Hacker News Reader

Comment by gambler | Hacker News Reader

It was blatantly obvious that social networks are ideal tools for corporate and political propaganda. It was obvious from the very beginning, where people sung praises to Web 2.0 and "collective intelligence". Moreover, real technologists wrote about it, extensively, at the time:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maois...

If some "technologist" acts surprised by this turn of events now, I see only two possibilities:

1. They are genuine, but absolutely suck at analyzing how technology actually works in society.

2. They are liars who knew the dangers of such systems, but didn't find them objectionable because it suited their goals at the time.

What seriously disturbs me is that almost everyone from academia or big tech who engage in public discourse on this issue right now - almost all of them do act surprised.

View on HN

The article you linked to is from 2006; if a 30 year old technologist today is surprised by this, I don't think it's fair to say that they're either bad at understanding how technology affects society or liars because they weren't writing articles when they were 16.

More generally, people can grow, learn, and change a lot in a decade and a half, even if they were already adults at the beginning of the period. I don't think it's particularly effective to dismiss all current viewpoints of someone just because they happened to disagree with you on something 14 years ago.

Of course the answer is #2. When Obama ran in 2008 and 2012, media, academics and technologists fawned over his campaign's then novel use of technology and Facebook advertising.

I remember clear as day reading articles and analysis about his campaign methods without noting a single hint of concern or animus.

I've lost a significant amount of faith in people's integrity since 2016 not because of Trump, but because of people's responses to Trump.

Thanks. I have to make this point on HN just about every time Facebook ads come up. It absolutely blows my mind that something so prominent can be intentionally forgotten so quickly. I was very young in 2008 and even then I easily noticed this.

Very good point. Social media platforms were held up a shining example because Obama's message was largely positive, but few stopped to think about the flip side of the scenario... until 2016.

"positive"

That's subjective. Something that sounds nice and upliftung may not actually be positive in the long run while something that sounds negative may indeed be necessary.

Which proves the point that opposition to online political advertising is not rooted in some deep and profound moral principle, but is merely a response to one's favored "side" being outmaneuvered by opposition candidates' deft use of online tools and advertising.

Moral shallowness is masquerading as righteousness on the Left, but many have convinced themselves that the masquerade is genuine.

Greed and hubris is masquerading as reason and „telling it like it is“ on the Right but many have convinced themselves that the masquerade is genuine.

Just doing some balancing here.

I don't disagree with you.

Facebook and the Internet were a bit different in 2008 than they were in 2016. Facebook had fewer than 150m active users and they skewed young. The "news" feed was actually stuff your friends posted and using social media for a political campaign was novel.

Fast forward to 2016 where Facebook has two billion active users, a majority of whom use their location/behavior tracking app. They also have 12 years of user extremely detailed user graphs and own a significant percentage of online advertising (tracking). Their business model has also changed to specifically sell microtargeted ads. They've also resisted all types of regulation of political advertising.

There were misgivings about social media political advertising in 2008 but up to that point social media was just crowd sourcing of bullshit. Since 2008 it's become far less social and really just become a big advertising vector. Whatever misgivings anyone had about it would have vastly underestimated its impact.

I remember that era. I remember reading what, at the time, I considered to be fringe ideas. I couldn't find a fault in their reasoning but it wasn't like the New York Times was taking them seriously so I always took it with a grain of salt.

Stuxnet changed the way I looked at the world. I always wondered "how the fuck is everything not burning?" Afterwards I concluded that it takes someone to actually set the match and before someone does the press doesn't see it as legitimate and they certainly don't go back into their archives and try to figure out who actually warned them that these types of attacks were possible ten years prior. I've actually dated an award winning journalist and this was one of the first things she told me about journalism that blew my mind. It's unlike science. It's present-focussed to a degree that I find unfathomable.

Imagine fifteen years from now when a update server at Tesla or Microsoft gets hacked do you think the press is going to go back to Bruce Schneier and talk about his book Click Here to Kill Everybody? No. They're going to talk about how shocking this event is just like they did in 2008 during the financial crisis despite the fact that the June 2005 Economist cover had "after the fall" as its cover with a literal brick with "housing prices" stamped onto it.

This is one of the reasons I don't just blindly hold index funds. It's fairly simple to identify unsustainable trends and dodge them or to identify truly transformative technologies and buy into them.

Wasn’t the concept of social networks and even Facebook itself a product of the government run DARPA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com