Sean Parker Unloads on Facebook 'Exploiting' Human Psychology (axios.com)

Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, spoke to news outlet Axios about the ways social networks have made hundreds of millions of users addicted to their platforms. He said, from the interview: When Facebook was getting going, I had these people who would come up to me and they would say, 'I'm not on social media.' And I would say, 'OK. You know, you will be.' And then they would say, 'No, no, no. I value my real-life interactions. I value the moment. I value presence. I value intimacy.' And I would say, ... 'We'll get you eventually. I don't know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and ... it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other ... It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains. The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, ... was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?' And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that's going to get you to contribute more content, and that's going to get you ... more likes and comments. It's a social-validation feedback loop. He says people like him, and Mark Zuckerberg knew the potential consequences, but they did what they did anyway.

Comments

Much ado about [null]

[cellocgw]

So it (maybe) changes children's brains. So does everything. So did letting them learn to read, or to use a telephone. Just because social dynamics are changing again, just as they did when cities were invented, and then suburbs were invented, and then TV was invented, doesn't mean this (Facebook / social media) is suddenly the Work Of The Devil.
Heck, we may be moving towards a society where interaction is primarily online rather than meatspace. So what? Who are we hurting?

This is a bigger problem

[schweini]

This is a huge problem - advertising, marketing and shadier news outlets are systematically exploiting the innate cognitive biases we all have.

They have always done this, but instead of an artform, this has become scientific. And it seems to work quite well (for them)

It's similar to Casinos, which also exploit well-known human mental defects - which is why casinos are usually heavily regulated. But you obviously can't do the same for communication.
The only kind-of protection against these assaults on our mental defects is education, and a change in the mind-set. But noone really has a short-term incentive to change either of those.

Re:Its your fault

[Cajun Hell]

No, it's We The People's fault, for being drug addicts. Don't blame the dealer.

Cow Clicker!

[s_p_oneil]

Cow Clicker! IMO this was a much better commentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Seriously though, what about WoW? What about EverCrack (as its own players referred to it half-jokingly)? What about the new e-Sports games like LoL, Dota2, or any multiplayer game that does its best to avoid falling into obscurity? What about TV shows that do their best to try to keep viewers hooked? What about Hollywood trying to keep people coming back in to see movies?

What company goes out of their way to make a product that no one likes very much (and that will fail as a result of it)? He'd be better off blaming people for being sheep than for blaming a company trying to provide the best possible service/product. It's what companies do. No one is forcing them to sign up, to spend all their time on it, to get hooked on "likes" (or people clicking their cows).

Re:The Oppenheimer Moment

[forkfail]

I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that if were you to sign up with Facebook right now that you would have at least a few dozen friend recommendations that were accurate and reflective not only of your current life, but also, of your associations of several years ago.

Re:Its your fault

[gnick]

I've never felt the need to join FB or other social media to date.

That fix that users get from "Likes" and "Replies" on FB is very similar to the fix you get from "Mods" and "Replies" on /. . A lot of my interaction on FB is discussion of news articles, similar to my interaction on /. . (Yes, some actual headlines make it to FB. On my feed it's CNN, BBC News, or whatever sources my friends post.) I see you post on here all the time - You've got the same bug as the FB users. You just feel superior because you're on a different platform (doing the same thing) and FB bashing is popular here.

Re:You are still on facebook.

[DarkOx]

^^THIS^^

I resisted facebook for a long time, but ultimately I signed up and created a basic profile, with information about me that is already mostly public and things I would generally want the world to know about me. I keep it pretty impersonal and rarely post about being anywhere or doing anything that isn't documented elsewhere publicly, but at least I get to bring the attention to those things as opposed to attention being on everything else for lack anything else being there.

Its nice to ask your friends not to tag you in stuff but sooner or later someone forgets, making an honest mistake, after that facebook's photo recognition will start to suggest you everywhere you appear. Combine that will all their other data mining and yes they know a lot about you and publish a lot about you whether you like it or not.

At some point you have to make a decision do YOU want some control over the message about you that gets put out by facebook or do you want to continue you protested at the cost of not having that control? If you do you have to create an account, and play some of their game. You can ignore facebook all you like but others don't and you can't make them, because of the that facebook has you and I over a barrel.