The Social Dilemma

[BobShaw]

I just watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix.
Very interesting. It sort of explains how the world is becoming more polarised.

Basically if there were a group of people who believed the world was flat and a (big hopefully) group of people who believed it was round, then you could get more people believing it is flat by feeding the flat earthers conspiracy theories supporting that in their social media and suggesting friends etc that support that belief. Then you start feeding advertising for more companies that sell products based on that and then for more militant groups.

This obviously extends to everything from political persuasions to a teenager's appearance.

It sort of explains how people are being manipulated to believe that everything about one group is right and everything about another group is wrong.
The social impact is quite shocking. Teenage suicides and self harm are up something like 172% in the last few years since kids have had phones in high school.

Worth a look.

[Redcrown]

I watched it too. By the end I got a little disappointed. While I agree there is much for concern, I thought the show was just a bunch of malcontent gurus saying, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", but never giving any solutions. Ok, fine, what do we do about it?

Plus, it does not jive with my personal experience. Granted, I'm an old fart and fairly isolated, but the stuff targeted at me is so far off base it's bizarre. None of it matches my "profile." Example, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have my extensive watch history, but the shows they push on me bear no relation. Ditto Amazon Shopping. I got a new puppy recently and bought a bunch of puppy stuff in the first 2 months. After that, Amazon kept trying to sell me cat stuff!

A recent headline said Alan Dershowitz was suing CNN for editing his remarks to completely change their meaning. I tried to get Google to show me his original remarks in full and the CNN edits so I could judge myself. I couldn't do it, and gave up. All I could find was news about the suit being filed.

[BobShaw]

I watched it too. By the end I got a little disappointed. While I agree there is much for concern, I thought the show was just a bunch of malcontent gurus saying, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", but never giving any solutions. Ok, fine, what do we do about it?

Plus, it does not jive with my personal experience. Granted, I'm an old fart and fairly isolated, but the stuff targeted at me is so far off base it's bizarre.

I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.

I live in a small country town but we have had 5 kids commit suicide at our high school recently. That is not what I would call normal behaviour. From my primary school of 50 years ago reunion nearly all are still around.

The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.

[BernardLanguillier]

If this topic is of interest I recommend reading the third book from Harari “21 lessons for the 21st century”.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremyrh]

I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.

I'd say that a quick scan of the postings in this forum would suggest that it's not just teenagers who are influenced by social media.

[Peter McLennan]

I agree with the OP.  Well worth watching.  Many technologies are two-edged swords.  Social media is no exception.

Several participants offer valuable suggestions on how to fix this problem.  Most of them require responsible consumption and regulation.

Agreed: Harari’s book is excellent.

[faberryman]

The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.

Sort of like the oil and gas industry. Seems like a lot of people get away with a lot of stuff.

[Alan Klein]

I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.

I live in a small country town but we have had 5 kids commit suicide at our high school recently. That is not what I would call normal behaviour. From my primary school of 50 years ago reunion nearly all are still around.

The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.

The last thing we need is government telling us what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. That's what they do in China and Cuba. Maybe we should strike certain opinions here on LuLa such as about cell phones?  Afterall, we all know that they aren't real cameras and if it wasn't for social media, no one would use them. 

[Alan Klein]

I agree with the OP.  Well worth watching.  Many technologies are two-edged swords.  Social media is no exception.

Several participants offer valuable suggestions on how to fix this problem.  Most of them require responsible consumption and regulation.

Agreed: Harari’s book is excellent.

Don't you believe in free speech?

[Peter McLennan]

Don't you believe in free speech?

Don't you believe in regulation?

(the old "FIRE!" in the theatre argument comes to mind)

[faberryman]

Don't you believe in free speech?

Sure, just not an absolute right. We have been going back and forth on finding the balance for a couple of hundred years, and just when we are starting to get some consensus, the technology changes and we have to start all over again. Sort of like the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. We pretty much had that resolved until some guy invented the cellphone and the internet. Seems like everything is a work in progress. Maybe my grandmother was right when she told me the world is changing too fast, and that was just because I wore my new bellbottoms to Sunday dinner.

[Alan Klein]

Sure, just not an absolute right. We have been going back and forth on finding the balance for a couple of hundred years, and just when we are starting to get some consensus, the technology changes and we have to start all over again. Sort of like the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. We pretty much had that resolved until some guy invented the cellphone and the internet. Seems like everything is a work in progress. Maybe my grandmother was right when she told me the world is changing too fast, and that was just because I wore my new bellbottoms to Sunday dinner.

Technology changes nothing.  People are the same.  Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it.  A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms.  Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person.  Hurting their feelings doesn't count.

[faberryman]

Technology changes nothing.  People are the same.  Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it.  A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms.  Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person.  Hurting their feelings doesn't count.

This is probably one of those situations where it would be best to consult an experienced attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases for a complete and accurate answer, rather than rely on the advice of some random guy on the internet.

[Peter McLennan]

Technology changes nothing.  People are the same.  Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it.  A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms.  Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person.  Hurting their feelings doesn't count.

In a never-ending litany of astounding rash generalization from Mr Klein, that one is surely the most unsupportable of all.

I'll help you out, Alan:  Technology changes EVERYTHING.

[Alan Klein]

In a never-ending litany of astounding rash generalization from Mr Klein, that one is surely the most unsupportable of all.

I'll help you out, Alan:  Technology changes EVERYTHING.

That's rather a rash generalization.  Technology is a tool. It's like the technology of digital cameras.  New and powerful, but still a tool. Means and methods have changed.  But, it's the picture that counts.  Likewise, people are the same. They want to control.  They use technology so means and methods are sometimes different.  But their goals are the same.

[faberryman]

That's rather a rash generalization.  Technology is a tool. It's like the technology of digital cameras.  New and powerful, but still a tool. Means and methods have changed.  But, it's the picture that counts.  Likewise, people are the same. They want to control.  They use technology so means and methods are sometimes different.  But their goals are the same.

No generalization there that I can detect, except maybe that part about people being the same.

[Robert Roaldi]

No generalization there that I can detect.

This area of Lula is nothing if not topical. There was a recent very good podcast on NPR's Fresh Air about precisely these issues, free speech, etc, https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation. Alan K. is usually doctrinaire about these things but most things in life are grey. Technology changes a lot of things, and strict adherence to "free speech" might have the eventual effect of cancelling all speech if we're not careful.

I placed free speech in quotes because it is probably not what most people think it is. After all, whistle-blowers can be treated quite badly by those whose power they disrupt, even when they speak the truth. Free speech doesn't always help them much.

But the issues on the net are that although we think we are in public spaces, the net, represented most obviously by social media, is more like a mall than the commons. It is run by private companies. I could be completely wrong about this, but I always thought that free speech was something that the US government cannot abrogate.  But that's not really the current problem, is it? It's not the government trying to prevent people from speaking, so viewing this strictly as a free speech issue might miss the mark.

[Alan Klein]

This area of Lula is nothing if not topical. There was a recent very good podcast on NPR's Fresh Air about precisely these issues, free speech, etc, https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation. Alan K. is usually doctrinaire about these things but most things in life are grey. Technology changes a lot of things, and strict adherence to "free speech" might have the eventual effect of cancelling all speech if we're not careful.

I placed free speech in quotes because it is probably not what most people think it is. After all, whistle-blowers can be treated quite badly by those whose power they disrupt, even when they speak the truth. Free speech doesn't always help them much.

But the issues on the net are that although we think we are in public spaces, the net, represented most obviously by social media, is more like a mall than the commons. It is run by private companies. I could be completely wrong about this, but I always thought that free speech was something that the US government cannot abrogate.  But that's not really the current problem, is it? It's not the government trying to prevent people from speaking, so viewing this strictly as a free speech issue might miss the mark.

You've covered a lot of territory.  You're right that free speech is protected against government interference.  However, private speech is not necessarily protected if you're using it on someone else's property such as your employer.  You give up certain of those rights.  There's nothing in the constitution that protects them for the most part.  Likewise, government employees are employees as well and have to follow certain guidelines of their employer.  An obvious example is revealing classified information.  Of course, in public employment, there more freedom of speech granted but even then it usually has to be done off premises.

The topical issue today of course is Google, Facebook, Twitter,  et al's right to control what gets published on their sites.  While I believe they should be allowed to do what they want, there's a problem.  They were given protection against lawsuits by Congress so they can't be sued.  Congress wanted to encourage free and open publication of all views in social media.  The issue today is that they are limiting certain viewpoints like regular media who are not protected against libel. If the net media companies want to make political decisions as to what they publish, congress should take away that protection and let them operate like other media.

Curious how LuLa is treated and what would happen if certain viewpoints were censored?

[faberryman]

The topical issue today of course is Google, Facebook, Twitter,  et al's right to control what gets published on their sites.  While I believe they should be allowed to do what they want, there's a problem.  They were given protection against lawsuits by Congress so they can't be sued.  Congress wanted to encourage free and open publication of all views in social media.  The issue today is that they are limiting certain viewpoints like regular media who are not protected against libel. If the net media companies want to make political decisions as to what they publish, congress should take away that protection and let them operate like other media.

It doesn't affect me. I don't use social media. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use Facebook. If you don't like what's going on, go somewhere else, or don't use it. Just like if you don't like CNN, go to Fox, or read the paper, the paper you like, or don't keep up with the news.  A lot of people do that. Next thing you are going to want is a law that says the New York Times can't edit the comments on its webpage because you don't think it is fair. Or forcing the Washington Post cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or making my local paper cover more local issues instead of all that generic syndicated crap. I really get tired of all the whining.

[BobShaw]

The last thing we need is government telling us what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. That's what they do in China and Cuba. Maybe we should strike certain opinions here on LuLa such as about cell phones?  Afterall, we all know that they aren't real cameras and if it wasn't for social media, no one would use them. 

This seems to have gone off the rails.
i think you missed the point.
Social media IS telling you what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. You just don't know it.
Every other media has to follow acceptable standards. I expect that possibly applies even in the US.
As the whole "Freedom" thing, most countries in the world are free. That doesn't mean there are no rules about what is acceptable.