• nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The old thread I posted this in was deleted, but I wrote this:

    Okay so hear me out. I have this pet theory that might explain some of the divide between genders, but also political parties, causing paralysis which ultimately might lead to humanity’s extinction. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.

    I’m going to set up two axioms to arrive at an extrapolated conclusion.

    One: Human psychology tends to ascribe more weight to negative things than positive things in the short term. In the long term this generally balances out, but in the short term it’s more prudent in a biological sense to pay attention to the rustling in the bushes than the berries you might pick from them. This is known as the negativity bias.

    Two: The modern gatekeepers of social interaction, Big Tech, employ blind algorithms that attempt to steer your attention towards spending more time on their platforms. These companies are the arbiters of the content we experience daily and what you do and don’t see is mostly at their discretion. The techniques they employ, in simple terms, are designed to provoke what they call ‘engagement’. They do this because at the end of the day FAANG have not only a financial interest, but a fiduciary duty to sell advertisements at the behest of their shareholders. The more they can engage you, the more ads they can sell. They employ live A-B testing, divide people into cohorts and poke and prod them with psychological techniques to try and glue your eyeballs to their ads.

    Extrapolated conclusion: These companies have a financial and legally binding interest to divide the population against itself, obstructing politics and social interaction to the point where we might not be able to achieve any of the goals that we need to reach to prevent oblivion.

    Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I don’t even think this is controversial in any way, in fact I used to assume this was just common knowledge after Cambridge Analytica…

      I deleted, as in permanently, totally deleted my FB presence when that came out… but everyone else I explained … basically what you’ve just explained … to, thought I was insane or overreacting and paranoid.

      Its simple.

      Engagement, usage, time on platform is being optimized for.

      What drives these things most effectively?

      Hatred, outrage, extremely offensive and divisive things.

      … And they know that they can, through exposing people to such things, make said people more extreme and hateful and anxious and depressed.

      So… from an ‘optimize for platform usage’ standpoint… perfect! It’s a reinforcing loop!

      Zuckerberg stated at one point that his goal with Facebook was to be able to profile (and manipulate, but he didn’t say that part) users so well that he’d be able to predict what they’d post next.

      He really did/does just view all social interaction as a very complex problem that can be ‘solved’, like a physics question can be solved, to make a predictive model.

      They literally know that their business model is to ruin social discourse, ruin peoples mental health and their lives, to polarize society.

      It should not be surprising in any way that, well now society is extremely polarized and mentally ill.