Ask HN: What do you think about "The Social Dilemma"? - <AUTHOR> For those who have seen the film on Netflix already; what are your thoughts? I am especially interested in hearing from people involved in any algorithm-driven platforms.
This is the first time I have seen such coherent, powerful and accessible explanation on the mechanics of algorithms and negative consequences of social media, and I wonder if this film can be the push that non-technical people need to take a step back and maybe even delete their accounts.
Anecdotally, it was my non-technical, Instagram-loving partner who saw this film first and recommended it to me. She re-watched it with me and is now asking serious questions about the platform and her continued use of it. She can't be the only one.
What will the cultural impact of this movie be? <comment><USER2> Though there was hardly anything that _I didn 't already know_, I liked the movie very much for its presentation that drove the point well to people who may not have understood how these platforms work, the privacy implications and the dangers therein. I've already recommended this movie to some more people.

As for the cultural impact of the movie, I don't think it's going to be much. Cambridge Analytica had so much news coverage during its time (along with public hearings by lawmakers and documentaries about it) and still did nothing material to the bottom line of these companies. They've actually grown bigger and become a lot richer since then.

1\. Most people just wouldn't care enough to give up these platforms. While I've been enraged for a long time about these platforms, the big gap here is that there is no good answer to the question, "what are the better alternatives?" Don't tell me that Mastodon and Mastodon clones can be replacements for Twitter, Facebook, Facebook groups, Facebook events, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. Where are the nice(r) mobile apps (not just some website designed for desktops) for any replacements?

2\. Governments will not regulate these platforms in meaningful ways that create fundamental changes. Regulatory capture is what's looming around, where the current biggies make the rules and ensure that nobody else can beat them.

I will keep pushing people to switch to better platforms (even if they seem deficient in comparison), but I'm sadly not very optimistic about big changes in the next decade or so.

<comment><USER3> > Don't tell me that Mastodon and Mastodon clones can be replacements for > Twitter, Facebook, Facebook groups, Facebook events, Instagram, Snapchat, > TikTok, etc.

Of course not. Because Mastodon is a federated microblogging service. As that it is a good alternative for Twitter. My Mastodon client has a better UX than twitter, no algorithmic feed, no ads, no trackers, no distracting recommendations, and - importantly - breathing a friendly, open and largely non-toxic culture.

Sure, it only has a tiny number of users in comparison to twitter (about 4 million), but there is no reason this can be many many more. And hosted on a federation of 1,000's of servers. Much less risk to be de-platformed from your favorite walled-garden for obscure reasons.

The Fediverse is only at the start of its evolution, and things are becoming exciting for us devs. Diverse applications, PeerTube, PixelFed, write.as, Lemmy, many more, all start to be integrated together. A gradual process, as the underlying standards mature and new ones (content addressing, object capabilities, datashards) are being developed. Besides federated ActivityPub there's work ongoing to extend to full p2p contexts.

I'd say you should have Developer FOMO. To miss out on opportunities to stand out, and be part of a path that could be part of the solution to our social dilemma :)

<comment><USER4> > Much less risk to be de-platformed from your favorite walled-garden for > obscure reasons.

Federation does absolutely nothing for this. The risk is probably even higher given how small most of these instances are. Much more likely to run into an admin/moderator.

<comment><USER5> In the fediverse, you're more likely be able to say "Hey Lisa, why did you ban me?" than you can get into contact with the Youtube/Facebook/etc forces that be.

That may or may not be better because your admin may respond "Well because I think you're a jerk and disagree with your political views" but at least you can migrate to a new instance still instead of just being banned for all eternity.

<comment><USER4> If you want to keep your followers you'd need to migrate before they ban you.

But yes, I guess you can start over somewhere else while on big ones you're out forever. So in that sense I guess it is a tiny improvement. But if most of your followers were concentrated on server[s] that don't like you, you may not be able to reach them anymore.

<comment><USER6> If your followers are "real" followers, and if you are important to them, they'll get in touch outside the fed and will know where to find you. Maybe that's what we should strive for. I have 200+ followers on Twitter, but if you ask me, I can only name 15 with real, social interaction.

And I think that's great.

<comment><USER4> If that's how you define "real" followers then you might as well use an IM application instead. IMO the whole point of (Twitter style) social media is having effortless reach and interactions without explicitly sending stuff to anybody.

I had over 10 thousand and had many interactions with people but wouldn't feel like bothering them on other platforms (unless it was of the same nature).

And the few people who bothered to contact me personally felt a little awkward too. I don't necessarily want to be talking to these people directly.

The magic is you just publish whatever you want and people can look at it. They can comment but there's no obligation to respond. Having actual conversations with that many people would be a huge chore. The whole thing isn't about having relationships with people at all but about spreading information. It could be about yourself in which case there would be some implicit one way relationship but that's just one use case.

<comment><USER7> Maybe that's why people are feeling lonely. They think their voice should reach thousands of people while they simply don't care about those thousands. How can I expect someone to care about me when I don't care about them beyond a useless number or marketing campaign?

People are thinking of others as consumers while expecting to be treated as a friend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think what I think about docudramas in general: Hyperbolic. I think the harms of social media are exaggerated, and not entirely unique to social media.

I don't have a problem with Facebook knowing what content I interact with and using that to serve me ads, or content that I want to spend time consuming. I don't agree with the characterization of publishing or volunteering information (likes, posting photos, profile details) as private information. Facebook makes clear what information is public, what is shared to friends, etc. I think most people are relatively aware their interactions determine ad selection, as it is intuitive. It's really not scary to me that Facebook knows which city I live in to target ads.

I don't agree with the characterization of engineering apps to provide entertainment or social value as "manipulation" in the harmful sense. The fact that something is enjoyable to use or is used a lot isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is not necessarily an addiction. To use another example, I would want game developers to "manipulate" me to enjoy playing a game. That's the point. The fact that people spend lots of time on social media just demonstrates that they derive something from it, not that it's addictive or harmful. Is social media a worthwhile use of your time? Maybe not. Is it an intrinsically harmful activity? No.

I think the Internet in general allows for the more rapid, selective spread of information, and that it lowers the cost of publishing. It follows that ideas can spread quickly, including conspiracy theories. I don't agree that belief in pseudoscience, rumor, or superstition is anymore prevalent than it was before social media. I think it's just more visible to everyone how many people do believe wacky ideas. Regardless, social media isn't going to suddenly make me believe the moon landing was fake, so I don't see it as being harmful.

In short, I don't think ad targeting is harmful or violating my privacy. I don't think social media is harmful but that passive consumption of media is not the best use of time, like video games or watching TV.

<comment><USER9> > The fact that people spend lots of time on social media just demonstrates > that they derive something from it, not that it's addictive or harmful.

I was totally with you until this moment. This is like arguing that people with alcoholism get something out of drinking too much.

It's one thing to say that you're comfortable with the amount of information that's collected about you and how it's used, but how can you ignore the fact that these companies hired experts in psychology and paid millions to keep people using their apps, just like child psychologists were deployed to TV advertising in the 80s and 90s? These apps are absolutely addictive because they were explicitly and intentionally designed to be.

Spending hours in an infinite scroll wormhole does not automatically mean you've derived something important or worthwhile. It just means you were entertained enough by the possibility something might be good if you just keep scrolling, and that's a problem for some.

<comment><USER10> > These apps are absolutely addictive because they were explicitly and > intentionally designed to be.

Same goes with fast food, TV shows etc. It's your responsibility to not over- consume anything; and if you have children, teach them to not do that as well. The problem is not with FB, Google etc. The problem (which is over-consumption of everything) is cultural. Blaming some specific corporations is easy but it won't lead to any positive solutions. We desperately need stoicism in the west.

<comment><USER11> Speaking as someone who came from a rather colorful childhood of abuse, I'm wondering what your personal past is? You're assuming so much about the lives that folks lead, and to me it speaks of a lack of empathy for the personal struggles each individual is enduring.

Stoicism will fix things in the west? I assume you mean the USA, but as a person in the USA, I have to say that we are about as stoic as you can get. We lean on personal responsibility for every little thing.

"Oh, you went bankrupt from cancer. Why didn't you plan for that? Don't you know around 50% of folks get that?"

"Oh, you went to college for a useless degree? Why didn't you have someone in your life teach you that was a mistake? Why didn't you reject the counselors in public schools who encouraged you down that path?"

"Oh, you eat too much sugar? Why didn't you reject the industry sponsored studies that downplayed their health effects?"

"Oh, you got covid? Why didn't you stay at home? What do you mean you're an essential worker? Why didn't you take care of your health so you weren't predisposed to it?"

It's not stoicism the west needs, but a dire injection of empathy and community.

<comment><USER12> It's not just an argument about stoicism vs empathy, but freedom vs control. How much paternalism do you want from your politicians? How much control over your daily routine do you want to give some barely accountable millionaire legislator/governor/president who's loyalties are only to you based on how many votes their donors can buy (the rate differs greatly depending on the politician). The more effectively money buys their votes, the less they give a crap about you.

<comment><USER13> We need a better word than "paternalism" for "not inclined to use a pandemic as an excuse to give trillions of dollars to the rich".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It was very ironic that Netflix, who once said that sleep is there biggest competition, releases a documentary about how it's rivals in the attention economy are harmful.

Yes, Netflix doesn't advertise directly to me, but many of the effects are still present. The way I think and behave can be changed by programming I watch on Netflix. Netflix uses a recommendation engine to keep me engaged. Netflix has implemented several design patterns to keep people engaged, such as auto loading the next episode.

It was specifically ironic for them to attack YouTube for kids while Netflix has a children's offering, and most of the known downsides about screen time for children applies wether or not advertisements are present.

<comment><USER15> Well, the difference is, that YT needs you to watch more to show you advertising to make money. Netflix just needs you to pay your subscription. That is a big difference, as far as the payoff of using psychological hacks goes. I believe, that if Netflix was ad-based it would be a hell of a lot more addictive.

<comment><USER14> TV addiction is a huge problem in the western world. The average American spends more than 2.5 hours watching tv a day, and Netflix is a large part of that. Even worse, Netflix promotes "binging", of watching tv for long periods of time.

Netflix is clearly addictive, and there businesses model is based on people spending large amounts of time watching their programming and talking about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The funny thing is, i always wondered how it would have been to live in the 30s. Mass media, populist movements and all of that. I kind of get it now. Social Media is the new mass media And as the last time something similar happened, smart populists used it to their advantage, industry supplied the tools and we all know how it happened. Not saying we are heading the same way just yet, but the possibility exists.

One could have propably made the same documentary about radio and TV like 80 to a 100 years ago. Just watching the film now, thanks for posting this question, I could have missed it otherwise.

EDIT: The guy having invented the LIKE-button is right up there with the guy having invented FCKW. Not that he had any bad intentions. Which worries me, that when a group of people with good intentions is doing good things can create easily exploited, dangerous things in the wrong peoples hands.

<comment><USER17> I've often thought about this too, I think the printing press is a similar time to examine as well [1]. I do think the internet provides an entirely new scale, the dissemination is global and instantaneous, and that makes the previous problems that much more explosive and harder to contain.

[1]: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/before-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/before- zuckerberg-gutenberg/603034/)

<comment><USER16> Yeah, scale and speed are maybe the worst part compared to other periods of the past. Ways to manipulate the masses have always made some extremely powerful. Religion and church in medieval Europe for example.

Ultimately, we will figure it out. We found ways to cope, as societies, with mass media, radio, TV and so on. We will with social media as well. I'm just a tad worried about the way we have to pass to figure it out and what might go horribly wrong along that way.

EDIT: They lost me a little bit on the AI scare part. Up to now, we talking about ultra-complex algorithms. The kind of algorithms that screwed up Wall Street. Hard to understand, sure. But still "stupid" algorithms. Difference between Wall Street and Social Media? Wall Street has a public, closely monitored, public real time KPI to measure, indirectly, what the algorithms do. Social Media has no such thing.

Oh, and we should read up on Goebbels theories on propaganda. The principles still apply, just the scale is so much bigger. The algorithms have no intentions yet. People using these algorithms do. And we have to find a way, as societies, to cope with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't work on algorithm-driven platforms, but I built a tool [1] to help deal with them.

I'm very glad to see this reaching the mainstream. Like most people in the tech industry with some understanding of how these things work, I've been increasingly worried about the harms it's doing to myself, others and society at large. Once you've seen the damage it's doing, you can't unsee it. It drives me crazy that others can't see the same things.

However I think this film did a great job at conveying to non-tech people how the systems work and take advantage of them. I think of it a bit like those documentaries that expose the worst of the meat industry, where it's not uncommon for viewers to become vegetarians.

My optimistic outlook is that more and more people will wake up and turn their backs on these harmful things, and the era of Facebook etc will, thankfully, be over.

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed- eradicat...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicator- for/fjcldmjmjhkklehbacihaiopjklihlgg?hl=en)

<comment><USER19> Thanks for NFE!! That and FB Purity have reduced the time I spend Facebook to nothing, except for messages.

I put a bit of effort into finding extensions like this, and Distraction Free Youtube, Inbox when Ready, Amazon Lite, etc this year and I've been shocked and how much less "sticky" I'm finding the internet. Willpower and personal responsibility are great, but better yet is not even having to try.

When I use my phone, the difference is absolutely incredible, since I can't bring this huge suite of extensions with me. and as a result I've been uninstalling apps gradually over time -- you can disable surprisingly core functionality on Android, including the web browser.

<comment><USER18> I'm glad to hear it's helped you :)

> Willpower and personal responsibility are great, but better yet is not even > having to try.

I think as humans we overestimate just how much power we have over our minds. Especially up against these algorithms that have been trained and honed with billions of compute hours by thousands of engineers, we just have no chance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Social media is this generation's smoking issue. One of the predictions made in this movie was that humanity will not be able to survive if we continue to be blinded by our own willful ignorance due to these addicting sources.

I think they hit the nail on the head that ultimately the goals of the platforms are at odds with your own intrinsic goals and the goals at large for society. Something is going to have to change eventually.

<comment><USER21> Believing willful ignorance is due to any external X is itself willful ignorance. We have it documented in the bronze age with Philosophers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The problem is that many people, including my wife, are OK being shown ads. After watching the documentary, I uninstalled Instagram and logged off Facebook as I hated the thought of being manipulated. My wife (and her friends for that matter) though concerned over the impact to kids, was back on Instagram about an hour later. "I'm ok with all these ads, some are useful".

So though it should help parents navigate this better for their kids sake, I'm not sure it will impact everyone as much as we think it might.

<comment><USER23> I think that advertising is the main problem. Most issues caused by social media ultimately originate from this way to generate money out of wasting people's time. Cut that source of revenue and suddenly there is no longer any incentive to get people addicted, encourage outrage, promote misinformation/clickbait, etc.

Related: [http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as- cancer.html](http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html) (I totally agree with all of it)

<comment><USER24> I think you may be right. I've always hated ads, but never thought about why.

They have never done anything good.

If I need something, I can search for it. If I don't need it, I don't want an ad to try to instill some desire in my heart.

If something is really useful, word-of-mouth is a good way to learn about it.

What would it be like to live in an ad-free society (that still promotes healthy mutually beneficial capitalism)? Is it even possible?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm a fanboi! I found this film incredibly powerful (esp. the comments during the closing credits). I've become a real bore when chatting with friends and other parents about this subject. Now I can simply say "watch The Social Dilemma" and return to discussing the weather!

I found the tips on [https://www.humanetech.com/take- control](https://www.humanetech.com/take-control) very helpful to interrupt my addition to my phone (particularly the monotone one).

<comment><USER26> It is great indeed. The only thing that disappointed me was the way they presented the increase in depression data. They mention that there was a 100 and something percent of increase, which is a percentage of 2 percentages.

Other than that, I think that it brings to light what (possibly) happens behind the covers of those systems, as it's always trying to get you back on the platform. I remember that every time I get a notification about something.

This film and The Great Hack form a great duo, in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I couldn't help but thinking of the movie/documentary itself as an act of manipulation and an attempt to distract from the real issue.

The real problem is the way big venture capital is funding these companies. Allowing them to become so big, while suppressing all competition in order to concentrate profits. This is what has made these companies into the monsters they are now. In this era of big tech focus has shifted, IMO, from creating and implementing fair and simple common standards to , among other things, walled gardens and egregious bullshit wherein people don't even own most things they're paying for.

The act of manipulating others into situations that are favourable to yourself is not something new and has probably been practiced for centuries. The documentary, which I admittedly couldn't force myself to finish, seemed to gloss over the big money aspect to focus (in the most cringe way) on the psychological manipulation aspect, which made its insights unoriginal and shallow.

<comment><USER28> I'd wager a movie on a mass distribution platform like Netflix is going to be more effective at making people aware of the problem and help them mitigate its effects on an individual basis... than, say, trying to change the way capital flows.

<comment><USER27> My point is that it's easy to make an argument about this aspect of SM than to talk about the money, trace it, and pinpoint blame. Nowadays, there is plenty of evidence available about the psychological effects/harm of social media. So it's easy/harmless to fund this kind of exposition than anything that talks about the finance side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It told me many things I already knew... but it enabled me to summarize them in a new way. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter,etc.. all exist to sell your attention to advertisers. This means they want to keep you on site for as long as possible. The algorithms used find the nearest rabbit hole, and gently push you in that direction. The hole might lead to a new skill, just plain fun, or could be horrible for you and society. They don't care about the effects, they only care about the profits.

Evil isn't the intent, it's just the side effect.

<comment><USER30> Zuck isn't evil, he just wants to give people what they want and take no responsibility. "If they were not on Facebook they would be on Twitter or Fox News or MSNBC. I might as well get rich instead of someone else."

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It was a good explanation of some issues with current social media platforms. But I don't think that ad driven business models and algorithmic content manipulation are the biggest problems we are facing in all this. The fundamental problem is we humans aren't wired to deal with information and social connection and this scale and speed. It's too easy for just about anyone to find and confirm anything they want to believe and so many others that believe it. On the other side of that coin it's too easy for anyone to reach an audience with whatever they want. Focusing on the algorithms and business models is a bit of hubris and a distraction from the harder problem of empowering mobs. I know people caught up in the conspiracy theories. They aren't finding them through Facebook. Some of it is through YouTube rabbit holes but a lot of it is just websites found through Google (which is really just popularity ranking) or text messages shared between friends & family directly. People have these biases and want to believe these things and the access to these easy tools of connection and communication are amplifying us. Maybe regulation, moderation, filtering and defensive algorithms can help? Maybe we will learn to deal with it better and society will change to accommodate it but it's becoming a rough transition at the least.

<comment><USER32> I think you're underestimating the power of algorithmic manipulation.

Take a simple ecommerce AB test as a starting point. Should our shopping cart look like A or B? Apply Bayes theorem and it doesn't take that long to gather evidence that A increases conversions by 1%.

Now replace the simple AB test with a multi armed bandit.

Now run the multi armed bandit continuously across all social media platforms and keep tweaking to maximize sentiment in your favor.

That's even without applying data science to the social network graph.

The "fundamental problem" that you lay out is definitely related. The "fundamental problem" is that we are so susceptible to such algorithmic manipulation.

<comment><USER31> I understand what you are saying and agree that algorithmic manipulation is a problem. I think it's very profitable for these companies and people can be manipulated by it. I still think it's a small aspect of the problems of the network & scale of information access/publishing which are leading to conspiracy content and mob amplification. Problems which exist even without algorithmic manipulation being involved. At this point, just due to the network of EVERYONE using mobile devices to connect & consume content it's similar to the eternal September problem but at full scale and saturation. Is the algorithmic manipulation needed for Fox News & other biased media to reach, feed & manipulate its audience? I think you could delete Facebook from everyone's phones and we'd still have a polarized world with these bubbles, conspiracy and mobs continuing as long as everyone still has their smartphones. I also think pagerank and similar popularity based ranking is just as big of a problem as the algorithmic timelines because it directly amplifies what we say and want to hear even without the personalization of search aspect. I'm not defending Facebook and algorithmic manipulation, I just think there is too much focus on that aspect of the problem and don't think we can fix things with that focus.

<comment><USER33> Yup, after watching this I figured that we are going to eventually see a law which prevents behavior management of humans through code, all reccomendation and tailoring algorithms will be put into a central transparent repository with public access and study of its impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Like a lot of other people that replied, I enjoyed the documentary because it provided the information in a more accessible way. I think the documentary does a good job explaining the current harms of these companies, but I think the problem can be viewed more clearly through the lens of externalities ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)). As discussed in the film, these companies curated feeds are shaping peoples realities and creating a more divided society. Like with most externalities, the way to account for this cost is through regulation. I think that a tax that increases exponentially with each ad served (over a certain period of time and then it resets) would be an interesting idea that could adjust the business model to not optimize for addictive behavior.

</comment><comment><USER35> The movie does a great job at explaining the real problem behind our current version of online social networks. We need to start developing much more advanced systems that have the communication tools that Facebook and Instagram have, but also innovate on the financial markets/governance systems that the most advanced nation states have.

The is the only way out of this problem is to accept that governments and regulators are not going to be able to fix this, and create a new one that is owned by the people. And as you see from the movie, the chances of us hitting singularity with an AI coupled to an optimization function that domesticates humans for profit, is highly likely. It's probably one of the greatest challenges of our generation, and the hardest part is that over time the people you need to change the system are so addicted to the crack that it gives them, that they won't want to.

I do think movies like this are extremely important on getting the message out though, and hope that it enacts some changes. Me and a few engineers are working on a solution at social.network, let me know if you are interested in helping out.

</comment><comment><USER36> It was well done. It certainly understood how social media works far better than anything I've seen on HN. Which is interesting when you are aiming at non technical users.

The back end minions were well done as an explanation.

It did well to be bipartisan. "Extreme centre" was clever. Their examples were sometimes political but it's hard to know how to have bipartisan real world examples, but they seemed to try.

I think it'll have a far reach and it will affect people, but there's no solution, what would you protest and where?

"Gasland", "Waco: The Rules of Engagement", "Blackfish", "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" all seemed to be actionable for instance. It's easy to buy guns, or go to a protest or ditch your meds.

For "The Social Dilemma" it's hard to change everyday life and it's hard to legislate algorithms where no one knows how they work.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think movie will be pretty major, since it summarizes _many_ points that people following it "know", but in one place. I essentially live and breathe this stuff at this point, and yet it is ridiculously hard to talk about.

You can see it in the start of the show - when people are asked what the problem is. Everyone's brains just stall with the scope and challenge of putting it into words.

It is great at explaining concepts and problems to people, which are very hard to discuss just using conversation.

I was discussing polairzation increasing since the year 2000, and the implications of that with someone. It took me almost an hour of discussion, to get an acknowledgement of the possibility.

One look at the Social Dilemma's animation on polarization trends over time? Never have to make that argument again.

</comment><comment><USER37> Good movie overall.

I also suggest Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now , by Jaron Lanier

Jaron is in the documentary and makes additional points. Social Media is making you a jerk is a great one.

While he doesn't directly critique Online Dating, he does mention Catfishing and Ashley Madison being mostly bots. If you Google 'FTC sues Match' you'll find bots are very common across the industry.

At least now you can't detach online dating from social media , you need to get your matches to add you on Snapchat so you never actually meet anyone. Just off pure stats, people are more alone than ever before. By design it doesn't work for most people. And what company would want to lose subscribers ?

I found myself an anxiety filled 'lab rat' when using that junk. Deleted all my social media a year or so ago , and I've had no issue meeting great folks since.

Generally I go out to do things I want to do. Everyone that's joined me along the way, including a fellow .net programer, has been a bonus.

All that said, I see it getting much worse before it gets better. Social Media is eventually going to be regulated , but it's already destroyed a generation. Rates of suicide have exploded since Social Media became mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm actually worried about the similar issues with Google search results at the moment.

2 examples.

1) The new suggested answers on search results. As an example search for "is salt bad for you". The top results might be correct though I've seen other searched that I believe aren't (different searches). Under that is this new "People Also Ask" section listing all kinds of questions, each with a single answer. AFAIK the answers are just whatever Google's algorithms decided are the most popular. Given there is one answer for each question (and the one answer to the original search at the top), it all comes across as authoritative answers. I think if you try various search terms you'll quickly find lots of examples you vehemently disagree with the answers google is presenting.

I don't know why the previous style of results felt better but something about the previous style (the style below the "People Also Ask" section came across as "here's semi random answers from unknown sources so be aware" where as to me at least, the new top answers above that all come across as authoritative and that scares the crap out of me.

2) Basically the same issue but if you search for "<some phrase> in <some language>" google will give you one answer and in this case they will often claim "Community Verified" yet they are often flat wrong. Often the phrase is ambiguous so there can be no "one true answer" without more context and yet google presents the results as "this is the one true answer because it's community verified". This basically proves my point for #1 above. That fact that google shows these questions with just one answer seems like pure thought manipulation.

<comment><AUTHOR> They include an example in the movie regarding search results (and auto- complete suggestions) to illustrate that the answer you get is influenced by the algorithms knowledge of your world view. The example they use is: "Climate change is …", where people are shown their "truth". I wonder how long it takes before Google makes a change to the results of that exact search string, hehe.

<comment><USER38> That's a similar but different problem IMO.

I think I mostly want Google to help me find things. If I search for "windows" I'm 99% more likely to be looking for Microsoft Windows where as some carpenter or interior decorator is probably looking for glass windows.

This new issue is google claiming to tell me the right answer about any topic and it's really Google's AI claiming to know the answer on any topic. I admit it might be me. The old presentation of webpage hits suggested to me that google was not taking responsibility for the answers themselves, only for "search results". The new presentation is that Google is making it appear this are official answers. I know somewhere in the fine print Google will claim no responsibility but the presentation suggests they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was somewhat disappointed that the movie didn't much discuss the downsides of regulating social media, e.g. censorship, slippery slopes. like other commenters say, I didn't learn anything new, but I'm glad this kind of documentary is out in the open for non-technies to watch and consider.

</comment><comment><USER40> It will have the same effect the DMCA did on piracy after Napster. That's what will happen. Even if the big companies come clean and start policing, that will just move the extremists who have already built their army into decentralized encrypted chat platforms, and they will still recruit over these tools too.

You've gotta basically build the entire Internet from scratch, with some kind of government and some kind of identification system so that if someone comes to take down social discourse they are removed from not just one platform but all of them and they can't come back without some kind of appeal. In addition, all political discourse held should be required to adhere to scientific and scholarly standards. I have no problem with people who aren't from institutions to challenge the status quo, sometimes that has benefits but if they aren't armed with a pile of evidence to prove why the status quo is wrong, they should not be amplified and that regulation should be central.

Until you have both of these things, anything else you do will be a waste of time. It will either become like some sort of Vegan alt-lifestyle or morph into yet a new set of big platforms. Both are untenable, as fixing this has to require the participation of the entire social system.

<comment><AUTHOR> The movie does not argue for policing content, but directs criticism towards massive data gathering, analysis and micro-persuasion trough algorithms.

<comment><USER40> Well that's what I'm arguing. I think algorithms have less power than people think they do, even the computer scientists. Social sciences/economic theories that study how crowds work all say that it's driven by information. You don't need an algorithm to do this you just need someone in your group to share that information with you, and this is actually is what really is happening when you look at it and get out of data and charts.

People are leaving these algorithm ran places in droves especially now because they already believe that the government is working with these companies to track their movements and radical plans. They're already going to decentralized networks, and once that happens you will not be able to control the radicals just like you couldn't control the pirates after they switched to decentralized piracy networks. This isn't trying to stop someone downloading a couple Metallica songs. This is trying to stop the proliferation of fascist/totalitarian thought and foreign actors stoking it up. It's much more dire, and the world of John Perry Barlow is dead. Not to mention the last few right wing terrorist attacks weren't planned on Facebook or were they radicalized through there. Neither was QAnon. That all came from 4chan/8chan/etc. There are no algorithms there, no AI, and anyone could basically code something on that level of complexity in a day.

Information should not be free. It should have limits. Once such information threatens the proliferation of a free society and brings people back towards totalitarianism the slippery slope "first they take away the press and then we get Hitler" argument falls flat on it's face because large swaths of the population freely gravitating towards Hitler gets you the exact same effect, and not only that the nuance between society trying to regulate information for the general health of said society and a fascist dictator doing the same is completely different.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I think algorithms have less power than people think they do, even the > computer scientists.

Algorithms are powerful because they can cause tiny, incremental and often completely unnoticeable changes of opinions and perception. These changes adds up when they affect large enough populations. I agree that people who gather in groups and share information makes up the bulk of this equation – algorithms do not operate in a vacuum.

I do think that the negative effects caused by algorithms are largely unintended consequences. Profit is the motive, not malice.

> People are leaving these algorithm ran places in droves especially now > because they already believe that the government is working with these > companies to track their movements and radical plans.

A tiny fraction of the technically literate people escape the big platforms, the rest stays on even though they are somewhat conscious of the negative effects and ruthless business practices.

> That all came from 4chan/8chan/etc. There are no algorithms there, no AI, > and anyone could basically code something on that level of complexity in a > day.

Many people joining extreme communities have been nudged by algorithms, especially Youtube's. What happens from there is usually just plain old group think and tribalism, feeling the comfort of finding a community to belong to. The point is that those nudges from suggested videos gently pushes you down a rabbit hole you otherwise would not be exploring in such a rapid and captivating manner.

Like they say in the film; algorithms are not evil on their own, they just tend to enable and amplify some of the worst tendencies in people who know how to exploit this tool for their own gain, political or otherwise.

> Information should not be free. It should have limits.

I disagree. What I do think is that the many "information outlets" should be held responsible for their editorialization. Newspapers, TV and social media platforms do all editorialize, only social media has left this task to the algorithms – which is rather careless and naive. These companies have indeed moved fast and are now braking things.

<comment><USER40> > Algorithms are powerful because they can cause tiny, incremental and often > completely unnoticeable changes of opinions and perception.

Stafford Beer predicted in 1972 that increasing variety without regulatory variety to combat said variety would send society towards catastrophic collapse because there are so many possible states in the social system it becomes as complex as things like weather and wave formation.

[https://archive.org/details/DesigningFreedom](https://archive.org/details/DesigningFreedom)

But we got the American Skinner Box model, mixed with heavy doses of hipsterism instead.

> A tiny fraction of the technically literate people escape the big platforms

I suggest you look into it a bit more and read about the associations between people like Nick Land, Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, etc. While it's true some of it was done by social media, the thing about it is that conservative media has and always been this close knit juggernaut hype machine since when Rush Limbaugh appeared in the depths of AM Radio hell. To them, it's merely a faster way of organizing the way they have for years because there isn't any cost. They no longer have to print 5000 copies of something. It's low hanging fruit. Most of the alt-right are ex Ron Paulers, that were already into things like bitcoin through the libertarian party since like 2012. They never "escaped the big platforms", they were always recruitment points for normies, which doesn't even require them to do anything but promote mainstream conservatism then say "go here for more stuff" that can't be tracked by Facebook's AI. Maybe your grandma may not have "escaped" but your grandma probably isn't on the streets shooting black people or lefties. Bitcoin was transacted between these Russian/American groups according to the Mueller report also.

> Many people joining extreme communities have been nudged by algorithms, > especially Youtube's. What happens from there is usually just plain old > group think and tribalism, feeling the comfort of finding a community to > belong to.

The algorithms merely bayesian filter a giant database of what people like and feed it back to them for their increased engagement. These people would have chosen such content on their own, and the fact the content exists in the first place that plays to their _real_ views (not views they show in public) that have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years and are passed through blood lines (if your mom is a dem or rep or kkk, you're gonna be a dem or rep or kkk 80% of the time) it legitimizes the worst of human behavior which was socially unacceptable.

But algorithms don't do that, communication without moderation does. You aren't going to get a Trump supporter to start watching CNN or MSNBC, and if the satellite stopped carrying it they would cancel their subscription and go somewhere else. So if the Internet offers media that has their views, they will seek it out and if the algorithms amplify this by sharing what other people in their social circles say, even better according to them. Saying that these people were innocent and normal before Facebook came along and made them radicals is just flat out wrong. They can just say the n word to each other with millions of people instead of having to hide it among close friends like they're smoking weed or something.

This polarization was happening long before Facebook and the Internet even existed, especially during the Clinton administration and the things that got Tim McVeigh to bomb Oklahoma City over Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, and the Assault Weapons ban. That's who these people are, always will be, and giving them a communication platform without strong information control is asking for trouble.

You aren't going to get away from business interests, religious interests, or racial interests it's basically impossible. You just need to create a sense of civil society via the web through ejecting bad actors from the public square. I know if I walked into a gay bar and started yelling homophobic slurs I probably wouldn't make it out of there alive, and if so I'd be kicked out for life with a nice bouncer at the door to greet me if I tried again. The Internet has no such protections.

<comment><AUTHOR> People and groups with strongly held beliefs are not the most affected by algorithms, as you are pointing out. Worst case scenario is that their echo chamber becomes less impenetrable or that they become even more extreme.

Algorithms does most damage to people not currently holding any strong beliefs about any given topic, but do have some wage leanings one way or another. These people can be swung and their views amplified and radicalized without much effort or financial input, as the film The Great Hack makes a good case for.

Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter (who all offers fine-grained ad targeting) can be weaponized to push "normal" people towards the extreme, and pit groups against each other and affect democratic processes in a big way. This was Cambridge Analytica's business model, and it worked really well.

<comment><USER40> I think a lot of people confuse the appearance of a lack of strong beliefs with simple social filtering. There is no social filtering on the web because you don't have to worry about your reputation.

The thing that people try the hardest to stop from happening to themselves is social isolation and being an outcast. People will lie all the time just to get along with the crowd. You wouldn't know people with strongly held beliefs, unless you found out what they had in their library. It's just the filters are removed and laid bare for the whole society to see, and it's ugly and it always has been.

"In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing Nixon's Southern Strategy, said:[28][29][30]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[31]"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_\(politics\))

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great point. At the same time I observe a night and day difference in how some people close to me behaved before and after they had access to Facebook and Youtube. Pre-social media I could have a long and rather nuanced discussion on controversial topics, and we both left the conversation with slightly altered opinions and some new perspectives. Today, all nuance is gone and the conversation is scattered all over the place, spiced up with whatever conspiracy theory they "discovered" on Youtube lately.

Maybe one of the effects of algorithms has been to push people to extremes to such a degree that social filtering is discarded? People I know seem to be almost apologetic in their approach, as if their life depend on convincing people about their views and to not care about the social consequences of constantly "preaching". This form of polarization is not healthy – basic respect for other people is lessened and listening to counter arguments is considered a weakness.

This is just an anecdote from my life. From what I read and hear from others, this experience is not unique.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Doubtful it will have much impact. I don't buy the central premise of the film - social media is so addictive and people are easily manipulated by it - through the power of 'genius' algorithms that work against vast stores of data. There is no mention of freewill .. are we really so easily controlled? If this technology was so powerful and able to manipulate people - how are we not using it to end racism, effect climate change, teach basic math skills, fight obesity, etc. The reason is that the technology isn't that good - and at it's best it suggests things that appeal to our base nature. It doesn't control us or even come close. Also the fucking hubris of these people to think they really had that big of an impact is a bit much. Free will and human nature are real things and social media isn't that powerful. Also with free will comes personal responsibility - this film seems to suggest that we are such sad victims and the problem isn't us but the powers that be. I'm so weak that I can't help myself - so it must be social media's fault. Give me a break.

</comment><comment><USER42> In every conversation like this I always bring up Cathy O'Neil's excellent Weapons of Math Destruction ([https://www.bookdepository.com/Weapons-of-Math- Destruction-C...](https://www.bookdepository.com/Weapons-of-Math-Destruction- Cathy-Oneil/9780141985411)). I think it's an ethical must read for anyone in tech.

<comment><USER43> I also enjoyed Robert Elliott Smith's Rage Inside the Machine ([https://www.rageinsidethemachine.com/](https://www.rageinsidethemachine.com/)) which is in a similar vein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I personally never understood the value of ads. I subconsciously turn off my brain and press skip whenever I encounter any kind of ad because I know it was made to influence me into doing an action (and I don't want to waste any mental energy in evaluating whether I am being tricked or not). And most ads are bad:

[https://twitter.com/JonErlichman/status/1304793136494006272](https://twitter.com/JonErlichman/status/1304793136494006272)

So to me the whole thing simply doesn't make sense, who actually did buy something from an ad?

The only signal I value for trying out (buying) new things comes from real people.

The privacy implications of storing so much personal data is the other question and that can be used for some bad things that isn't just serving ads. Would be nice to have a law for mandatary differential privacy for ad based social networks.

\--

Perhaps I am losing out on ignoring all ads wholesale like that. I even sometimes put products that do 'a lot' of advertising in bad light and try to avoid them all together.

<comment><USER45> Many people buy things after seeing ads. I was running an e-commerce where the majority of customers came either from direct ads or indirect advertising like influencer marketing. It's a great way to gain new customers for a product business (although in my view the "lifestyle brand" space is pretty saturated now).

<comment><USER46> Also, there is nothing wrong in advertising as a concept. Advertising has existed as long as products have existed. The problem is tracking and data collection/exploitation about some very granular aspects of users.

Also, even if you take away advertising, the problem remains of addictive apps and 'persuasive' design which will still remain. To tackle that is a whole different discussion altogether.

<comment><USER44> Guess I am missing out ignoring and blocking all ads I see. I do think there're better ways to conduct business than basing entire business model on ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I was surprised that given where the movie went, there seemed to be little discussion of the idea of banning personalized advertising. While it would be difficult to stomach for the companies who've thrived on that business model, the social consequences and business incentives of personalized advertising are corroding our society.

<comment><USER48> Read Bernays (or the Creel Report if you can find it) for an account of how personalised advertising and manual social graph exploitation worked about a century ago.

Of course, back then, they targeted with much less data. For comparisons from half a century ago to now, consider [https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs- nsa/english.html](https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html) .

<comment><USER49> Never heard about the Creel Report before, but here it is: [https://archive.org/details/completereportof00unit/page/8/mo...](https://archive.org/details/completereportof00unit/page/8/mode/2up) Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Just about nothing new wrt content.

I remember I kept thinking how naive, imaginationless and without knowledge of history these people must be if they genuinely never thought critically about what they were doing – if no one ever saw any potential for abuse.

That, and the fact that they kept pushing unfounded conclusions, like correlation between diagnosed mental issues and appearence of social media allegedly pointing to a causative relationship; alleging that this thing is so "new" and "different" from any other tool that has played on weaknesses inherent in the human mind that we just can't deal with it, etc.

I tend to think proper education, including critical thinking skills (including logic and cognitive biases), critique of media, etc., as well as defining privacy clearer as a human right (including explicitly stating that data subjects own data about themselves) and enforcing this hard will solve many problems.

</comment><comment><USER51> There's a great article with more technical exposition by Jeff Seibert, one of the interviewees: [https://medium.com/@jeff_seibert/the-mechanics-and- psycholog...](https://medium.com/@jeff_seibert/the-mechanics-and-psychology- behind-the-social-dilemma-719d618aa8ce)

</comment><comment><USER52> I found it to be persuasive, but the after-school special vibe of between interview scenes was corny

</comment><comment><USER53> I suspect there's a growing market for summer camps and other forms of tech hiatuses. I would gladly subscribe to a service that forced me not to use social media or whatever, since I don't think my own brain can be trusted with that

</comment><comment><USER54> I think the presentation was kind of silly to be honest. I liked the talking to experts, etc...but when they had dramatizations it felt so forced and silly.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a bit silly, but at the same time an effective way to illustrate some very technical concepts to non-techies. Judging from the response I got from my partner, it did the trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> > What will the cultural impact of this movie be?

A few months back a bunch of big Facebook advertisers (nike, etc..) pulled back some of their ad spend to punish Facebook over their stance on certain cultural issues. What happened to Facebook? Nothing... Revenues actually went up...

Facebook is an incredible tool and platform. No platform (none amongst the FANGs) has the same capabilities of tailoring your internet experience like Facebook does. As an advertiser, this is incredibly powerful: being able to put a targeted tailored ad in front of exactly the demographic you want. No other platform even comes close.

The cultural impact will be zero. The dollars speak for themselves. FB users keep using the platform and advertisers will keep chasing them on it.

The only way to put this in check is for government to step in and put in a comprehensive set of laws and rules that governs how your data is shared. A market-driven response to Facebook's insidiousness will not happen by itself. Government needs to nudge it forward with a thoughtful set of policies that promotes competition and makes these big companies liable for the false information they promote.

<comment><USER23> The Facebook boycott was complete hypocrisy. It was framed as being in support of BLM & similar movements despite:

1) The companies involved in the boycott were often the ones with a terrible track record regarding their own treatment of minorities, so it was absolute bullshit virtue-signaling.

2) We were in the middle of a pandemic where the economy essentially shut down so it made total sense to pause advertising for the time being. This was purely a financial decision, framed as some kind of social impact action by some terrible & disgusting companies.

Of course, as soon as the market started recovering and they saw a need to advertise again they were back in full force as if nothing happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I think everyone should watch it. I think there can be a lot of good done on a platform like Facebook, if it's goal wasn't to get you hooked. If it had real moderation of content.

The proliferation of fake and misleading information has clearly caused a lot of harm to the United States and I'm sure other countries as well.

</comment><comment><USER57> I think it does a great job to explain to non-techies things I have explained for years withouth luck. Biggest points are about kids and explaining echo chambers. I live in a very polarized country where everybody justs follows the media and people who are on either of two sides. (Argentina)

</comment><comment><USER58> Like most people here, I was already aware of the technical side (and I'm guilty of implementing several of the features such as infinite scroll).

The majority of users aren't giving up their addiction. I think that's a given. But I do hope parents are more aware of the effects on children.

</comment><comment><USER59> It should be called something else besides 'the social dilemma' because Netflix also does this to make sure people watch nonsense as much as possible as well...

every company hiring the best algorithm developers want people to spend as much time as possible on their 'thing'

not sure what to call this though...

</comment><comment><USER60> In the first 10 minutes of the movie they talk about what happened after what seemed like a revolution at Google. It was essentially nothing. People will not care due to how convenient staying the same is. It's sad really.

</comment><comment><USER61> I think the main takeaway was the influence on children. I don't think there's precedent for providing kids with constant access to dopamine-driven, socially adjacent experiences. At least with TV and video games, they're finite activities with time limits (hopefully).

Yet giving a pre-teen a phone where they're constantly being spammed with addictive content is dangerous. I can't even imagine all the psychological and developmental implications.

In terms of adults being addicted to apps and their data being used for ad- targeting...eh. User beware. I think we have bigger issues facing us.

<comment><USER62> I do agree the main problem is the influence on children.

As for the adults, I do believe the biggest takeaway is not advertising. It is the effect on information propagation. I have seen people close to me share clearly fake information that wouldn't have made the cut on most traditional media outlets.

People are giving way too much credibility to information that cannot be traced with a proper source. In the past people relied on the media to do the research, as biased as they may be. Now this research phase has disappeared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I watched a little this morning with coffee. I am finding myself wanting to skip the scripted parts and just wanting to watch the interview parts. I'll try again to watch it when I have more time.

</comment><comment><USER64> I wish they had presented more solutions. The way I see it, infinite scroll feeds generated by algorithms should be outlawed. Same with Like counts. (It seems Instagram has begun testing this [https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/14/instagram-private-like- cou...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/14/instagram-private-like-counts/))

Facebook wasn't that bad when you had to visit each person's wall or when the feed was in chronological order.

<comment><USER65> I am thinking a lot about this problem space and trying to integrate some of my ideas into my project ([https://www.confidist.com](https://www.confidist.com)). I am also interested in solutions and alternatives.

Centralization of power

I think this is the difference between these social media platforms being a good source to share information with friends and family and major social media platforms dictating culture through self-interests. Taxing data collection and storage is a good idea presented by the film. I believe social media companies should stay smaller in size and scope. These companies should make guarantees and hold each other accountable through regulation and organizations about data usage and adopting direct to user business models.

The attention economy

Again I think some regulation here is needed. In addition to looking closely at infinite scroll feeds, and the information associated with status that is displayed publicly, we also need to look very closely at the nature of notification management and data ownership. Taking email as an example, we must have an accessible way to unsubscribe from all. In parallel, all platforms should be required to have an accessible and straightforward unsubscribe from all notifications toggle. The obvious attention loophole of just creating new notification categories to continuously alert users needs to be closed. And lastly about data ownership; All social platforms that collect data, not only need to be accountable for the money trail your data takes, but should also allow users to export their data in a usable format. That means I should be able to export all my friends and connections from Facebook and delete my account. This would prevent that psychological gotcha that plays on the fear of losing what you have built on a given platform. It is also anti- competitive to other social platforms if data is not easily exportable. All of these companies know this and make it very difficult.

Intermittent Variable Rewards

You hit on this with the infinite scroll, but we can likely do more. We need to help people be patient again. Guess what? Notifications can help manage our time and attention instead of hurtful if used narrowly and as a service to the user. For example, if I make this post on hacker news and I have notifications disabled, I'll probably keep checking back to see if any updates occur. That involves the intermittent variable reward. However, if I know very clearly that I'll receive a notification when an update occurs, I can exactly respond when I need to. Companies like Apple and Google who manage device notifications should be responsible for their intermittent variability as well. We should require the ability to have "notification digests" instead of immediate notifications. We know they can cause traffic accidents, but they also waste a lot of time and are rarely all that important.

Echo Chambers

You spoke of the like counter. We all know status is a huge part of social and it is especially important to young people. Viewpoint diversity and acceptance play off of status as well. So how do we help remove the perception of our social media status? In the film, they spoke of narrowing in on certain ages before social media is allowed under the law. I think that is a good first step before we fully understand how to make improvements through the user experience. I am requiring 18 and over.

What I am doing with my platform is to privatize as much interaction as I can, with the balance of moderation and a rating system that is not displayed back. Sometimes good old fashion one-on-one communication is the way to go. If that can be used more in a distributed way to substitute for one-to-many interactions I think that goes a long way towards the social pressure of the group.

I think special attention also needs to be made towards each type of media. Pictures, videos, text, virtual reality, augmented reality, and more. I isolate interactions to text only similar to here on HN. This removes social pressures and "shiny objects" from easily manipulating our attention. It prevents every context with another person from being about appearance and prejudices. But it also allows users to fill in the unknowns with blanket assumptions. If you are just a username and well maybe you said something I don't agree with, maybe you are everything I dislike in the world wrapped into one anonymous internet persona? To try and bring a little more empathy into the picture I am trying out showing various attributes users have in common when they interact as part of an introduction. In a virtual reality social situation we could show emotions from users in a more effective way without revealing their identity which is pretty neat. Pictures, especially of users, can allow targeted objectification, and the hyper and unrealistic comparison with our peers that is most likely with younger women. We should have regulations around pictures and videos that require a visible indication that a filter was used. I think allowing young people to share pictures and videos of themselves will become less of a problem the more decentralized social media becomes. We need to change the interaction of, "wow did you see the <media> of x on y?", to "Hey I posted x on y, the niche platform I use, check it out". Sharing pictures and videos need to be more of a niche hobby, and less the thing people need to do to be relevant.

Echo chambers I think also directly relates to growth and growth hacks. People interact more and enjoy interactions more when they are validated. 8 friends within 11 days. This gets users focused on that status number of # of friends. Or maybe # of connections which exploded LinkedIn. Guess who people mostly know and that can help grow the platform? Oh, people that are very similar to each other and that generally like each other. This is great for a niche platform where we stay connected with close friends and family, but it is a disaster for a platform that aims to connect everyone and is also a way to share news, opinions, etc etc. So again, the scale and scope matters. What about platforms that aim to form communities or groups based on a common interest or identity? People love forming their echo chambers and I don't think there is anything we can do about that human desire. What we can do as system engineers use our algorithms to promote diversity of thought and perspective within groups and among groups.

On my platform Confidist, I am working on a design for a connection system called "Orbits". Instead of encouraging connections with just about anyone you encounter, I want to leverage the data that users have volunteered, to similar to a dating platform, promote diversity and health of your Orbit. This might equate to having multiple strong foundational connections such as being introverted from a rural community and prioritizing other attributes that you have not yet been exposed to such as someone who is socially liberal. Additionally, I created a spotlight event system that is tied to experience- based rewards. As the system designer, I can cross-promote these events from one community to another. The site can also encourage a spirit or culture of openness.

I did not touch on solutions and alternatives to the advertisement model, however, I think plenty of people are experimenting. I am interested in hearing what others think are the most successful alternatives. But to me, the key is staying relatively small in size and scope, prioritize the user directly with your business model, and be very conscious about how you grow and regulate your system. Don't make something you don't want your kid to use.

<comment><USER49> It reads like you have put a lot of time and energy into thinking the issues and possible solutions through. Here is a tip: as a first time potential user, this site gives an awfully complex vibe and its hard for me to get the layout, what should I do next, etc. Compare that to Facebook/Instagram sign up / onboarding / first steps experience. I suggest enlisting a UX researcher/designer who have done it before to tackle this problem.

<comment><USER65> Agree, thanks for taking the time to check it out and give some critical feedback. Much appreciated. Any UX'r who wants to help please email me email@example.com.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I see that on netflix's info page it calls it a "documentary drama hybrid". That's a weird but accurate description, because as a documentary it's too biased and makes me feel that it tries too hard to push it's agenda to me. I agree with most of it's points, I deleted my facebook account several years ago, but they way this "docu-drama" represents its points makes me unable to take it seriously, because there's just too much drama in it.

</comment><comment><USER67> When I was watching it I was thinking in ways of fix these points in the users perspective and it seems to me that the user should use the same technology, to try to block this effects and help him to not fall short in this mind traps. His use of this tec would`t be binded to others interests like sell ads for instance, so maybe the system optimization could be better expressed for him. But I don`t know how a system like this could be implemented.

</comment><comment><USER68> It was mentioned on my Nextdoor feed, so it has clearly reached even the tech novices :)

I haven't watched it myself yet, but I'm excited that it's getting such reach.

</comment><comment><USER69> Honestly I dont think most people care about privacy or advertising. For me my biggest argument about SM (incl HN) is the sheer amount of time it sucks for very little long term benefit. I complain I dont have time to visit friends or do exercise but somehow I manage to spend way too my time on my phone, and that even is without Facebook or Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER24> "We are more profitable to a corporation if we are spending our time staring at a screen, staring at an ad, than if we're spending our time living our life in a rich way." (Justin Rosenstein ~1:25:30)

This is ironic, because what is best for all of us as a whole and what is best for each individual - is that each of us are productive, helpful, and loving to one another.

However, what is more profitable in a short term for a single person (or entity) is what is often destructive to others (a drug dealer is a good example of making profit from the destruction of others).

Instead, we have to care about the long-term benefit and health of each person (our friends, family, community, and all humanity) and not just amass some money for ourselves so we can live selfishly.

Also, to be clear, I believe capitalism is a vital part of that - when it works with a win-win focus. (I innovate to provide a good and beneficial service that helps you, and you help me by providing me with resources I need, etc. - big win-win for everyone).

However, when we turn it to pure profit and divorce it from the human side of working together for mutual good, that is when it destroys instead of empowers. That is exactly why that quote above struck me.

If we use social media to enhance our human relationships, then it is beneficial. But if all we do is stay up late at night watching video after video of emotionally triggering content, then it's time to hit the delete button.

</comment><comment><USER70> I doubt this will have the impact we wish it could have. Best case scenario some people with moderate the number of notifications they receive. Other than that I can't see anyone deleting their accounts because social media are so much interwoven into their everyday life.

</comment><comment><USER71> I read Shoshana Zuboff's book Surveillance Capitalism, which was the jolt I needed to quit Facebook. Prior to those reveals, I was aware that the FB experience was more dark than fun; the reveals of the exploitation just nudged me into leaving, because I don't like being exploited.

Then I found and joined HN. It's a better experience. I think _the guidelines_ make it so. They aren't 100% followed 100% of the time, but the intent makes HN a vastly better experience than FB.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

</comment><comment><USER72> I'm tired of every few months we all have to rediscover how our complicated obsession with social media and the resulting data collection based advertising is leading to a total loss of individuality and privacy.

We (society) need to _know_ these things and act according.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this film can do just that, but for non-techies. We can't really blame non-technical people for not understanding or caring about these things, when the underlying mechanisms are of such a technical nature. That is why I really liked The Social Dilemma; I can watch it with family or friends and make them aware of the negative effects of algorithms, that are less obvious from a regular users perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> As a documentary film, I bailed after the first few interviews. The novelty of peeking inside internet giants was lost on me. Just felt like awkward confessions of some of my peers with ethical second-thoughts.

I also feel like one method was singled out amongst others: the facebook algorithm. Which exploits its proprietary model of the links between individual humans to boost signal. I don't use the product myself. But I have to ask, to those who do use it regularly, how can any of jaron lanier's darkest predictions come as any surprise?

If you are in the mood for a free doc feature that will utterly blow your mind, I can sincerely give a high rec to The Real Story of Paris Hilton. It's actually a real life horror movie that I found to have a similar energy to Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue. But non fiction ;)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOg0TY1jG3w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOg0TY1jG3w)

</comment><comment><USER74> I think it's shallow, naive, simplistic, and achieves probably nothing, except making this particular narrative a more attractive social media loophole, and more money for netflix. It's based entirely on false premises.

</comment><comment><USER75> Why was Netflix not there? How are they different from other addictive platforms?

<comment><AUTHOR> Netflix is also guilty of using algorithms to recommend content, but to be fair, they do not gather nearly as much data on your behavior and life in general as i.e. Google and Facebook/Insta/WhatsApp. They also have different incentives as all of their users are actually paying for their product, and are not shown ads to the same extent (only product placements in movies as far as I know).

<comment><USER76> Funny enough, of all the platforms I take part in (Facebook, twitter, reddit), Netflix is the one the one with the most notifications and emails. I imagine that's simply because I don't find them as offensive as the others so I haven't neutered them yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> there were many things in the documentary which I honestly did not know.Very educational and presented brilliantly.

</comment><comment><USER78> I don't know what the cultural impact of this documentary will be since most won't care to change their behavior one bit. People are building walls around their echo chambers and are protective of it.

I was well aware of most of this and had been complaining lately about how I don't see there being a good ending in sight considering how much growth there seems to be in the extreme right and extreme left. I've been finding it harder and harder to have conversations with many people I know or even family because of their extreme stances on many of todays core issues. Most if not all of their positions or perceived understanding of these issues is straight out of their facebook echo chambers. They started with an ignorant stance and had all their thoughts and ignorance echoed and amplified back at them, empowering them to feel even stronger about it all. My feed is peppered with propaganda simply because I still bother to comment to family, trying to share facts, trying to pull them back a bit.. How can they not know better?? Right... The information never reached them, because they relied social media to get the initial news and once suckered in, they only seeked to confirm their biases.

There's no questioning why we're in the world we're currently in. Nothing about this is normal, especially when we claim to have access to information.

I know better, yet still find myself scrolling my feed robotically.. I had just scrolled it a bit ago, but, found myself scrolling it again. I didn't plan on it. I just had a blip in focus while I was watching something and my new programmed behavior was to pick up my phone and start scrolling.

When they say kids mental health severely affected, I'm not surprised one bit. I see it. My nieces and my gf's nieces are all hooked. I only see my nieces once or twice a year since we live pretty far from the rest of my family, but I was shocked to see they knew how to find content and how to operate my brothers iphone before they knew how to read. And if there was a youtube video they talked about, they knew how to find it again. Again, they couldn't read or spell yet..

My girlfriends older nieces are locked on tiktok. They determine how they feel based on others perceptions of their online accomplishments. All these kids are trying to become influencers. The feuds that arise, who collaborated with who, commented what on who, bullied them, etc etc. Bullying in schools is nothing new, but at least it used to have a schedule. You got bullied in the hallways at school, or around town, or during recess. Now, there's no turning it off. Kids get bullied around the clock, and some of it leaves a permanent mark online for every other kid to see. Thats not healthy for kids. They don't have a safety net once they get home.

Politics are a clusterfuck right now. One can't keep up with the events while trying to find the actual facts on everything and not simply believing everything being targeted at them. And we hope to have positive change soon? Come on.. As long as people can be bought, this is not going anywhere.

The one thing the documentary didn't touch on, and I guess its the cause of this in the first place, our capitalistic systems are unsustainable. Everything must grow, indefinitely. Every quarter, companies must meet their growth targets or take a hit. At first, you work on improving production, cutting waste. Then you optimize every other aspect you can. Eventually you cut corners, eventually thats not enough anymore so you outsource everything, move production to the cheapest place you can. Then all these tools are available to market your products in the most targeted way possible. Facebook et al don't care what you pay attention to, as long as you pay attention and they can throw ads at you. The companies will pour as much into this as they can get out. They'll squeeze every drop out of that lemon.

This whole system is like one big dirty coffee filter being wrung out too hard. Eventually it'll rip and people will fall out, civil war is definitely not that far out of sight. I think they touched accurately on the big picture and where things are headed if things don't change. Whats sadder is we know it, we see it, and we're unwilling to change it, because that would drastically affect finances of too many parties, and there's one thing that rules above all, and thats the all mighty dollar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think watching The Social Dilemma with family or friends could help spark a conversation about how they are being manipulated by "Big Tech"? I plan on doing this with someone who has been greatly affected by the algorithms, and although I do not expect an immediate change, I do expect it to spark some new thoughts and questions.

Another comment here mentioned this site as a good starting point for taking tangible action against being influenced by algorithms: [https://www.humanetech.com/take-control](https://www.humanetech.com/take- control)

<comment><USER78> I think its a great way to start the conversation as most will likely see behavior in there that they can identify with or see in their immediate family. The information is also presented in a way where everyone should be able to understand whats at stake.</comment></comment></comment>