The Social Dilemma (2020)

[checkoutgirl]

Netsflix docudrama hybrid featuring a bunch of former silicon valley tech execs, the architects of social media, repenting for the damage they have done to society in a decade.

Scared the absolute shit out of me and made me really feel sorry for anyone having children around now. What kind of world will we be in in 50 years time? Went some way to explaining flat earthers, the rise of Trump and wimpy millenials whinging about the word ne'ge. The type of modern phenomena I struggle to make sense of but when you factor in continuous feedack loops of nonsense theories and people getting their news and information from Facebook without checking any reliable sources, well, it makes more sense.

This film was really good at asking the question but if you want answers look elsewhere. Still very good 8/10.

[lipsink]

Agreed with this documentary and it's absolutely terrifying. Definitely see how it's contributed to how divided we are politically.

I've downloaded the Space app that sets limits on how long you should be on your phone and the number of times you unlock it. Usually quite easy to stay within the limits set for me but right now obviously a bit different. I live by myself so it's basically the only way I can keep in touch with other people. I'm not talking about mindlessly scrolling Facebook for hours, I'm talking about Messenger, FaceTime, Zoom etc. It is very easy to get sucked into the 'chasing likes' rabbit hole which has made me go a bit mad a few times the past few months. You don't get enough Likes and you start imagining everybody hates you if that's your only form of human interaction.

[rue the polywhirl]

Spent 90 minutes watching this and was very surprised with the overall elucidation that Facebook and other social media are addictive. Thanks Netflix for helping me not cut down further on my screen time. (Watching on ipad). Always feel swindled watching Netflix docs.

[Bence Fekete]

I thought it did a good job of trying to illustrate how dangerous it is that we're whoring out our digital psyches to faceless corporations wihout even questioning it. This is the kind of thing I can get my mum to watch and have a somewhat educated conversation afterwards. So it succeeds on that level, which I think is the point.

Personally, I would struggle with ditching some social media news because I feel like our already deeply dishonest MSM has to be supplemented somehow. Seems like we have so much to do that it will need some kind of dramatic grand sloganable vision rather than some of the somewhat plausible tax tweaks they suggest in this.

Lanier sums the whole thing with his line 'the world is run on financial incentives'. We need to find a way to sell freedom back to ourselves.

[phes]

Great, going to watch this tomorrow. In a related vein another doc worth a go for a historical context is We live in Public (2009)

[Noodle Lizard]

I gave my thoughts in the TV subforum thread, so I won't bother going into that again (https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,82695.0.html)

But as for a wider discussion about privacy etc. it's not that I particularly have an issue with people liking and enjoying social media and other tech innovations or finding they benefit from them in one way or another, it's the fact that we're increasingly getting to the point as a society where it's no longer going to be an option to live without them (or at least not without great difficulty). I'm forced to use Google and Facebook products for my job, some jobs require a social media presence regardless of how important it actually is to the position, recently almost every professional has been forced to use Zoom (which has an appalling track record for privacy), and while I'm "clued-up" enough to take measures against data collection and shadow profiling and everything else the documentary mentions, they're banking on the fact that 99% of people aren't - or are at the very least complacent.

If you want to ameliorate your "footprint" at least somewhat, here are some reasonably simple things you can do (a lot of them are obvious):

- Delete (or at least stop using) all social media accounts. They've already got everything they need to build a profile on you, but quitting now will at least make it harder for that to continue. Unless you're a very active user, you'd be surprised how quickly you lose the "need" for them once they're gone. If you have to use social media for work, create separate profiles just for that and only use them when absolutely necessary. If you can dedicate a machine/network just for that, even better.

- Stop using as many Google products and services as possible, including Gmail. This is probably one of the harder ones, but it's worth doing whatever you can (i.e. using DuckDuckGo as a search engine, never using Google Chrome as a browser, not using stock Android on your phone, not using Gmail for important/personal emails). ProtonMail is a great alternative for e-mail, and Firefox/Brave/DuckDuckGo are all good browser alternatives. If you must use Google accounts, tweak the privacy settings as much as you can to opt out of "personalization".

- Use a VPN and browser extensions. Firefox is probably the best browser for selection of privacy-enhancing extensions, and comes with a lot of good options within the browser itself. Depending on how stringent you want to be, some of them can make your internet activity a bit more fiddly (certain pages breaking, constantly having to re-enter logins or verifying accounts etc.) but I'd say uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes and Google/Facebook "container" extensions are essential for preventing these companies from tracking your activity across the web. VPNs don't offer as much protection as some people assume, but every hurdle helps, and it's worth paying a little for a good one.

- Keep phone apps (and usage) to a minimum. Depending on how careful you are with your settings, a lot of apps will subtly run in the background, gather location data or even access your microphone. Delete any apps that you don't use often, you can always re-download them if needed. It's a good idea to limit your phone to essentials anyway, for more than just privacy reasons (I also keep my phone on grayscale most of the time, which makes it less appealing to idly fiddle with). There's no popular smartphone that's particularly privacy friendly out-of-the-box, but iPhone/iOS is probably the lesser of all evils (unless you're tech-savvy enough to install an open source OS like Graphene on an Android phone).

- Try to only use privacy-respecting messaging apps. Signal is probably the best option, but Telegram will do as it's more widely-used. This one can be hard because you're sort of limited to what everyone else is already using (Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger etc.), but try to use those ones as little as possible. Apparently iMessage isn't a bad option if you're on iPhone with other iPhone users, but since it's not open source it's hard to be sure.

- Don't use your real name or other identifying details anywhere online unless absolutely necessary. A lot of the things you sign up for don't actually need to know your real name and birthday in order to work, so don't give it to them. And keep separate email addresses for different purposes (i.e. one for personal, one for work, a few for various different sign-ups etc.) This helps "diversify" your internet profile. It extends to in-person "sign-ups" as well (shops, restaurants etc.) If they don't "need" your phone number or home/e-mail address, don't give it to them.

Those are a few things which seem the most important for reducing your digital footprint. I'm not especially tech-savvy myself, so I'm sure many of you will have other/better suggestions, or will be able to explain why some of mine are bollocks. I've also found https://www.privacytools.io/ to have good information and resources if you're interested.

[checkoutgirl]

I gave my thoughts in the TV subforum

Sorry, would have just posted in that if I could find it. As always I think you're a bit harsh on the dramatisation bit. It's a bit extreme but that's for illustration of worst case scenario purposes. They end up with brother and sister pushed to the ground and handcuffed by cops at a riot. 99.99% of social media users will ever be in that situation. And riots and protests have been going on for centuries so a bit much pinning it on social media.

Also you seem to think most people know social media was designed to be addictive when I'd bet the opposite is true.

Most worrying was that bad/mean/bullshit news travels 6 times faster which motivates techs to pump out more to keep you more engaged to generate more profit and also the election tampering. That shit is scary.

[Noodle Lizard]

Sorry, would have just posted in that if I could find it. As always I think you're a bit harsh on the dramatisation bit. It's a bit extreme but that's for illustration of worst case scenario purposes. They end up with brother and sister pushed to the ground and handcuffed by cops at a riot. 99.99% of social media users will ever be in that situation. And riots and protests have been going on for centuries so a bit much pinning it on social media.

I thought they were unnecessary and, moreover, poorly-conceived, cheapening whatever point they were making. But I can sympathise with the documentarians feeling like it had to have a "twist" to it rather than just being a series of talking heads and graphics.

Also you seem to think most people know social media was designed to be addictive when I'd bet the opposite is true.

I suppose what I meant is that there's not much in there that hasn't been discussed already on virtually every mainstream platform over the years, sometimes making headline news. These issues have been the focus of countless news pieces, other documentaries and internet videos, but more often than not people seem to gasp and then forget about it until the next big revelation (ironically, this is probably the result of how the internet/social media has structured the dissemination of news). Sadly, I think the same is likely to be true of this documentary. It's a noble enough attempt, I suppose, but unlikely to be very effective - especially with its somewhat grating presentation and its leaning into finger-wagging and Black Mirror style scaremongering at times.

But yeah, as I think I said in the other thread, if it gets even a few people to dig deeper into this stuff and make some changes in their own life, that can only be a good thing.

[zomgmouse]

this was my letterboxd review:

the biggest irony about this is netflix knows they have their own manipulative algorithms that begin the moment the credits hit, so they deliberately added extra footage throughout the credits to avoid having them pop up when the credits hit. and then the moment the credits ended we get "recommended for you: preview starts in 17 seconds". after an entire documentary about why manipulative algorithms are ruining the world. fuck off

as a documentary it's disappointingly (but unsurprisingly) centrist politically speaking. the world's being driven towards rampant fascism? ah, must be the fault of people who aren't fascists. also a bit too much emphasis on the individual's role instead of the very obvious faults of capitalist systems. but a useful summary of the various issues in tech/apps/etc nonetheless. which, to be clear, are THEIR FAULT. fuck off and dismantle your systems and stop telling us we suck for reacting to those systems in the ways we were designed to. i guess it's good to start conversations or something

netflix is also very much part of the problem in many other ways and it's pretty sneaky of them to commission and air a documentary shining the blame in a different direction. so i continue to say: fuck you, netflix

[Noodle Lizard]

as a documentary it's disappointingly (but unsurprisingly) centrist politically speaking. the world's being driven towards rampant fascism? ah, must be the fault of people who aren't fascists.

Isn't the point that it's designed to be divisive according to your individual political preferences? For instance, if you constantly watch Ben Shapiro talks, you're likely to be presented with more "evidence" that the loony lefties are ruining the world (and vice versa). I don't think it's that the (largely left-leaning) people in charge of these companies are doing it in the service of any specific political agenda, moreso that stoking strong emotions either way encourages more active engagement with their services.

also a bit too much emphasis on the individual's role instead of the very obvious faults of capitalist systems.

At the end of the day, it is going to be our responsibility to say "no" to these systems, as there's not much any government interference could do that wouldn't be seen as an overreach. We're in a very odd gray area where tech companies do, in many ways, have more control and influence now than the traditional masters (government and TV/print media), but the argument still goes "these are private companies and, so long as they don't violate any laws, they should be able to run unimpeded". I actually think that's a fair enough argument in principle, but it becomes complicated when these services have essentially replaced all of our platforms as a society, certainly insofar as "the commons" goes. It's unprecedented, so we haven't figured out the right answer yet (and I don't necessarily expect we ever will), but what you can do right now is remove yourself from it as much as possible.

[zomgmouse]

Isn't the point that it's designed to be divisive according to your individual political preferences? For instance, if you constantly watch Ben Shapiro talks, you're likely to be presented with more "evidence" that the loony lefties are ruining the world (and vice versa). I don't think it's that the (largely left-leaning) people in charge of these companies are doing it in the service of any specific political agenda, moreso that stoking strong emotions either way encourages more active engagement with their services.

I see what you're saying, but the problem as with most "both sides" arguments is that it's not really a level playing field. If you look at who is doing the actual violence and oppression, it is the right-wing. Even the examples brought up in the documentary were extreme right-wing. I don't think it's fair to then dole out equal blame to the people fighting to stop that happening. To me it's not that "we're being pushed further apart" it's that the oppressive side is growing more extreme and the other side is retaliating harder to stop it. Of course you could argue that the right-wing see it the same way only with "the left" being the ones doing the oppressing, but that is palpably and demonstrably not the case - again, the left are not the ones doing the genocides, they're the ones trying to stop them.

And no obviously the tech companies aren't specifically doing it for the fascists but the fact that they know that this is going on and still don't stop it because it gives them engagement and therefore profit means they are actively allowing it to continue. Which is essentially true centrism. Which lets fascism happen.

At the end of the day, it is going to be our responsibility to say "no" to these systems, as there's not much any government interference could do that wouldn't be seen as an overreach. We're in a very odd gray area where tech companies do, in many ways, have more control and influence now than the traditional masters (government and TV/print media), but the argument still goes "these are private companies and, so long as they don't violate any laws, they should be able to run unimpeded". I actually think that's a fair enough argument in principle, but it becomes complicated when these services have essentially replaced all of our platforms as a society, certainly insofar as "the commons" goes. It's unprecedented, so we haven't figured out the right answer yet (and I don't necessarily expect we ever will), but what you can do right now is remove yourself from it as much as possible.

Look - yes, we might have certain effects on this and obviously stepping away from it ourselves means we're not sucked into it as much, but at the end of the day we're not the ones directly responsible for the situation. "They don't violate any laws" - well, yes, because we've never been in this situation and there aren't any laws to violate. And the fact that we're at a stage where any sort of attempt at legislation is seen as an "overreach" is an issue.

(Personally I think we should just ban advertising entirely but that's obviously quite far-fetched and wouldn't ever happen. But I can dream.)

[Noodle Lizard]

I see what you're saying, but the problem as with most "both sides" arguments is that it's not really a level playing field. If you look at who is doing the actual violence and oppression, it is the right-wing. Even the examples brought up in the documentary were extreme right-wing. I don't think it's fair to then dole out equal blame to the people fighting to stop that happening. To me it's not that "we're being pushed further apart" it's that the oppressive side is growing more extreme and the other side is retaliating harder to stop it. Of course you could argue that the right-wing see it the same way only with "the left" being the ones doing the oppressing, but that is palpably and demonstrably not the case - again, the left are not the ones doing the genocides, they're the ones trying to stop them.

And no obviously the tech companies aren't specifically doing it for the fascists but the fact that they know that this is going on and still don't stop it because it gives them engagement and therefore profit means they are actively allowing it to continue. Which is essentially true centrism. Which lets fascism happen.

By another token, though, a lot of the "mainstream media" on the internet, including virtually all Netflix documentaries, are at least progressive-sympathising. As you said, the examples given in this Netflix documentary were all concerning right-wing extremism. Algorithms themselves aren't political, though - they're designed to show you what will engage (or enrage) you the most, based on your own preferences, which leads to a skewed perspective of reality. The same way Daily Mail readers will have their prejudices confirmed by their output, your "internet" has learned what will satisfy you the most as well.

But yes, I would agree with you that it's this kind of system that enables the kind of political climate we find ourselves in now. I don't think we'll be able to properly, soberly analyse the true whys until later in the game, though.

Look - yes, we might have certain effects on this and obviously stepping away from it ourselves means we're not sucked into it as much, but at the end of the day we're not the ones directly responsible for the situation. "They don't violate any laws" - well, yes, because we've never been in this situation and there aren't any laws to violate. And the fact that we're at a stage where any sort of attempt at legislation is seen as an "overreach" is an issue.

(Personally I think we should just ban advertising entirely but that's obviously quite far-fetched and wouldn't ever happen. But I can dream.)

To be clear, I'm not the one putting forward the "they don't violate any laws" argument, but we have to accept that it's valid in the status quo we've set for ourselves, and acknowledge that we're quite grateful for it when it suits us. Of course in an ideal world we'd have no responsibility as a public and everything would just "work" for us, but it doesn't and it never has. As an individual, you're unlikely to get to a position where you're able to enforce actual change, but the first thing that everyone can do to challenge the systems that work against them is not to take part. Easier in some cases than others, of course, but if we're talking specifically about social media and the like, it's really not a necessity. We did just fine without it until 10-15 years ago, and we need to challenge any attempt to force it into being "essential". In some ways, it's probably too late.

[The Mollusk]

I wonder, if a country's laws suddenly changed to reflect the positive points of action raised in this documentary - i.e. greatly restricting the algorithmic reach of these platforms and reducing them to their basic components where everybody sees the same content feed - would people find those platforms so comparatively difficult or frustrating to use (because they had to think for themselves to find interesting content) that they would go out of their way to "pirate" the software in order to revert it to its previous incantation?

We currently use VPNs to bypass location-based restrictions on the content we're permitted to see, and we commit illegal acts of data piracy on an enormous scale because it's so easy to do that the thought does not even register any more, so hypothetically it wouldn't be at all surprising to see that in opposite effect, if something like a browser extension gave us the flick of a switch to see Facebook how another nation still sees it, because their laws haven't changed yet.

[samadriel]

Haven't seen this, but I'm curious as to whether this article is on the ball: https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/social-dilemma-netflix-technology.html

[Noodle Lizard]

I wonder, if a country's laws suddenly changed to reflect the positive points of action raised in this documentary - i.e. greatly restricting the algorithmic reach of these platforms and reducing them to their basic components where everybody sees the same content feed - would people find those platforms so comparatively difficult or frustrating to use (because they had to think for themselves to find interesting content) that they would go out of their way to "pirate" the software in order to revert it to its previous incantation?

It's an interesting point. California (and some EU countries) have put laws in place which at least force them to be a little more transparent about what they're up to, but even some of the more egregious revelations concerning their violation of public trust/privacy have been met with little more than a shrug. Aside from gestures like that, I doubt there's ever going to be a serious, concerted effort from government or elsewhere to severely impede them.

I think to children born in 2010 or later, this will just be how the world works, and they'll grow up unable to conceive of how we lived without it all. By extension, they may just accept that humans don't have any privacy or dignity, and nor necessarily should they. I'm at a weird generational crossroads myself where I grew up as the consumer internet was first kicking off, and can clearly remember what life (online and otherwise) was like before it became quite so ubiquitous. Even when I was a teenager in the late 2000s, Facebook was something you checked once or twice a day at most from a computer and you were still encouraged to keep everything as private as possible. It really wasn't that long ago.

[zomgmouse]

I've noticed a lot of the "privacy/cookies" popups on websites are now almost deliberately obtrusive, setting data collection as a default and then making you go and turn it off.
And when you go to turn it off they say "you may not see ads which are as personalised" as if that's a bad thing!