies all around the world?

I see what your point is, it's not the salesman's fault, but by selling those shirts he definitely pours oil into this fire, don't you think that's kinda reprehensible? 

It might not be his fault but it has become his responsibility (at least to some extent). 

 

"Selling a gun to a hitman is the same as pulling the trigger."

Quote from Rick and Morty 

This is why the Stage Orange paradigm simply isn't enough. The problems are too complex to be solved via a simple analysis akin to finding fault only in direct harm.

Our civilizations, whether it is climate change or these social issues, faces these problems precisely because we do not look at the wider consequences of our actions. We are too myopic in the way we issue blame and fault to others.

 

Reality doesn't care whether Zuckerberg is at fault or not. Reality does not care about whether he is being evil. Reality simply shows you what is. Social media is causing huge harm to society, and it will continue to do so until we adopt further responsibility. It's not enough to not cause obvious evil, our modern society is so complex that we must take responsibility for the unintentional harm we are causing by our way of survival.

 

You can blame a person for anything, including selling Harry Potter shirts. It all depends on how wide your circle of compassion is.


Glory to Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The problems are too complex to be solved via a simple analysis akin to finding fault only in direct harm.

12 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

But it's not that simple. Because this is not like handing someone a gun. It's not that direct.

I was neither saying that Zuckerberg is the sole cause of the harm done to society (like a gun might be, which was obviously just exaggeration) nor that he is to be blamed  - I was simply pointing out that providing the means to what is creating a problem is part of the problem. 

There's a massive difference between fault and responsibility.

Turning a blind eye to this is equally part of the problem. 

Edited by Tim R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Preety_India said:

People will use social media whether Zuckerberg exists or not. 

You have misunderstood.

Facebook utilises aggressive 'brain-hacking' and is intentionally designed to cause the division that it does (albeit as a side-effect of maximising profit with no ethics). Some early members of the Facebook team have seen the monster created and have spoken out publically. It is very important to be educated on this issue.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/famous-facebook-and-google-investor-condemns-brain-hacking-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tim R said:

I was neither saying that Zuckerberg is the sole cause of the harm done to society (like a gun might be, which was obviously just exaggeration) nor that he is to be blamed  - I was simply pointing out that providing the means to what is creating a problem is part of the problem. 

There's a massive difference between fault and responsibility.

Turning a blind eye to this is equally part of the problem. 

I am not sure why you are quoting me I was agreeing with you. :D


Glory to Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, No Self said:

You have misunderstood.

Facebook utilises aggressive 'brain-hacking' and is intentionally designed to cause the division that it does (albeit as a side-effect of maximising profit with no ethics). Some early members of the Facebook team have seen the monster created and have spoken out publically. It is very important to be educated on this issue.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/famous-facebook-and-google-investor-condemns-brain-hacking-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

This is a false narrative, cooked up story. This is just some weird theory that doesn't hold water. 

Most people just use Facebook for chatting or posting updates. 

No big deal 

 

They're making Facebook out to be something it's not. 

 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0