zlacker

[return to "Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall"]
1. 4cao+5a[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:12:26
>>aaronb+(OP)
Some of the most interesting excerpts (although it's worth reading in its entirety):

> My path in technology started at Facebook where I was the first Director of Monetization. [...] we sought to mine as much attention as humanly possible and turn into historically unprecedented profits. We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset.

> Tobacco companies [...] added sugar and menthol to cigarettes so you could hold the smoke in your lungs for longer periods. At Facebook, we added status updates, photo tagging, and likes, which made status and reputation primary and laid the groundwork for a teenage mental health crisis.

> Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs.

> Tobacco companies added ammonia to cigarettes to increase the speed with which nicotine traveled to the brain. Extreme, incendiary content—think shocking images, graphic videos, and headlines that incite outrage—sowed tribalism and division. And this result has been unprecedented engagement -- and profits. Facebook’s ability to deliver this incendiary content to the right person, at the right time, in the exact right way... that is their ammonia.

> The algorithm maximizes your attention by hitting you repeatedly with content that triggers your strongest emotions — it aims to provoke, shock, and enrage. All the while, the technology is getting smarter and better at provoking a response from you. [...] This is not by accident. It’s an algorithmically optimized playbook to maximize user attention -- and profits.

> When it comes to misinformation, these companies hide behind the First Amendment and say they stand for free speech. At the same time, their algorithms continually choose whose voice is actually heard. In truth, it is not free speech they revere. Instead, Facebook and their cohorts worship at the altar of engagement and cast all other concerns aside, raising the voices of division, anger, hate and misinformation to drown out the voices of truth, justice, morality, and peace.

◧◩
2. dylan6+ac[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:22:29
>>4cao+5a
This bit of dialog should be the smoking gun in my opinion. Big Tobacco got taken to the woodshed over this very thing: making the product as addictive as possible. This should be the club that is used to beat Social Media platforms over their heads. As with Big Tobacco I'm sure it rings true with Social platforms as well in that not just one of them is doing it they all are.
◧◩◪
3. Andrew+Ho[view] [source] 2020-09-24 17:22:32
>>dylan6+ac
Tobacco use as a percentage of the population has consistently declined by .5% since data started to be gathered the 1960s [0].

The Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 [1] had no statistical impact on the rate reduction of smoking - the rate of decline of smokers is the same now as it was in 1965.

The tobacco industry is more profitable than ever and they are diversifying into nicotine delivery vehicles like vapes, gum [2]. So the underlying goal - increase nicotine dependence across the global population and capture the nicotine consumption market is still going strong.

Much like the desire to be intoxicated, the desire to influence people will never go away. It's baked into our biology. Everyone in this thread interacting with each other is trying to influence everyone else. Facebook etc... is just doing successfully what Bernays dreamed of.

You can beat these platforms all you want - just like the tobacco industry was beat. The problems will just surface elsewhere in a different form.

Attack the root issue - ban advertising. oh and do it in a way that allows for "free speech." The challenge of the century.

[0]https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...

[2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tobacco-industry-rebounds-f...

◧◩◪◨
4. Stupul+Ru[view] [source] 2020-09-24 17:56:01
>>Andrew+Ho
In order for the decline in smoking to remain linear, you must convince people who are increasingly less likely to quit. Consistent .5% decline is (weak) evidence for the effectiveness of efforts to combat smoking, not the opposite.

I don't know if that impacts your larger point with regards to nicotine addiction in general, but I think it's worth noting.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Andrew+681[view] [source] 2020-09-24 21:23:38
>>Stupul+Ru
It's an interesting point. I would tend to agree with that in the sense that it's a log graph of "difficulty" required.

However I'm not sure how that would be supported without assuming there is some base-rate that would smoke no matter what, as though smoking specifically is a natural inclination, with everyone above the base rate on some log distribution of "ability to convince to stop smoking."

[go to top]