But for adults, as status seeking individuals we’ve been given a platform that allows us to efficiently vie for status against one another.
The innuendos, humble bragging, etc. how is that any different than driving a Porsche down the freeway? Is social media more pervasive, gamified, and convenient? Is that why it’s bad?
I subscribe to the idea that social media is society holding a mirror up to itself. It is certainly divisive, but if all that had ever prevented that division is this rapid dissemination we have now, is that really the platforms’ faults?
It’s just more raw, real, fake, and everything people are anyway.
From what I’ve read, quite a few studies have shown a correlation between social media use and mental disorders in teen girls that isn’t nearly as pronounced for boys.
Looks like his kids are under 10. Do any meta products target that age group? YouTube seems much worse in that regard, wonder what Sundar and Susan (or whoever the new guy is) let their kids do.
Can't all the social media companies put comments through a sentiment analyzer before they post, and determine if the poster is writing something anti-social? "Get back in the kitchen" should easily be analyzable through sentiment analysis, and the poster should just get banned. Stuff like this should be low-hanging fruit in my opinion, given what AI can do these days.
Your post contains the substring "get back in the kitchen". Would you expect to be banned for it?
If your immediate reaction is along the lines of "surely sentiment analysis will analyze all the other words in my post" - consider what happens if your post is split into multiple posts. Some of which, perhaps, are images or gifs rather than words. And some of which refer to pre-existing context between the two people communicating and of which the sentiment analysis cannot possibly be aware.
You're endorsing a social media platform that only allows "positive" posts and comments. Not only is this easily game-able ("I bet you're a great cook!" instead of "get back in the kitchen") but it also raises a bunch of new dilemmas and problems and a bunch of "unintended" (but foreseeable) consequences.
People will always communicate the thoughts that they want to, no matter what filters they have to push through. At this point the filters are even changing the way young people talk in real life with words like “unalived” entering daily lexicon.
If we are going to go your route, why wouldn’t the user just set THEIR sentiment reader to only show positive comments? Why is this being done at the source instead of the destination.
That’s impossible to do accurately, true meaning relies so much on context. “Get back in the kitchen!” could be very positive if it was a post about ‘taking a quick break while having so much fun baking’ for example…
And that’s only taking about plain speech, not even touching on sarcasm or passive aggressive language, which is a whole deeper level that is even harder to detect…
Or bothers too. This sounds like something I would say to my wife, who doesn't cook and I usually put the dishes away, but bc it's an inside joke between us and close family/friends I would get banned for it.
I’ve seen this linked a few times now. It seems to be overly reductive and blames a large societal issue on a singular thing. Which is an immediate red flag as far as ideas go. They also commit errors by confusing correlation and causation.
No mention of the continued decline of material conditions in the west or the growing wealth disparity, for instance. They bring up unemployment rates but then say it can’t be the economy cause unemployment went down, ignoring how unemployment classification changed after 08, and they don’t even mention what unemployment stat they used. Not to mention I can easily say they got work but it was trash and didn’t pay well. Or their parents struggled to make ends meet, were not there for the kids, and they lacked proper parenting. So many other possible explanations.
Recently I've been getting shown lots of deepfake ads on Facebook. I report them but then I get back a message saying that they don't violate the advertising guidelines. There's no option to report it specifically for being a deepfake.
I imagine this is a similar problem that Meta won't address until they're forced to.
I found an entire company of 50 or so fake people called "AI FIRE" All the same bio. All generated images. Reported multiple profiles as fake LinkedIn as fake.
I only got halfway before it stopped letting me report.
Now LinkedIn doesn't let me report things anymore. It just gives me an "unknown error" message.
*AI FIRE, i got it backwards.
All the fake accounts remain. Because it's not in LinkedIns interest to reduce their usercount.
Is it a fake of a recognisable person? What are they endorsing/promoting?
I don't see the issue with using AI to generate video ads. Sure, it makes it unreasonably cheap to produce video. But the cost of displaying the ad is the main cost anyway.
Yes: Joe Rogan, Donald Trump, and Mr. Beast are the ones I've reported so far.
One of them was a pill that supposedly grew your penis, another was for some conspiracy theory site, and one was just a straight up phishing/scam attempt.
At one point I tested that theory by literally creating a paid Facebook ad for getcryptolocker.com, advertising that getting your data held to ransom was just one click away. I had no problems getting the ad published and Facebook alleges I had a reasonable amount of clicks.
And if that person has agreed, getting paid for the permission? It would be way more expensive to get $celebrity to have a shooting in a remote location compared to calling them/their agent for a permission. And the result could be comparable.
I commented a few weeks ago on something saying this was exactly what generated video was going to really take off in. Now you don't even need to pay the minimum wage for a struggling actor to endorse whatever thing you're trying to make: now you can just generate someone doing it. Or you know, a famous person.
Personally, going forward, this is going to be an automatic disqualification for me for any product or service. If you can't even be fucked to hire an actor, I'd imagine you can't be fucked to build whatever it is correctly either. No sale. I don't assume this will be a tectonic shift in my consumption habits anyway. I don't buy shit from instagram ads and the like and I have a feeling that's where this is going to really take off, but still.
The problem is there's no way to differentiate on the consumer's end from well-prioritized internal spend while responsibly assuring quality where required, and just being a cheap ass business operator who's nickel and dimeing his own products into shit.
It feels like everywhere you look online is nothing but scams and grift now. Everyone out to fleece everyone else with minimum viable products. Nonsense letter combinations masquerading as brands all over Amazon hocking aliexpress garbage with poorly photoshopped product images comes to mind immediately.
BACK IN MY DAY.. the flip phone, t9 input, 320x200 screens were pinnacle of mobile tech, and I longed for a future which started in 2006 with the release of the iPhone. Now, as a dad of a 15 year old girl, I am crushed that the ecosystem our generations helped build - with good intentions - rules her and her friends life from waking hour to doomscrolling pre-bed ritual.
It doesn't help being in a shared custody situation. Where my voice was ignored when it came to introducing the device to her in the first place (aware of some of the dangers that lurked at that time). My ex (her mom) are in a very amicable post-relationship, but we just couldn't agree on the "own phone" thing. Too early. After she's driving age. If she can't legally enlist she shouldn't be connected to the hyperverse. She can't decide what's right and smart, just what she thinks is right and smart.
One very important thought is to remember that these low life-experience minors just don't have the experience and mental faculty to deal with low quality bait the same way as those who have come before her and grew up seeing the dastardly intentions of people. They are still very naive, and the power imbalance of bullshit detection.
Anyway, I don't think I have a point here except to say I am ashamed for my role in bringing the pervasive mobile device reality to fruition, no matter how small a role I may have played in it. At least how it stands, now. At this point I wish there were alternatives to "the internet" that work alongside and identically to it, but with more controls and regulation to protect minors.
That's not to say there shouldn't be a regular internet coexisting, but one where our devices can choose what network to operate near identically on, but has more accountability.
More than one kid in our large district has been catfished and had their nudes leak and criminal investigations that lead nowhere.
One kid has tried to start a fight online and wound up paralyzed.
These are sub-16 aged minors playing hardball with the pros.
The popularity of TikTok/Instagram’s unskippable garbage video players makes me think otherwise.
I get sent links to videos that are cropped from landscape to portrait back to landscape. The videos have irrelevant emoji all over them. They are even split in half, showing two separate videos at the same time (I presume in case you lose interest with one).
Mind boggling as someone that grew up seeing the advent of streaming high definition video, with the ability to skip around, adjust the playback speed, subtitle, etc.
The issue is they aren't as good at it as their parents, i.e. older millennials and Gen X. There's this expectation that younger generations are just better at tech due to being young, because a considerable portion of Gen X and Millennials were enthusiastic and hopeful about technology, and so embraced it and the Internet when they were younger.
The risks are certainly a bit more dire these days than back in the 80s and 90s, but there was also just a more careful culture. Platforms these days want you to share everything, and so kids just fall for it because they want genuine connection... but can't find it.
teenagers can be good at detecting low quality content, but they aren't very good at knowing when they're being advertised to (https://theamericangenius.com/business-marketing/teens-cant-...) and they're basically wired to be impulsive and make poor choices. The parts of their brains that let them evaluate long term consequences is still being developed. (https://www.healthline.com/health/teen-brain-development) It's why they are so vulnerable to oversharing (including passing around nudes). Companies who profit from collecting data and pushing ads exploit teens and children because they are so vulnerable.
I think digital addiction is currently the most pervasive public health issue that is also the least recognized. Sure, we made documentaries like the social dilemma... But whatever... the numbers speak for themselves. Teenagers in the US spend an avg 8 hours/day on the screen.
In this industry people are quick to say "but it's a tool! It depends on how people use it!" But the reality is that we very well know how some specific demographics use it, and we know it's overall not good. Both because of the addictive component, and the bullying/graphic content, etc.
It’s not just “over there,” I believe the numbers are similar if not worse in many Asian countries, and only slightly lower in Europe.
Teenagers don’t typically need to survive. Half of it is probably throughout the day at school, in class, in between classes and in public transportation. And the rest is likely at night instead of socializing/studying/sleeping.
We hosted two teenagers from UK and US this summer at two different times, friends & extended family. They both spent a major part of their time locked inside their room scrolling TikTok, then scrolling TikTok some more on the couch of our living room. One of them was open about it and recognized she spends on average 10h/day on it when she’s on holiday. It’s really bad, an entire generation is particularly depressed, desperate and doesn’t know how to stop the pattern.
They can be on holiday in a foreign country for the first time, and still struggle not to waste their time on the compulsion, scrolling for hours instead of enjoying discovering something new.
I think ultimately what we’re saying is people survive, but it results in ATH all time high rates of loneliness, ATL rates of intercourse, and surprise surprise less babies, less families. Just an overall slowing down of adulting and building one’s life. It’s quite sad.
Meta seem to especially profit off the mental exploitation of our elderly parents, and our young teens. Evil sandwich with a pissed-off GenX inbetween.
The roots of all this stretch back decades. Whereas the US allowed unhealthy foods and cigarettes to advertise using cartoon characters, and still do, other countries introduced strict prohibitions on such activities. While Joe Camel is a thing of the past, Ronald McDonald is happily sheparding a pediatric obesity crisis.
Which is all to say none of this is the result of a “broken” system, it’s the result of a well designed evil system.
Technologists weren’t “trying” to build these systems, but happily devoted their lives to advertising without knowing jack shit about the industry or its effects on society.
It's probably the caps and sarcasm. Good top level comments usually have better discussions.
Just to address the comments directly, I think the issue isn't that someone was mean online. The issue is that the platform is designed to keep impressionable minds engaged at any cost, including their mental health. It's effectively Las Vegas in their pocket, and we wouldn't let 14 year olds loose in Vegas. We have rules for that which we all agreed to pass as laws.
The discussion is at what level and what kind of rules we might need.
Yeah, maybe the parents should actually parent instead of asking the government to. If you don’t like what the internet says, don’t let your kid use it?
The proposal in the article is to require the companies to track and publish what sort of platform they run. That sounds like a pretty valuable tool for parents.
There has to be some way to work towards a society where that guy keeps his mouth shut instead of being a dick to a teenager that was just having fun.
It's as if when you decide to put yourself out there publicly on social media you should be prepared to receive negative comments. Who would have thought?
Concerned parent absolutely flabbergasted that non-restricted Internet use lead to his children experiencing bad actors online; Responds by yelling at the company 'der derka DER!!! derka derka DER muh CHILDREN!!!' But Ned, what about the children? Now the parent is angry and it doesn't know why! Should they be a better parent? No, it's someone's fault.
But for adults, as status seeking individuals we’ve been given a platform that allows us to efficiently vie for status against one another.
The innuendos, humble bragging, etc. how is that any different than driving a Porsche down the freeway? Is social media more pervasive, gamified, and convenient? Is that why it’s bad?
I subscribe to the idea that social media is society holding a mirror up to itself. It is certainly divisive, but if all that had ever prevented that division is this rapid dissemination we have now, is that really the platforms’ faults?
It’s just more raw, real, fake, and everything people are anyway.