5x02 Smithereens

@jordyep a very one sided view.

@hildebread What’s the other side?

@jordyep the right side. the side that shows how social media is destroying the world has we know it . they should be held resposible for it. in fact they should just stop existing .

@pedro Then why are you even on this site mate? Anyway, if that’s your opinion, that’s fine, I don’t entirely disagree with it. But it’s not Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whoever’s problem. It’s the problem of the masses who are demanding more social media. If you don’t like that, go live in a country like China, where social media are banned.

@jordyep That wasn't my take away from the episode at all. Did you miss the conversation between Billy Bauer and Christopher? Christopher reiterated to Billy that it was Christopher's own fault what happened to his fiancee, and that he realizes that. He's the one to blame. He wanted to tell Billy about his experience and the addictive nature of Smithereens. Which is when Billy jumped in to agree, likening Smithereens to a casino with the doors shut off, and how he himself felt that he'd lost control of his own company. That this wasn't how he'd wanted Smithereens to turn out.

So I'm very confused about how you came to feel like the message was that "big tech companies are to blame". Christopher stated that the consequences of his actions were on his shoulders, so I don't understand how you got the opposite of "Addiction is a problem of the individual" from the episode.

@riotaero My interpretation of it is different. First of all, what Billy thinks about what his company has become isn't very relevant to the story. It's not like if his company were run differently it would result in a less addictive platform, and if it did, then the entire point of the episode is lost. Secondly, I actually thought they emphasized Billy's guilt a lot during their phone conversation, and combined with Chris' story and emotional response (which is an attempt to make his cause more sympathetic), I got to the conclusion that the writers are on Chris' side.

@jordyep You don't think that engineering something to be more addictive is an issue (ethical/legal/moral) ? Is that only a tech related opinion or is it the same for let's say tobacco, gambling, pharmaceuticals, etc ?

@fly_ I absolutely think addiction in any sense is a problem, whether that’s technology or cigarettes, gambling etc. But I don’t think it’s the problem of engineers and producers, they’re just responding to supply and demand. Like I said, it’s a problem of the individual, not the company who just supplies. And if a lot of people are addicted, it’s a societal issue, which is when a government (again, that’s us, not the market) taxes or limits the production of addictive stuff in order to discourage you from using it. When it comes to using your phone while driving, I think pretty much every country at this point has a law that says you can’t use your phone while driving. If you still do that, and something goes horribly wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself.

@jordyep this is not a social network, this is a catalog site where we can chat with people. i dont have a feed where i can spread hate, far right propaganda, fake videos, sick babies asking for "amen" has a way to win money with publicity, im not making flat earth pages making the minds of young people into believing that, im not saying it would work on "you" but you know how the world is right now. i mean m shit... you have trump commemorating right now D-Day! how fucked up is that? . but you are right, im not forced. but i dont need to move to china, even though i strongly believes it SHOULD be controlled. i just dont have accounts. ( unless messenger to talk to work mates ) .

@pedro Well, you can comment on stuff here, you can like posts, you can get in touch with people, that kinda makes it a social platform by definition. But you’re right in saying that thankfully it’s far less political here. As for what you said about social media in general, I’m all for real journalists controlling propaganda and fake news. And yeah, I studied Media and Business for a few years, so I can instantly spot the bullshit, which is why I have no problem with being on those platforms myself. But not to give myself too much credit, I think most Europeans, like us, are capable of that. They held a poll once here in the Netherlands, and I think they found that the vast, vast majority of people would never vote for Trump or the republican party. Not to say that we don’t have any Trump supporting politicians (we have 2), but they don’t represent the majority of people.

@jordyep But that's the point, they're not "responding to supply and demand", they're creating it by making it addictive on purpose. Addiction is a physiological response, you can't do anything about it. You can choose not to take the substance, but what if somebody give it to you without you being aware of it ? What if the company put some derivative of heroin in their yoghurt so that people that try them once get addicted to it ? Would it be just normal to you ? Because this is exactly what we're talking about here.

@fly_ Drug addiction and technology addiction are different in that sense. You most often choose to take drugs, and you know a biological result of it can be that you’ll get addicted to it. With technology, you can’t really predict what we’ll get addicted to. Nobody could’ve predicted we’d get addicted to Facebook. Nobody could’ve predicted in 2016 we’d get addicted to Pokemon Go. Businesses aren’t into what will get us addicted, they’re into what makes them money. If we’ll get addicted to it, then that’s good for them because it’ll make them even more money. But they’re not in the business of making us addicted in itself, because, well, they can’t predict what we’ll get addicted to. Unless you can explain to me why social media triggers us so much biologically, of course. In both cases, however, the addiction is your problem, because you decided to use it in the first place. Nobody forced you to do it.

@mokins Very good point. Yes, those companies have a lot of influence, and there’s a problem of power there. But, they’re far from untouchable. Facebook got fined in the States for disrespecting the privacy of its customers. Google got fined in the EU for creating a power vacuum. There’s restrictive legislation for those companies everywhere. Where I live, they’re experimenting with marking fake news on Facebook, for example. In other words, safe and correct use is being stimulated. Does that make it impossible for people to get addicted to it? No, of course not. But still, you yourself chose to be on Facebook in the first place, maybe under societal pressure, but Facebook surely didn’t force you.

@mokins It’s not politically connected. It’s conducted by a large group of scientists and independent journalists. That way only articles with inaccurate facts are being marked. They’re not allowed to mark opinion pieces with no facts in it, for instance. And even if they did, well, people would notice, because they can’t delete articles. The response to it has actually been largely positive thus far.

@jordyep Yes they can predict. Yes they're doing it on purpose. Yes they're in the business of making us addicted. Yes they have a lot of people working on making that worse. It is well known and well sourced.

Social media apps are 'deliberately' addictive to users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44640959

It's no accident Facebook is so addictive https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/06/its-no-accident-that-facebook-is-so-addictive

Sean Parker Says Facebook Was Designed to Be Addictive https://adage.com/article/digital/sean-parker-worries-facebook-rotting-children-s-brains/311238

Your Addiction to Social Media Is No Accident https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vv5jkb/the-secret-ways-social-media-is-built-for-addiction

@fly_ No, they can’t predict that. They know what triggers people mentally, and they can try to build their systems accordingly (e.g. engagement algorithms). But that’s still a long step away from addiction, which is why I find labelling it as such wrong. They’re not ‘Clockwork Oranging’ us, they’re not drugging us. They’re trying to maximize consumption, yes, but they do so in playing by the rules.

Do you like Ben and Jerry’s? I do too. I know people who are addicted to it. So is it Ben and Jerry’s fault for selling as much ice cream as they do? No, they just make addictively good ice cream. And even if you want to blame them, for the sake of the argument, then you still have to admit that you yourself were the one who made the choice to start and continue to eat their ice cream. You were willing to take the risk of addicting yourself by starting to consume it.

@jordyep I agree.. it was the same thing I said while I was watching. He did all that (including taking a innocent to suffer as a hostage), like he was seeking some kind of revenge, but in the end he didn't had anyone to blame, but himself. All this technology, and the millions apps we use every day, this is the world we live in. This is their job. They want us to feel addicted..this is the plan. Hello!!! It was like Christopher was trying to make Billy feel he was guilty of all that, when he was not. Christopher used the social media while he was driving. This is suicidal. I love the fact that Billy, the creator of the biggest social media (kind of like Facebook in this episode), was in a silent retirement in Utah...lol. talk some ironic BM vibe..the acting in this episode was phenomenal btw

@jordyep, for fuck’s sake! I was thinking about my use of Pokémon GO when I read your message. I deleted my social networks one year ago, but it feels like I’m just replacing one digital addiction with others.

The truth is, as someone presumably with ADHD, I’m more susceptible to becoming a vulnerable target. Having a job only allows me a few hours of free time each day, so I should stop my daily gaming tasks routine if I want something else on my weekdays life.