zlacker

It is a tricky and uncomfortable truth that human minds are hackable.

On the flip side, we've had many thousands of years of adversarial training, so it's not as if protections don't exist—at least for a very classical modes of attack.

>>Terr_+(OP)
The reality of "mind control" of those perpetually exposed to media has been a popular topic throughout the last half century at least.

Humans don't have those protections. Although, ego deludes oneself to believe they do. Ask anyone if they are susceptible to advertising. Maybe 1 in 5 have the humility and awareness to state the truth.

>>Terr_+(OP)
It's a pattern recognition machine dominated by reward feedback mechanisms.

It's not hackable so much as it lacks resistance to environmental noise.

>>Terr_+(OP)
Thousands of years of adversarial training is what made us controllable — stick with the group, and we’ll defend ourselves against the enemy.

>>Terr_+(OP)
There are manipulation techniques we really can't protect ourselves against. It's like the optical illusions where even when you're fully aware what the trick is, you know the horizontal lines on the café wall are actually straight, you still see it incorrectly. Awareness of our weaknesses isn't enough to correct them.

Even when we can use that awareness to notice the times that we're being manipulated and try to remind ourselves to reject the idea that was forced into our brain surveillance capitalism means that advertisers can use the data they have to hit us when they know we're most susceptible and our defenses will be less effective. They can engineer our experiences and environments to make us more susceptible and our defenses are less effective. They're spending massive amounts of time and money year after year on refining their techniques to be more and more effective in general, and more effective against you individually. I wouldn't put much faith in our ability to immunize ourselves against advertising.

>>Terr_+(OP)
Read up on psychological warfare techniques. And these have been embraced by adtech companies and are being applied to children ...

>>ZYbCRq+A1
This is precisely why I try to see as close to zero advertising as possible, and also why I will always actively avoid buying something when I do see an ad for it (if I realise this).

I do not trust my in-built protections, so I’d rather not be exposed in the first place.

>>Terr_+(OP)
This his how I look at it. If a lesser computing device's vulnerabilities were exploited to alter its intended behaviour, especially for financial gain, it would be considered hacking and criminal penalties would apply. Why that applies to a mobile phone, and not to a far more critical computing device (the human brain) is the question.