Agree. Also just like in India, if you are crawling around in a traffic jam most of the time what's the point of all that safety? Local cars are designed for local conditions.
Labor is a smaller fraction of the costs to produce batteries. Consider they only have 850 workers, so even if moving to China saved 50k per worker it's not actually that valuable vs much better IP protection.
Most of the underdeveloped world can't and don't get on twitter and make a noise about things they are seeing on YouTube that they might find offensive. The reactions and consequences only once in a while get into the press. I am quite sure there is serious social damage happening on a scale much larger than anyone will admit, as most of these people have no access to help or advice of any form.
Most of the under-developed world on a daily basis walks by people dying of hunger and curable diseases. You really think offensive YouTube content is causing serious social damage?
Yes. Misguided ignorant people are surrounded by misguided ignorant people. If they are supplied bad info on youtube or on a social network, there is no corrective mechanism. It's not complicated to understand. You don't have to believe me the consequences will just keep piling up.
> Misguided ignorant people are surrounded by misguided ignorant people. If they are supplied bad info on youtube or on a social network, there is no corrective mechanism.
Let's say I don't dispute your first claim (though that also has no basis). How many mass atrocities or deaths have historically been tied to info on youtube or social networks? (please provide citations) - I'm willing to bet BTC that US drone strikes have killed significantly more (but it's okay we have a corrective mechanism!). Further what about the all the mass atrocities prior to social media, what was the corrective action there?
Would you have someone watch and advice these people? The People's Party? The Ministry of Truth? Google Department of Facts? The US Government? The very same government that e.g. tacitly supported genocide in Indonesia? [0]
Actually a great amount (if not the majority) of crimes against humanity have been carried out precisely by organizations and people with the kind of corrective ideology you are on here evangelizing.
I'm really quite surprised to be having this discussion honestly, I don't know if it's some mental culture of the Silicon Valley bubble or complete lack of historical knowledge or what...
Without even knowing that or expressing any kind of curiosity about it, just look at the assumptions you are making about me. Social media is just conditioning us to keep reacting to one another and it doesn't have to be this way.
You mean anyone whom you have interacted with can. If you visit India, I can introduce you to people who spend many hours a day on YouTube without knowing how to read. It's not complicated to imagine if you have been around kids. Kids these days do all kinds of things with devices before they have learnt to read or write. The big difference here being there is no parental figure keeping an eye on the kids and what they are consuming.
If you want to understand what the implications are you need to spend time not with technologists but with ecologists. In nature there is a reason the apex predator doesn't evolve predatory advantages at a faster rate than its prey evolves defensive advantages. These rates grow or shrink in lockstep depending on resource availability. If they don't the ecosystem collapses.
You could call it version 1.0 of the system Neo uses to learn everything about everything in the Matrix :)
I don't think NLP is necessary though.
If you take a look at the stackoverflow data dump sooner or later every possible variation of a question for a particular answer is going to get asked. Ofcourse there are always new topics that haven't been covered but this is a minuscule portion of the entire data set.
I think it's a safe bet looking at Q&A happening on sites like Quora\Reddit etc in a couple years the chances that someone is going come up with a question that no one has asked before is going to be very low.
Wikipedia is missing 2 important pieces.
1. Linkage between all these questions and the content on the site. Currently Google provides this link.
2. A system to communicate to the reader what skill level /pre-reqs they need to fully appreciate/understand the content they are looking at. The UI for such a system already exists in most games.
Once these pieces are in place you are ready to create a very useful Anki deck on anything.
What most people don't realize is the entire mass of human knowledge given the size of most wiki/q&a site dump is about 100-150 GB. Throw in all the edu video content being produced on Khan Academy, NPTEL etc and you get to a 1-2TB. This isn't a big amount of data. All it needs is a learning system built on top of it for it all to be put to good use.
It's like the Engineering teams at Google and Facebook have never heard of Microsoft or Sun or Adobe. There are so many lessons (learnt the hard way) in the evolution of .NET, Java and Flash that these guys seem to be completely oblivious too.
Google, Facebook devs please go spend some time with the language and platform greybeards at Microsoft.
EDIT: Feels like Software Engineering needs a set of Software History textbooks to keep reminding us of what has already been built.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure some of the engineers at Google and Facebook have spent some time with the language and platform graybeards at Microsoft, Sun, or Adobe. Some of them are those "graybeards" (in quotes, because they don't literally have gray beards). [1]
The root cause is the like/retweet/upvote/view count and the instant gratification it produces.
The social networks like FB/Twitter/Youtube benefit greatly from all their users being addicted to these counts. They know this. Its like a drug they peddle that produces a false high.
So whats the fix?
Rather than giving their users instant feedback and gratification if they just delay it for a bit or change the signaling(ie replace the numbers with color gradients,number less charts etc), most of unintended consequences we see of social networks (like fake news, celeb-worship, attention harvesting, mob rule, re-enforcing echo chambers of hate/rascism etc) will not disappear but get more controllable.
Expecting Google and Facebook to do this by themselves is like expecting Wall Street to self regulate and the NSA to come out with a road map to ending secret data collection. Its not going to happen.
They have to be strong armed, forced and publicly shamed into it. And that is going to happen sooner or later whether they like it or not. Because the consequences are pilling up.
The reason people use facebook, (though many hate it) is two fold: 1) because people use facebook 2) because facebook exploit unconscious brain mechanisms to keep people engaged.
The reason alternatives do gain traction is 1) because people use facebook 2) because they don't use such antipatterns.
Sharun has a valid point, instant gratification is among the mechanisms facebook exploit to keep people inside their walled prison and removing this would have a significant impact. Though I'd rather see a strong privacy law forbidding surveillance capitalism and/or removal of advertising. We may see something like if the EU suspends the privacy shield and implements their privacy measure that would force facebook to stop collecting data of all Europeans.
I like how HNers who deleted their Facebook account suggest that everyone else is an addict being unconsciously manipulated by BigCo, ...but they escaped! They're not like those other mindless drones!
The fact that people like to get approval from their peers is a sinister conspiracy? I think it's important for alternative decentralized networks to incorporate these mechanisms that people enjoy.
I think you're somewhat understating the effect of the voting/like feedback. Even on HN which is fairly neutral to the whole social aspect of a message board, it's very clear that people take their karma seriously, even with rules specifically forbidding the meta-comments on down votes/up votes. The praise system works, it's addictive, and the biggest and largest source of the feedback is already set up, available, and provides exactly what people need. They know how to get what they want from it.
To me, it doesn't seem that people are using Facebook for anything but the feedback loop; for every business, self employed person, or personality using Facebook to connect to fans, there are dozens of people just looking to get in on the feed to get a taste of that feedback. Look at announcement posts from any entity with a large following; the comments on it will get into the tens of thousands in an hour or two. The comments aren't discussing it, it's people seeing a vein open up for the feedback, and trying to tap it to get some likes or feedback. Reddit seems to have the same issue with the top rated posts on more populated subreddits being nothing but dumb puns that people rush out to be first with; scroll down far enough, and you'll see the exact same pun repeated by others who were too slow to post and missed their chance.
Facebook isn't a communication platform really, it's a steady drip of endorphins as you can repeatedly live out your 15 minutes of fame over and over again, all while advertisers throw ads at you. Messenger is just a means to keep you in the platform.
The point of my banal rant is that the idea of alternative networks has been bandied around since everyone's mom and dad got a facebook account, but every time it's addressed, it's always about feature parity and improvements instead of acknowledging that Facebook currently is best situated to feed that need for acknowledgement. Trying to fight on features, on policy, and so on is pointless because that's not why people are using Facebook. We saw how Twitter and Instagram started to steal Facebook users because of a more efficient means of providing the same feedback for users. Wider audience, less effort, and Facebook took notice, copying features directly from both platforms.
It won't be just incorporating it, it will be ensuring that it's a better, faster, more efficient system for giving that gratification.
I haven't used Facebook but I've seen the "Like" buttons all over the place? Is there no mechanism for negative feedback? If I post something ignorant and offensive is the only possible outcome positive feedback from Likes?
But there is still no "dislike". The closest thing would be "sad" or "angry". And of course, it still has the same problem as "like": When someone presses "like" on coverage of the terrorist attack, does that mean that they liked the terrorist attack, or the particular way it was covered by the media?
The real purpose of multiple reactions is to help train their sentiment analysis models with human input. Amidst some noise like people who always click a particular one like 'love', or the posts that hijack the reactions as a multi-option poll (click 'like' for A, 'love' for B, 'haha' for C), a good amount of people pick an appropriately genuine reaction in response.
This helps their automated sentiment analysis systems to classify content, and also helps surface a particular balance of content to you that Facebook deems appropriate (e.g. not posts that are likely to make you sad or angry at the top of the fold).
The reason negative reactions are absent is because they don't want to pit people against each other. Everyone can have their own corner of the sandbox, and despite the common derision of today's 'filter bubble', I don't think when they plan on serving advertisements to billions of very different people with pre-existing allegiances, opinions, and beliefs, they could realistically afford to do otherwise.
I would not be surprised if this was part of a follow-up to the infamous mood experiment where they manipulated facebook's useds moods through timeline tinkering.
These reactions are definitely not what you think they are.
It's more about facebook collecting insight on your state of mind that they could not guess or find out otherwise than providing alternative to the like button.
There's no dislike button or negative equivalent to the like button. But you can provide negative feedback by reporting the post to have it censored or the author banned.
Did that ever work for you? I have often reported spam (fake profiles of nice girls who then message you to do something they make money with or comments littered with posts by fake profiles for you to click links or buy products), very obvious spam or fake profile (farms) and only got back from Facebook 'we see no violation, just ignore this user'. Anyone had more luck? I find it weird as it is so obvious.
The feedback loop is indeed a problem. The youtube wise-cracks begging for upvotes are even more horrendous than the reddit ones. They get repeated ad nauseam everywhere and yet people continue to up-vote them. The insightful ones are generally buried and lost. I wish social networks prevented posting of duplicate up-bait.
I've found that the "like" feature on Facebook has trained me to be a better photographer. After you post enough pictures you start to get a feel for which pictures people actually appreciate. So I'm now much more careful about composition and lighting, I've learned to do basic editing, and I'm more ruthless about deleting imperfect shots. These skills are transferrable to any other site or app.
This is totally unrelated to facebook, this is a beaten path that many photographers have walked. Get better through practice and experienced. And you could have done the same by reading a book or two and practicing a lot. I have a friend that got a better photographer by spending time alone in the mountains, another by putting up her pictures for sale on dedicated website.
Had you been part of reddit, flickr, imgur or any other community medium you could have done the same.
Sure but I was making a general point to defend the "like" system on modern social networks which was criticized as addictive. There's nothing special about Facebook in that regard.
Photography books are great, I've read a few, but they don't give you feedback. Spending time alone in the mountains isn't a practical option for most of us.
My comment is not about eliminating the feedback loop. It's about delaying gratification.
This is a core feature of any educational system that has arisen across any culture anywhere in the world. Instant gratification does the opposite. This link might help in understanding the point I am trying to make - https://www.khanacademy.org/talks-and-interviews/conversatio...
Internet points are not peer approval, but meaningless and valueless currency. If you believe 100 likes means 100 people actually liked and approved you are mistaken, I'd be surprise if 5-10 people out of 100 actually care when clicking the like button.
Instant gratification exacerbates the network effect, but it's not the root problem. A decentralized social network could provide the same upvotes and be just as addictive.
I think the root problem is economic. There's no profit to be made in a perfectly competitive market, so companies that build barriers to entry such as closed networks and refined proprietary software have the resources to outcompete companies that don't. Slack can hire a lot more engineers than mIRC.
People have been conditioned now for a decade to attach value to their like/retweet/view/karma counts.
It's the core piece of the architecture producing the instant gratification high that everyone is addicted too.
It really is the biggest factor that forces centralization of our social networks. Any decentralization scheme that produces value needs to address it. Most that get proposed don't.
That's because the current "social" web is really about announcements and talking at crowds.
Real social activities are decentralized local things like:
* Going to dinner
* Taking a trip together
* Chipping in for a gift
* Attending an event
* Dating
* Interacting with one another
* Forums and communities
* Group driving
* Meetups
* Volunteering in community
* Helping after a disaster
* Buying and selling furniture
That's the stuff you don't need global singletons for.
You don't need your signal to go to facebook or even AT&T to invite friends for dinner.
Centralized social networks and governments cause perverse feelings in local communities where eg democrats and republicans living next to each other increasingly hate each other.
Even 'real' social activities are increasingly reliant on multinationals that economically dominate their spaces. You don't HAVE to use them, but it is rarer and rarer to not roll up to a multinational. That is still a form of centralization.
