It would be interesting to know if this were true in that case.
I doubt most people believe that TikTok is valuable to them but I'm sure many find it irresistible once they are hooked.
This means that it is not "most people stay in the cave" - it is, "we all stay in the cave because it is impossible to bridge the gap between theoretical construct and lived experience, but we all know about both".
Is that the same statement as Carl Sagan’s? No. I’m just casually associating. To me they both seem to cover the same aspect of human psychology, our core beliefs that basically cannot be altered later in life.
Moreover, it’s really interesting that people only seem to agree about this observation when it comes to other people–they are stuck in their ways, they are beyond salvation. Very few accept that they themselves suffer from this.
Dissonance is just that.
There really is pain associated with acknowledging reality sometimes. I certainly know that from my personal life.
Wisdom comes from willingness to go through pain. Something our general culture ain't great at.
What culture is good at it? People in general try to avoid pain. This tendency is not unique to our culture, is it?
> control what they see
> People are literally being programmed [...] by the specific triggers
I hate marketing/PR as much as the next person, but have become part of daily life. How do we get rid of it? Outlaw the practice of trying to influence people by marketing?
Edit: Rereading your comment I realize you're talking about something else, but I guess the same applies nonetheless.
It's easy to spot and ignore when you realize it's happening.
Can you get rid of it? No. Doing so would result in the loss of many important rights and have unintended consequences. Not even China can get rid of this. BUT that doesn't mean you can't put regulations and limitations on them.
As one example, we may want to make laws that ensure that ads are easily recognizable as ads. I'm referencing Native Advertising. I want to use an example from the NYT[0] that is marked, to give an example of how nefarious this can actually be. The article itself only mentions the show once, in the middle, and mostly discusses women's lives in prison. It would not be surprising to believe that this is not an ad but actually a news story. It is both, but that's why it is nefarious. Is this ad easily recognizable? Even with the notice?
We can talk about dark patterns (native advertising might be one), and prevent many of them. Not allowing for bait and switches. Ensuring that options are easily conveyed. I don't think it matters which side of the political spectrum you're on or many of your philosophical ideals, but tricking people into buying things they don't want or need is not ethical. We live in a specialized world and one person can't be an expert in everything. If the game is supercomputers and teams of psychologists and lawyers against individuals then I think we all know this is an unfair game. We have to talk about how to level this playing field if we want to preserve individual freedoms and safety.
So I know this doesn't really answer your question, and the truth is that I don't have a good answer. I think the topic itself is surprisingly complicated and we need to think carefully about it. The path we're going down clearly isn't acceptable to most people. But overreacting will also be similarly bad. We need to have a tough social conversation and figure out what we want together. We have to learn, a lot, because this is nuanced. We have to be open to being wrong, with a focus on learning and improving rather than asserting our positions (because they are all wrong in some form or another). Which that might be the hardest thing of all, but if we can do this then we can solve a lot more problems. Maybe this is the great filter?
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/netflix/women-inmates-separ...
The real problem with tiktok is not the CCP; it seems likely in my mind that our own government has equally nefarious techniques at play in other countries, and I think its unfair to single out a single company over this or any other behavior that is otherwise legal.
So cut them off at the knees—make the behavior of tiktok illegal, for them and for any other of the thousands of companies doing basically the same thing. Pointedly i mean the extra-application data collection, cross-checking with third-party data miners (which should be illegal already), and the sorts of things we've just become accustomed to being par for the course.
Yeah, I would be in full support of this. I think there's a double edged sword that people are playing with and don't see the other edge. Any data that you use to control your population can also be used by an adversary for the same purpose. The same is true about encryption. We have two competing forces in our own government. Blue team and red teams. But we know red team gets a lot more money and is a lot flashier. Focusing all on red team is fun and exciting but makes you a glass cannon.
I also think if you do any moderation of content, you lose your "common carrier" status and become a publisher, responsible for any content you publish.
Anyone every consider making a social media site/app like fb, tiktok, insta, twitter, where the user can control the algo, and or have sum input of the algo, in so much that the user can "control" what they see, still have ads [company gets paid] but the user can control those ads to a certain degree...[sort of like brave browser][but for social media]
Just wondering, not saying data collection is good, but perhaps, if it were more transparent and interactive, people would be more accepting to using and capitalizing on their own data. Value for value, the user gets to decide what data to share, and the company gets to push ads based on known algorithm unique to each user's approved data metrics... perhaps this already exists???
Is this a pipedream? Or a yes, yes, "if you build it, they will come" life changing moment? I need to know, it is important I change my outfit if it's the latter, athletic shorts and a tshirt, (in my opinion) don't convene much confidence when shopping around for angel investors... ;)
how would you enforce that? without open sourcing it you'd have no way of knowing why a thing was recommended. giving access only to the government is not possible.
It's possible in some far future. Just rewire brains of people to ignore any kind of biases and susceptibility to manipulation. This new society would be 1000x times better than what we have now.
Put down your phone.
Never before has a foreign entity been able to deliver personalized content at the individual level. Not at this scale. The only way a device could get any more embedded would be through rectal insertion.
Not every problem can be solved. Sometimes the best we can do is mitigate.
[Smart]phones are spyware in every pocket...by design.
It doesn't solve the problems for your democracy.
We want to limit the ability of the wealthy and foreign nations to control the mob.
We want the mob to be well adjusted, well educated, happy, and kind.
We have to start treating the mob as individuals. Putting down the phone is tantamount to having a grasp on reality.
If and when that is an option, yes definitely. What are we waiting for? And how is this even up for discussion?
Start by not letting it get its hooks in children and young adults.
Perhaps the first step towards getting rid of it is realizing that it is not "we" who legislate things. That is, not a collective including yourself which has your best interest in mind to a significant extent. "We" have to face the reality in which "they" set up this system - legislatively and commercially.
And I don't mean some evil cabal; you (or me) sometimes participate in the activity of "them". It's just that "we" need to stop identifying "their" actions as what "we" decided to do.
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/propaganda-7-mo...
It seems to have vanished from curricula and I wonder why. It's not as though anyone stands to benefit from an electorate that is less capable of identifying propaganda.
One of his main areas of research was using media as a tool for crowd control... he had a somewhat noble viewpoint about it, believing that large crowds by nature devolved into anarchy: "Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos".
He more or less viewed consumerism as a means pacify these tensions, to indirectly exert control... hence the development of closer ties between big business and the government.
Is that terrible? Of course. However, US law is as bad or worse.
Also Fox News has only a few million viewers each night e.g. “Fox News Channel coasted to an easy win in prime time Monday night, delivering an average total audience of 2.351 million viewers”.
I am not sure how I would jump out of my social media news bubble.
None of which is to say newspapers are great. After all, Murdoch honed his skills in print media first. Just that they are nowhere near as effective as online
This is by design, btw, cf. e.g. "Digital Madness: How Social Media Is Driving Our Mental Health Crisis--and How to Restore Our Sanity " [1]; not itself a primary source but it seems to be well received.
My point being, it's like cigarettes with a message. The message being divisive in all likelihood, in order to override rationality with emotion and increase engagement. [2]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362930/
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Madness-Driving-Crisis-Restor...
[2] How social media shapes polarization: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cHDXsRpzZ84svIv5L-7tfnOvJ-p...
The way we control behavior is by depriving people of unfiltered information, not showing them cat videos and remembering if they liked them.
Usage then and now also conveys a sense of purposeful distortion or fabrication.
A year ago I saw (and thoroughly enjoyed) an exhibition of 80's arts posters in Spain. What struck me were the description labels, and especially the terminology used. Where the English part described something as "advertising", the Spanish descriptions unashamedly used the word "propaganda".
Let's not fool ourselves. The mechanisms of advertising have been lifted, adapted and further weaponised from war-time propaganda, or as we'd call them these days, influence operations.
That's not what you think. At the time it was common to use that word instead of publicidad to mean advertising. A construction typical from Latin, propaganda just meant it's made to be propagated, similar to addenda, Amanda or Miranda.
Now it's limited to politics in Spanish too. People working with ads didn't like the connotations of the term, understandably :)
But it also has the bad connotation when it’s used in the context of politics.
And why? Because certain politicians and media outlets decided to randomly make it a political issue, and then suddenly you have people angrily spouting all kinds of crap rather than be slightly inconvenienced and have to smell their own breath
TikTok Feeds Teens a Diet of Darkness
the big innovation recently has been the ability to manage content of peer to peer communication as well through social media.
Yes, as has been pointed out countless times, the US left would be considered further right than the Nazi party to all you enlightened Europeans. We know, we get it. Doesn’t change the fact that there is something called left wing politics in the US, and it’s considerably different from right wing politics in the US.
Silence is not implied agreement. What the internet masses say is popular and what people actually vote for are two very different things.
If a user could show good faith participation, could they claim they've been prohibited from exercising freedom of expression in a public forum?
Suppose someone was banned from a subreddit for their particular hobby or, worse, city or region. This might be the single biggest forum for that person to address their neighbors and peers, and banning could prohibit their ability to find work, housing, opportunities, etc.
Moderators often ban users on a whim. Sometimes they ban users for merely commenting on other items or subreddits that they deem "wrong", and this practice is often automated.
If you can't sue Reddit, could you sue the moderators?
If you're banned from /r/sanfrancisco etc., what do you do? Your voice and ability to participate in the community has been blinded and muffled.
Reddit and Twitter are bigger than Reddit and Twitter. If you're banned, you have less of an ability to participate in modern life. Events, jobs, commentary, and more are gone. There is no alternative, because platforms Hoover up as much as they possibly can.
Ideally these platforms would be protocols, but in the meantime the common carriers that operate them should be held to preserving accessibility.
Moderation isn't easy. It should probably be an order of magnitude more expensive than it already is so that safeguards against "personhood erasure" can be put in place.
You don't want racists, trolls, and bigots spouting hate speech, but you also need to keep the lines open for when these individuals are behaving. Because the pendulum swings and sometimes you find yourself on the other side of the censorship zeitgeist.
Perfectly salient thoughts and people can be memory holed. And that's not just a possibility - it's happening right now.
If they tell an outrageous lie on CNN they can be sued.
the response is always: "they didn't spend enough money to sway enough people"
but who did they target? which zipcodes or DMAs? specific UIDs? Trump won be 80k votes in the swing states.
See https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...
See also https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
edit: somehow Cambridge Analytica's bullshit marketing material combined with The Manchurian Candidate in the boomer mind.
-----
edit: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-brainwashi...
> “The basic problem that brainwashing is designed to address is the question ‘why would anybody become a Communist?’” says Timothy Melley, professor of English at Miami University and author of The Covert Sphere: Secrecy, Fiction, and the National Security State. “[Brainwashing] is a story that we tell to explain something we can’t otherwise explain.”
> The term had multiple definitions that changed depending on who used it. For Hunter—who turned out to be an agent in the CIA’s propaganda wing—it was a mystical, Oriental practice that couldn’t be understood or anticipated by the West, Melley says. But for scientists who actually studied the American POWs once they returned from Korea, brainwashing was altogether less mysterious than the readily apparent outcome: The men had been tortured.
> [...]
> Meanwhile, the American public was still wrapped up in fantasies of hypnotic brainwashing, in part due to the research of pop psychologists like Joost Meerloo and William Sargant. Unlike Lifton and the other researchers hired by the military, these two men portrayed themselves as public intellectuals and drew parallels between brainwashing and tactics used by both American marketers and Communist propagandists. Meerloo believes that “totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union or Communist China were in the past, and continue to be, quite successful in their thought-control programs… [and] the more recently available techniques of influence and thought control are more securely based on scientific fact, more potent and more subtle,” writes psychoanalyst Edgar Schein in a 1959 review of Meerloo’s book, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control—Menticide and Brainwashing.
If a kid is watching TikTok 8-10 hours a day, that’s on the parents to fix.
This is like the hot dog man meme. “Who’s responsible for this?” Ultimately you are in control of your eyeballs and your time. Stop watching!
Or not. TikTok is awesome. Watch it 8-10 hours a day if you want.
There are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars whose sole job is to get you locked into a feedback loop in these apps. We are engineering addiction.
I think this type of problem has to be solved by the government.
There's a brief scene on Bojack Horseman involving a commercial for some chicken product. In it, a kid yells at his parents "I don't want to go to school, I want Chicken-4-Dayz!"
Some kids are badly-behaved. They get a lot of validation and reinforcement of their behavior from these platforms, especially since any disciplinary misstep by a parent invites CPS visits. But we should ask why products like "Chicken-4-Dayz" influence children to reject their own actual needs and tone that shit down.
I hear a lot of stories from teachers about teenage boys coming to school exhausted beyond functioning. Child labor abuses from working extra shifts at the factory? No. They're up all night all week playing Call of Duty.
When people opt to consume a product instead of doing the things they need to do to survive past their consumption, it's addiction. All controlled substances have this trait. Given an infinite supply of amphetamines, most people will dehydrate or starve to death.
At the same time, is it the role of the state to prevent people from realizing their own destruction? And further, what is the role of the state in regulating things that were designed outright to be as addictive as possible?
> I don't think that government should serve the role of surrogate parent
Neither do I, but at some point it needs to be a backstop against implosion of the country. We're being subject to the Opium Wars playbook (brought to you by TikTok: China's Revenge).
What purpose does government serve if not doing something to mitigate?
It seems most interested in facilitating this behavior for the sake of economic growth, but that engine is destined to seize. Money in the hands of the middle/lower classes is the oil that keeps it running.
> And further, what is the role of the state in regulating things that were designed outright to be as addictive as possible?
So far we've managed it with alcohol, tobacco, slot machines and hard drugs. The role of the state on this matter is pretty well-defined.
I agree that in the absence of direct negative consequences it seems unlikely we will see a change in the status quo.
And I don’t need to address that fact because the root of the issue is the person installing the app. It doesn’t matter how well engineered the pachinko machine is if I can long-press it out of my existence.
> I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
TikTok is a heroin airplane with big brother in the pilot seat.
What we need is a better drug.