Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sean Parker, it is your fault for creating the thing.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
But if you come back to /. to see if any one replied you'll get your little dopamine hit. Same shit.
PS: Your welcome.
It might have been addictive for awhile but it's getting pretty dull and feels more like myspace every day. I have a feeling the culture will eventually become dumb and toxic enough that the thing implodes an people will move to some other format for social media. Given Zuckerberg's interest in other social media platforms I have to wonder if he feels the same way.
I don't have much proof but it's happened to every similar service and website before it.
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Yes, Mister Parker, you have. Facebook is a cancer to humanity, a virulent disease. It should never have been created in the first place, and I for one am glad that I have nothing to do with it.
..and NO, you can't find anything about me on Facebook. I don't have an account there, no one I know is allowed to reference me there, and I defy anyone who says different.
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?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
...should pay the social and monetary costs for the damage he's done to society. He knew the consequences, and took the action any goddamned way. Full responsibility lies on him and Mark and they should pay dearly. Slam them straight back to middle class.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You dumb shit.. this is not 'social media', IT IS A NEWS AGGREGATOR SITE WITH COMMENTS. You're just projecting because you're a Failbook addict and can't leave. Try getting real friends in real life (yes, that means taking a shower and leaving the basement) and you won't need cancerous shit like Faecesbook.
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.
Yeah, sure, let's totally hamstring the social development of an entire generation, so they're so afraid of interacting with real, live people in real world situations, that'll just be so wonderful for our civilization.
I think they are giving themselves too much credit. Let's strip away the advertising machine that is FB and distill it down to the most basic fundamental. A person can post information, and others who are connected to that person can see that information and react to it. That's it in a nutshell. The fact that people get a "little dopamine hit" when someone they are connected to reacts to something they did is not something Facebook engineered. It is human nature. It is why we like to sit around talking to one another, or why we like to see a person smile when we do something. This is nothing FB engineered or calculated or anything like that. For any virtual social network to be compatible with human nature and be accepted it must provide a way for people to provide feedback with one another. Calling it a "like" or letting someone comment on it is not exactly the height of software or social engineering.
Methinks he is giving Facebook way too much credit to stoke his ego that he had a hand in reshaping people's "relationship with society". Facebook was inevitable, and in fact had existed in many, many different forms in the past (Usenet, America Online dialup, MySpace, Slashdot commenting system, ad infinitum). Facebook was nothing more than a simplification of existing social networks to the point that anyone could use it. It hit a critical mass, like MS Windows, the iPod, etc, where it had to resources to outgrow the competitors.
Better known as 318230.
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).
New technology always starts out with a basic idea: What do people need? That's the embryo stage of unicorn tech companies - they go for popularity, growth, adoption, novelty.
Not long after, either the people in charge, or those that want to be in charge such as investors, start thinking about exit: what do I need people to need/want? How do I make them do it to such an extent it starts providing something I can monetize? ...and this second step is where things really start getting out of hand. Thats problem no.1 of capitalist society - as it doesn't regulate until a fault is so big it has an effect, you can't really make perfect symbiosis with the user base. It's something we were expected to cope with, as the rational beings we consider ourselves, as a mild trade-off for innovation and economic growth. But in the age of information overload, we don't adapt fast enough and consequences might not be offset by the benefits.
The problem with innovation these days is that it has no sense of direction. I'll make this very, VERY basic analogy with the youtuber modus operandi: they find a weak interest group like gamers, children, compulsive consumers, extreme-left/right minds, religious types, nerds types... or a combination of the above, and then proceed to broadcast low or questonnable, definitely biased (read: sponsored) comment on whatever topic. You get low quality data on weak, influenciable people and you get a lot a disinformed community.
Fake news or trivial shares are not the problem - the problem arises when opinion is so influenced by trend that it becomes determination. Just look at the Catalunia issue: they really had no bad quality of life, nor that big a sense of identity to really make a fuss about separating from Spain (I am close, and unbiased to the issue as a Portuguese national), yet the simple fact some parties insisted on pushing the buttons over and over again, for very personal interest to acquire power for themselves, and you get populism, which is "old" english for trend.
I have seen the Facebook trend evolve - some years ago, Facebook was being used by everyone I thought was of reasonable character and technologically OK (let's put an age/social status label on that and say high-level educated millenials such as me and most of us here). facebook was getting trendy but it still managed to have actually relevant, valid information. Then it became meta-mainstream with the explosion of Android and the consequent WWW ubiquity, reaching the "septemberists" that had no idea on how to interact in an evolved community (both uneducated oldies as much as infant new generations). What do humans do when in a harsh environment? They attempt to thrive, Dunning–Kruger style: pack, gang up, and hoard the place with unfounded comment they believe as fact with the slightest argument. And this is not Facebook, this is the entire social web, today. And people, this september will last forever unless someone has a bright idea to stop it.
How you might ask? Well, I surely don't know but for starters, surely something better than FB/Twitter/Reddit must come forth and replace current use-patterns - and by better I mean it gets people to move there. With a bit of luck, whoever invents that acosystem also manages to place some core rules that prevent an idiocracy state all over again. But it might take some iterations, yet some systems such as Wikipedia made it on the first try (despite some nay-sayers, Wikipedia is still asserted by most as a decent platform, perceptibly preventing abuse by about 99% of relevant issues, and arguably with a lot more good than bad).
How do your friends arrange meetings?
At the pub used to be answer, and for some is still the most relevant.
Meet in the bar for an afterwork beer, and while there discuss interesting new plans for a trip on the upcoming week-end.
And hook up with a nice girl while you're at it.
The whole internet or the mobile network could go down in flame, the above mentioned method can still work.
(And if you're a regular enough at the bar, even the banking, payment processing and ATM systems can go down, and it still works for a couple of beers "on the house" or "I know you well enough, you can pay me tomorrow when the system is back up").
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And yet, nevertheless, you just posted that thought on social media.
Check back later to see if you got modded up! Maybe getting some karma points (or replies that agree with you -- they're just as good as upmods!) will get you to come back for more.
Slashdot's advertisers should be unhappy to read this, but considering where they're reading it, I suspect their frowns might be upside-down.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
NO, you can't find anything about me on Facebook. I don't have an account there, no one I know is allowed to reference me there
Yup, you don't have a Facebook profile, and you've politely asked your closest friend to not upload pictures with your face on them to it.
Good for you.
The problem is that Facebook will data mine the living shit out of everything it comes by.
Maybe one person with whom you didn't communicate using throw away accounts (but, e.g.: you mailed using a regular e-mail, all called them with your called-ID visible) had facebook's app installed on their smartphone (and the app will automatically mine any contact details it comes by, including caller list and e-mail addresses auto-added to the replied-to list)
Maybe someone you don't know personally uploaded a picture of a crowd while you were out in the public without wearing dazzle make-up (forget about usual clothing accessories like sun-glasses, Facebook face recognition system is fine-tuned well enough to be able to recognise you even with these).
etc.
Add all these small crumbs of information together over time and facebook ends up having quite some idea about who you are without you or any of your direct friend ever giving out any such information.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
...learn the difference between a forum and a social network...
The difference is that you see the same discussions on both, but in the forum people feel superior to the people on social networks. See too much crap on FB? Get rid of the "friends" posting that crap and keep the ones posting the stuff you're interested in.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You just listed three things that progressively robbed people of their soul.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock