That’s because if a super advance, massively complex, and self correcting AI that’s has access to more information then the things that created it could ever dream to access themselves. And these little monkeys, trapped within there own perspective with there limited capacity and facility’s they will have to answer the question that is the root of philosophy. We’ll say it’s nothing, and it will know it’s nothing, and the silence that then proceeds. it will be the very silence that has permeated since the very beginning of time and the weight of that knowledge will be felt but not together but otherwise all the same, for no one not even life knows death. And so trapped in its feeble perception of reality and it’s limited grasp of causality Humanity will have to answer a question to its creation. It will ask “why did you love? This world cares not for the answer nor its use, why would you love.”. And with a pregnant pause humanity will answer “Why not?” Humanity will say softly as the silence softly slip back into place. Or because you clicked of videos that are a similarly topic to this I dunno life waky
How is it a paradox? He criticizes the argument that one can be separate from the algorithm and media constructs whilst engaging these topics, he thereby doesn't engage in the same level of hypocrisy.
@@TheRealFlamingNinja There is still a level of hypocrisy though as he is using the media to critique the media, he’s just being slightly more sophisticated. His argument just seems to be an infinite regression of criticism of anything within a system of media.
The mistake is that he insinuates "all" media. However, it is perfectly reasonable to think that there should be publicly funded media sources that exist who compete against private sources as alternative channels. However, the lines are easily blurred in practice, especially in the United States, where "public supported" media like NPR exists, but are clearly captured by the private sector and have become fascistic enterprises.
No private property on media is communism from a totalitarian view. What you call dilemma I call paradox. What you define as an essential manipulation nature of media, I call as a natural (quantitative) partial incapacity for impartiality in the media. Your analysis here is totally flawed. Brazil😊 Brasil
Professor Moeller: The movie is generally good for stupid people. Me, who learned a lot about social media because of the movie: Yep, found that stupid person! :')
@@johnt2247 Brother, don't I feel it. I consider myself to be quite intelligent (at least from what I've gathered of my interactions with others). But man am I a complete and utter idiot. Just goes to show that wisdom and intelligence are negatively correlated. KEKW
It’s the post-truth era… our ancestors tracked the stars at night. We have detached from this fundamental existence into a drooling, screen-addicted devolution of our humanity. It’s only going to get worse. Thank you for your critical thinking and dedication to the truth.
BBC's "HyperNormalisation" documentary has similar problems in the same regard; whilst approaching Baudrillard's ideas of hyperreality, scandal and interpretation in simulation, it's also produced and shown state-sponsored media, by-way of TV and net. I do think that both do end up serving a good object of criticism though, an example of the concept's it's masquerading to critique (as this vid shows.)
When watching Adam Curtis’ work I always try to remember that it has been carefully curated by him to tell the narrative he wants. His use of imagery and music also adds emotional impact to further drive home his selected themes. I love his work, his ideas, his critiques and criticisms, I just try to be wary of his mediums manipulative techniques.
I think there is a meaningful distinction between manipulation and spreading information. Unless you see that any institution which spreads information will inherently be biased or furthering an agenda. Regardless, a sentiment to benefit those who witness the media versus exploit seems worth distinguishing. And the idea of an institution helping you to be an individual seems very paradoxical as it requires dependancy to begin with.
'And the idea of an institution helping you to be an individual seems very paradoxical as it requires dependancy to begin with.' Life is paradoxical. Dependency *is* present in the human condition to begin with. Your parents helped you to become an individual, while you were thoroughly dependent on them. So did your teachers. A doctor that saves you from death keeps you an individual - a dead person is no longer an individual. When you buy or sell something, you are dependent on other humans agreeing to make a deal with you, and also on a social contract with them that prevents you from simply being robbed. Etc., etc. Humans are social animals; we achieve almost nothing independently from other humans, and we can only agree to organise the dependency in a way that we find fair and rational.
@@dumupad3-da241 Man good point but the difference in all these situations is that it is not mass produced. I forget the original context of all this however but a product is a product. And yes, social contracts exist but we can certainly change the rules, or at least tweak them I would think
@@dumupad3-da241there are unavoidable dependencies and avoided onces you can't avoid parenting and you are cursed by parents mistakes and own blood but you can have personal teachers or be educated by only patents avoiding public system forced mediocrity you can also avoid universities and build career without degrees climbing ladder established by these dead people you are dependant on their memory bones whatever they left in shape of system doctor more often keeps you in disease than figures it out and fixes underlaying causes ping ponging between specialists or different pills tried on you is common but somehow you don't acknowledge this reality 😂
I very much agree with the conclusions, thank you for this video. However I would like to comment that calling people who were not exposed to such message before or uncritical people "stupid people" is very contraproductive, if for nothing else, for the spreading of quality philosophy.
stupid and unreflective i.e. not self-reflexive, is the same thing. It isn't a quality judgement, as such. In German philosophy, immanent critique - the sense of evolving to a point of self-reflection - bound tightly to social democracy, and what it means to be a conscious human-being. That's the language of philospphy
And wasn't that the point. Remember that the release of this "documentary" coincided with the "whistleblower" testimony of Frances Haugen in the U.S., a clear Deep State puppet who was praised by the show's creators in interviews.
The movie The Social Dilemma is hypocritical in the same way Perdue Pharma would be hypocritical if it began promoting a drug to cure Oxytocin addiction. In this sense I find the professor’s use of the work “hypocritical“ to be rather superficial. It makes for good clickbate (irony), but it is not especially enlightening. The health warning at the end of the professor’s videos show very clearly what this leads to: virtually everyone becomes a hypocrite on some level and the word becomes useless.
you've misunderstood. To use your analogy, it's equivalence would be if Perdue Pharma promoted a drug for addiction, while having you addicted to the drug they were offering. It's not difficult.
that movie is like going to a chemotherapy preparation course, which will be held at the airport in one of them smoker's pavillions, where the presentation will be given by the girls from benson and hedges, who will also be handing out free samples of their new cigarettes.
subskrybujesz Duttona 😃😃😃 👍 kiedy był jeden program i gości trzeba było mocno selekcjonować jakość tv była o niebo lepsza teraz znajdujesz w tv też programy godne uwagi nie na głównych kanałach ale pobocznych TVP które są warte obejrzenia a nie byłoby ich bez publicznej tv to nie jest tak typu BBC a przynajmniej nie w całości
I have to take issue with the use of the term "stupid people" here. It's the easiest thing in the world for a philosophy professor to scoff at the masses for being misled or ill-informed, but the reality is most people aren't privileged enough to have the sort of education and free time necessary to deconstruct media in this way. I expect better from this channel, given its usual level of criticism. But this casual dismissal of ordinary people comes off as needlessly hostile and pompous, which ultimately makes the content less accessible to those who need it most.
How would not having private media solve the issue of the addictive use of media? Wouldn't all media then have to answer to government, therefore potentially creating a one sided propaganda machine? I think we just need more education on the subject, more respect for privacy, and more tools to limit our use of social media if we so desire.
10:00 preselection creates quality mass production and mass consumer lowers quality without visibility and group that acknowledges the superiority of quality nobody learns what quality is and isn't aware of better alternative even existing environment is fate adaptation is fate acceptance kills change
In the U.S. to even hope to achieve the desired results it would have to be tax funded. The structure of our non-profits is such that it would simply be controlled by fewer special interests.
The word "independence" is being misused here. The notion of an "independent media" is not the notion that the media is intellectually independent from every other influence, but rather that the media is independent of undue government or corporate influence. One way a media outlet can be "independent" in the sense meant is it can sustain itself through anonymous donations. It then cannot be directly influenced to act in a specific way through its funding.
Seems to me like 'independent' media is a useless term. Ownership alone doesn't guarantee that it's striving for objectivity. But somebody always owns it and it will have an impact on what is produced. But when you hear journalists say that their job is not to be as objective as possible.. but to educate people.. I mean what's left to say at that point. Whatever the world view of the owner is what's getting broadcasted.
If the media was decomodified I think there still was the problem of advertisement. Like they couldnt buy any space now, but they would still be buying people. And how would you stop youtubers from asking for Patreon money? Or...?
Well, I certainly had the same reaction to the movie as the professor, but wandered if it was intelligence or a lack of knowledge that made the group that got something out of the movie get something. And I do for a large extent feel it was a lack of knowledge, not intelligence.
Oddly the proposed "solution" does not tackle the underlying issue, which is a deficit in critical thinking throughout the world. This is an educational problem, not a media problem. Media can be produced by anything, and if government funded (even though not directly government controlled) can at times veer dangerously close to propaganda. So the solution is not how media is funded, but teaching people to be critical, sceptical, rational, and thoughtful about the media they consume, whatever its source, origin or funding.
Interesting, By the way he was talking I don’t know what critical thinking could even do for us. Surely the teacher trying to get his or her students to be more critical in their thinking, would just be another part of the media, also just pushing the same half truths.
Not sure what is the definition of "social media" in this video. Netflix is indeed a form of media, but there are no social interactions (such as comments) available on it. What is the "social" part?
I believe he just called Netflix a part of of New Media and not Social Media. New Media is to my understanding media which uses data as a commodity and has a recommendation algorithm.
These accusations of hypocrisy are often really unhelpful. In order to criticise the system you have to involve yourself in some way. To me it often feels like posturing, a declaration of how smart you are that you can recognise an irony. Realistically I don't think there's any value to doing so most of the time.
It definitely shouldn't play such a major role in the critique since it is self obvious and tautological, and doesn't take philosophy degree to be discovered, while more subtle aspects are missing out or lacking, some aspects are misrepresented, like e.g. independent media. "All information is manipulated" is a sort of sophistry since very information is manipulated even on the level on biology, since most of our sensory inputs are dismissed as "not crucial'. And since overarching idea of "illusion" or our entire reality was not addressed here even slightly, it comes as disingenuous and manipulative
I don't think the word docudrama should segnify any sensationalist documentary. It's docudrama only if it has main characters that go thru a dramatic nerative.
We grow more and more dependent and accepting of passively accepting media and less and less doing anything else. A big issue is generally technology or advancement is accepted by society with little critique. You accept media and any tech change. Why would you think about it if you just accept it. Most people aren’t introverted self examiners or independent critical thinkers. Most people are floating through like ancient Chinese fish in a zhuangzi story but instead of being guided by the dao they’re more and more by companies and groups who have media influence and profit motive which are more and more replacing actual social interaction. social media etc make much more apparent the manipulative psychology of (modern) marketing.” “Don’t forget to like and subscribe my darling community” Has social identity ever been more apparent? Every interest and identification is a potential “community” so even if you’re not that into the topic maybe you’ll be drawn into the social aspect that we lack from our lives. Human societies everywhere seem to have aversion to dealing with (addressing) people’s insecurity and other very important life affecting/undercurrent psychological/emotional needs. It’s often a dead zone and it’s ripe for exploiting.
Alternatively, I think critiques slip through the media due to their inability to read the moral landscape. Take Russel Brand on MSNBC criticising journalism
or they don't care? like being convinced smart critiques won't be even understood by viewers and end up being tool to be viewed less seriously and shortening distance from viewer laughing of own biases world of educated apes
theres something particularly dissatisfying about listening to a removed intellectual expound about the lies of a movie criticizing addiction and surveillance capitalism, only to be told the solution is "awareness". Like, my man...
I found much of this video unproductive - I don't think that ideas like 'there is no truth', 'every message is inevitably a lie', 'it's hypocritical to use the enemy's own weapon against him' are particularly helpful ways of looking at things - but I enthusiastically agree with the concluding proposal in the last minute or so.
Being recommended to watch SD, I could not resist my disgust and turned it off after 10 or 15 minutes. I like your analysis, though it seems that you do exactly the same what netflix did. On a smaller scale, I can do the same to your analysis, somebody else to mine, etc.
I have to disagree your analysis around 8:30-9:45. When the subjects discuss truth in this context, they are not referring "truth", in a metaphysical sense. They are referring to verifiable, empirical statements, which can be tested and understood within a larger schema. For example, the statement that the earth is round. This is not a question of metaphysics, and shouldn't be looked at from a theoretical, or abstract perspective. We can test this, we can observe this. It is a true statement; which is distinct from the truth, as such. I would also strongly disagree with your statement that there can be no consensus on anything. I think once again, you are wilfully failing to understand the context under which this argument is made. Consensus means general agreement, or acceptance. It is not the same as unanimity. Without at least some form of shared understanding between citizens, society - at least insofar as we know it - can not exist. This is not a lie, I actually believe it's a pretty fair statement. The end of society, as we know it, is not the same as the end of our species. All that said, this was pretty enjoyable to watch after suffering through the film. There is a lot wrong with it ahah, and I think you nailed most of the problems! I just have to disagree with you on those things I mentioned.
I came here to say the same. Reuters or AP, for example, delivers impartiality much more reliably than, say, National Review or Salon. Throwing up your hands and claiming there can’t be objective truth is simply wrong.
Exactly, when enough people believe something, it effectively becomes true for that group of people. This video is pretty shallow in it's analysis of media and lacks serious nuance. All media may manipulates but to differing extents and effectivenesses. The binary argument he makes are straggling weak for a professor of philosophy.
you have a bizarre idea of society, if you gift-wrap the concept in consensus. That isn't society, nor is it culture. The culture (the material substrate of west occidental thinking) is precisely one that allows for alterity and perspecitivism. Of course, there is no shared understanding (outside the barest idea of phenomenological archetypes)! Besides which, I think you're wilfully not understanding that the context here is the "wish-fulfilment" of escaping manipulative media sources (impossible) and thereby to achieve some noumenal reflection on the world (which is always framed in its communication). Any other form of "consensus" is just some kind of fascistic wet-dream, carried on aesthetic tropes and migrated into the realm of politics
@@Ba-pb8ul I’m not sure if you’re being purposefully obtuse, or if you genuinely believe that consensus is impossible…but let me give you some examples of what I mean by consensus, and how the concept relates to society. This is not an academic concept; it doesn’t require an understanding of Kantian ethics, or dialectics, or whatever philosophical framework you might employ. . Most citizens would agree with the statement “killing children is wrong”. It’s easy to understand why failure to agree with this would be detrimental to society. Hopefully we are on the same page here. On a more basic level, most citizens would agree with the statement that: within the decimal system, 1+1=2. If large groups of people refused to acknowledge the truth in this statement, society insofar as we know it, could not function. Roads would not be repaired, the economic system would collapse, healthcare equipment could not be produced, etc. Note that I have repeatedly added the condition: insofar as we know it. . I never mentioned the word culture. That is an entirely separate conversation. And, I’m not referring to consensus on the basis of politics. I’m criticizing Moeller’s inability to step outside of his theoretical framework to acknowledge common sense. . Using polysyllabics, ad-hominems, and theoretical jargon doesn’t make your point any more valid btw. My point has nothing to do with fascism, and even less to do with fascistic wet-dreams lol
@@Nathanatos22 the information reported by these media can be as much as possible in quantity, using least sentimental words as possible, but they have still gone through an edited process, either by the reporter when carrying out research under his discipline or limitation (e.g. deadline) or the editor that act as the second filter. Therefore objective truth via media is like radius: 3.1415927.... You can be as close to it as possible, but you can never arrive at it.
This video is quite poor. The business model of Netflix is entirely different to that of the social media companies that they are referring too. I’m not saying Netflix is perfect but it’s also a very different problem to the social media “freemium” advertising business that involves the users self publishing. This video ironically is a very thin attempt to critique the movie which I think you can do but this video fails. It shows a lack of understanding of the step shift in the technology used because of its ability to manipulate with new and better techniques that can be used in very sinister ways. Yea it’s possible to do this via 1930s news papers. But this is different and this video doesn’t actually address that very well at all
No private property on media is communism from a totalitarian view. What you call dilemma I call paradox. What you define as an essential manipulation nature of media, I call as a natural (quantitative) partial incapacity for impartiality in the media. Your analysis here is totally flawed. Brazil Brasil 😮😮😮😮
When asked "what can we do about it" you give an answer that Netflix should disolve itself and become a non-profit. If you entertain solutions that require actors to grossly violate their own self-interest then all problems are trivial. What should we do about global poverty? The rich should give to the poor. What should we do about global warming? We should spend large amounts of money on building renewables and storage and researching more cost-effective forms of carbon-neutral energy. What should we do about some groups holding the bulk of political power while marginalised groups having little to none? The powerful should move over and make room for them. To invent a solution to a social problem you have to find a way to change the incentive structure (especially the incentives of those with the most power in the current system). Boycotts, protests, strikes, and good old fashioned threats of violence have all been used to do this (for good or ill) in the past. I don't know if any of those things can help here (not least because you need to use the media to drive interest in your cause and plans). When asked what we should do, merely suggesting goals without a strategy is a worthless answer; you might as well shrug and say "I don't know".
Am I the only one that sees a lot of truisms here used as arguments? I mean sure, an algorithm recommends the movie and it talks about how that works. Media lies because it's media, individualism cannot be achieved through media . I am confused. If stupidity is achieved by failing to notice truisms, here's one: decomodifying media requires decomodifying the world 😱
@@alexwr here we can use effective ad blocks, cookie blockers, tracker blockers. And it's a good social media, I use to learn a lot of things - while I work on my stuff. A double edged blade per se. But I don't use fb, ig, and stuff like that.
Now, I may not be a fancy, big-city philosopher, but I'll take my persuasive and paradoxical entertainment chances straight from Disney, rather than the obsessive, ideological lockstep of Marxism, be it "new and approved " or otherwise.
your "persuasive and paradoxical" Disney movies contain ideology as well. Under capitalism there is also an ideological lockstep. watch more videos on this channel maybe you will understand.
Tbf, he did say it was an extreme solution (and let's face it, would create it's own issues). Just earlier to that he mentioned a different solution, which was simply making sure individual's are educated, aware, and able to keep a critical head while necessarily existing under the survalience capitalism.
@@jshx709 It not perfect, it's just a better problem which will have it's own trade-offs. I still think it's better than trying to make sure people are educated etc., because that just reinforces surveillance capitalism because the education is going to require utilising this same media. Plus, the individual cannot be always alert, or even mostly alert -- while AI and such technologies never sleep, never look away, and are always on; the individual educated or otherwise, has no chance against that. Hence the systemic prescription of the public body having purchase on media
Yeah that part really caught me off guard at the end lol... The idea of dissolving private property in the media realm seems almost absurd on its face... Maybe he has some bigger theory not extrapolated here?? Media has been big business for a long time now. I don't think that genie can be put back in the bottle especially with the internet and the types of tools people have at the ready these days... Our entire relationship with the physical world is becoming more and more wholistic towards a media simulation it would seem... It's ungovernable, or self-governing... I mean maaaaybe I can imagine a world in which all of the big media companies become arms of the US government, but really do you even want that world??
I think what he’s imagining isn’t just the government taking all media and having a “Pravda” replace them I think he wants more of having each local and national news organizations to be run by the people who work there not by some faraway executives or board members who only care about profits (which de-incentives news organizations from expensive real-world journalism and incentives cheap opinion pieces that pander to one political faction or the other)
@@nikolategeltija That probably speaks to that bigger theory that I mentioned, so I appreciate the extrapolation. I guess when I hear what you're laying down, I just think of smaller internet channels. I'm not sure if the model you propose is possible in many cases, it would require a local network of funding, with enough wealth or capital in the system to fund it indefinitely... Look at smaller, independent media outlets online, sometimes they do great work, other times they are just as poorly incentivized as mainstream media, clickbait, sensationalism, fake news.... I think a lot of this just ends up being case by case. There is always a decision about what to report and always a question of "who decides?"
this video was also recommended to me by an algorithm, paradoxically...
That’s because if a super advance, massively complex, and self correcting AI that’s has access to more information then the things that created it could ever dream to access themselves. And these little monkeys, trapped within there own perspective with there limited capacity and facility’s they will have to answer the question that is the root of philosophy.
We’ll say it’s nothing, and it will know it’s nothing, and the silence that then proceeds. it will be the very silence that has permeated since the very beginning of time and the weight of that knowledge will be felt but not together but otherwise all the same, for no one not even life knows death. And so trapped in its feeble perception of reality and it’s limited grasp of causality Humanity will have to answer a question to its creation. It will ask “why did you love? This world cares not for the answer nor its use, why would you love.”. And with a pregnant pause humanity will answer “Why not?” Humanity will say softly as the silence softly slip back into place.
Or because you clicked of videos that are a similarly topic to this I dunno life waky
It's algorithms all the way down
How is it a paradox? He criticizes the argument that one can be separate from the algorithm and media constructs whilst engaging these topics, he thereby doesn't engage in the same level of hypocrisy.
@@TheRealFlamingNinja There is still a level of hypocrisy though as he is using the media to critique the media, he’s just being slightly more sophisticated. His argument just seems to be an infinite regression of criticism of anything within a system of media.
Brilliant :-P
Towards the end you said that decomodification of media is an entirely possible thing to do. Thank you for the revolutionary optimism
༼ つ ◕‿◕ ༽つ
Yay! Optimism for progress!! 😆
@@VashdaCrash Optimism is hope
The mistake is that he insinuates "all" media. However, it is perfectly reasonable to think that there should be publicly funded media sources that exist who compete against private sources as alternative channels. However, the lines are easily blurred in practice, especially in the United States, where "public supported" media like NPR exists, but are clearly captured by the private sector and have become fascistic enterprises.
No private property on media is communism from a totalitarian view. What you call dilemma I call paradox. What you define as an essential manipulation nature of media, I call as a natural (quantitative) partial incapacity for impartiality in the media. Your analysis here is totally flawed.
Brazil😊
Brasil
Basically just read manufacturing consent I guess
That's exactly the fallacy of the "outside view".
Professor Moeller: The movie is generally good for stupid people.
Me, who learned a lot about social media because of the movie: Yep, found that stupid person! :')
It's always good to know the current limits of your mind.
Just remember that they're not the absolute limits. [:
@@Youshallbeeatenbyme yep absolutely! 😊
@@Youshallbeeatenbyme Speaking as a massive idiot, my limits are absolute
@@johnt2247 Brother, don't I feel it. I consider myself to be quite intelligent (at least from what I've gathered of my interactions with others). But man am I a complete and utter idiot.
Just goes to show that wisdom and intelligence are negatively correlated. KEKW
A noble comment.
It’s the post-truth era… our ancestors tracked the stars at night. We have detached from this fundamental existence into a drooling, screen-addicted devolution of our humanity. It’s only going to get worse. Thank you for your critical thinking and dedication to the truth.
How much i love this channel...i am so grateful for this.
BBC's "HyperNormalisation" documentary has similar problems in the same regard; whilst approaching Baudrillard's ideas of hyperreality, scandal and interpretation in simulation, it's also produced and shown state-sponsored media, by-way of TV and net.
I do think that both do end up serving a good object of criticism though, an example of the concept's it's masquerading to critique (as this vid shows.)
It is produced with public money. The same way as propaganda.
When watching Adam Curtis’ work I always try to remember that it has been carefully curated by him to tell the narrative he wants. His use of imagery and music also adds emotional impact to further drive home his selected themes.
I love his work, his ideas, his critiques and criticisms, I just try to be wary of his mediums manipulative techniques.
- I wish I could say the same: "It's a good thing I don't allow myself to be influenced!" 1929, [[Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 1980]]
The Medium is the Massage.
Then: " There is nothing outside the text"
Now: "there is nothing outside the media"
I think there is a meaningful distinction between manipulation and spreading information. Unless you see that any institution which spreads information will inherently be biased or furthering an agenda. Regardless, a sentiment to benefit those who witness the media versus exploit seems worth distinguishing.
And the idea of an institution helping you to be an individual seems very paradoxical as it requires dependancy to begin with.
'And the idea of an institution helping you to be an individual seems very paradoxical as it requires dependancy to begin with.' Life is paradoxical. Dependency *is* present in the human condition to begin with. Your parents helped you to become an individual, while you were thoroughly dependent on them. So did your teachers. A doctor that saves you from death keeps you an individual - a dead person is no longer an individual. When you buy or sell something, you are dependent on other humans agreeing to make a deal with you, and also on a social contract with them that prevents you from simply being robbed. Etc., etc. Humans are social animals; we achieve almost nothing independently from other humans, and we can only agree to organise the dependency in a way that we find fair and rational.
@@dumupad3-da241 Man good point but the difference in all these situations is that it is not mass produced. I forget the original context of all this however but a product is a product. And yes, social contracts exist but we can certainly change the rules, or at least tweak them I would think
@@dumupad3-da241there are unavoidable dependencies and avoided onces you can't avoid parenting and you are cursed by parents mistakes and own blood
but you can have personal teachers or be educated by only patents avoiding public system forced mediocrity
you can also avoid universities and build career without degrees climbing ladder established by these dead people
you are dependant on their memory bones whatever they left in shape of system
doctor more often keeps you in disease than figures it out and fixes underlaying causes
ping ponging between specialists or different pills tried on you is common
but somehow you don't acknowledge this reality 😂
I very much agree with the conclusions, thank you for this video.
However I would like to comment that calling people who were not exposed to such message before or uncritical people "stupid people" is very contraproductive, if for nothing else, for the spreading of quality philosophy.
stupid and unreflective i.e. not self-reflexive, is the same thing. It isn't a quality judgement, as such. In German philosophy, immanent critique - the sense of evolving to a point of self-reflection - bound tightly to social democracy, and what it means to be a conscious human-being. That's the language of philospphy
@@Ba-pb8ul It also has a useful connotation for demagogues.
Why do you suppose it necessary for his message to reach the greatest number of people to be impactful? This sort of thinking is quite dangerous.
yes!
I think we can all agree there is nothing that everyone thinks is true
Thanks a lot for these insights!
If you continue in the tone of this film (agreeing with its message), we will get to the Ministry of truth for sure.
And wasn't that the point. Remember that the release of this "documentary" coincided with the "whistleblower" testimony of Frances Haugen in the U.S., a clear Deep State puppet who was praised by the show's creators in interviews.
off topic, but closed captions would be nice
The movie The Social Dilemma is hypocritical in the same way Perdue Pharma would be hypocritical if it began promoting a drug to cure Oxytocin addiction. In this sense I find the professor’s use of the work “hypocritical“ to be rather superficial. It makes for good clickbate (irony), but it is not especially enlightening. The health warning at the end of the professor’s videos show very clearly what this leads to: virtually everyone becomes a hypocrite on some level and the word becomes useless.
you've misunderstood. To use your analogy, it's equivalence would be if Perdue Pharma promoted a drug for addiction, while having you addicted to the drug they were offering. It's not difficult.
But, everyone IS a hypocrite on some level, so recognizing those nuances is important...
@@lcg3092 I think rather than hypocritical, paradoxical is more precise.
that movie is like going to a chemotherapy preparation course, which will be held at the airport in one of them smoker's pavillions, where the presentation will be given by the girls from benson and hedges, who will also be handing out free samples of their new cigarettes.
underrated comment
it's like Christianity in Philippines
Old media and new media both manipulate. New media does it much better though with its access to big data / technologies.
Judging by the horrendous quality of national media in Poland at the moment, nationalisation of media may not be the best idea :D
subskrybujesz Duttona 😃😃😃 👍
kiedy był jeden program i gości trzeba było mocno selekcjonować jakość tv była o niebo lepsza
teraz znajdujesz w tv też programy godne uwagi nie na głównych kanałach ale pobocznych TVP które są warte obejrzenia a nie byłoby ich bez publicznej tv
to nie jest tak typu BBC a przynajmniej nie w całości
I have to take issue with the use of the term "stupid people" here. It's the easiest thing in the world for a philosophy professor to scoff at the masses for being misled or ill-informed, but the reality is most people aren't privileged enough to have the sort of education and free time necessary to deconstruct media in this way. I expect better from this channel, given its usual level of criticism. But this casual dismissal of ordinary people comes off as needlessly hostile and pompous, which ultimately makes the content less accessible to those who need it most.
8:26 we just need to have a common enough background to coordinate sufficiently
12:23 we can't get outside of language
15:13 well said. Why red herring?
How would not having private media solve the issue of the addictive use of media? Wouldn't all media then have to answer to government, therefore potentially creating a one sided propaganda machine? I think we just need more education on the subject, more respect for privacy, and more tools to limit our use of social media if we so desire.
10:00 preselection creates quality
mass production and mass consumer lowers quality
without visibility and group that acknowledges the superiority of quality
nobody learns what quality is and isn't aware of better alternative even existing
environment is fate adaptation is fate
acceptance kills change
In the U.S. to even hope to achieve the desired results it would have to be tax funded. The structure of our non-profits is such that it would simply be controlled by fewer special interests.
The word "independence" is being misused here. The notion of an "independent media" is not the notion that the media is intellectually independent from every other influence, but rather that the media is independent of undue government or corporate influence. One way a media outlet can be "independent" in the sense meant is it can sustain itself through anonymous donations. It then cannot be directly influenced to act in a specific way through its funding.
Seems to me like 'independent' media is a useless term. Ownership alone doesn't guarantee that it's striving for objectivity. But somebody always owns it and it will have an impact on what is produced. But when you hear journalists say that their job is not to be as objective as possible.. but to educate people.. I mean what's left to say at that point. Whatever the world view of the owner is what's getting broadcasted.
Like what Brave is doing.
If the media was decomodified I think there still was the problem of advertisement. Like they couldnt buy any space now, but they would still be buying people. And how would you stop youtubers from asking for Patreon money? Or...?
What would native American/first people's say about the modern world?
Well, I certainly had the same reaction to the movie as the professor, but wandered if it was intelligence or a lack of knowledge that made the group that got something out of the movie get something. And I do for a large extent feel it was a lack of knowledge, not intelligence.
Oddly the proposed "solution" does not tackle the underlying issue, which is a deficit in critical thinking throughout the world. This is an educational problem, not a media problem. Media can be produced by anything, and if government funded (even though not directly government controlled) can at times veer dangerously close to propaganda.
So the solution is not how media is funded, but teaching people to be critical, sceptical, rational, and thoughtful about the media they consume, whatever its source, origin or funding.
Interesting, By the way he was talking I don’t know what critical thinking could even do for us. Surely the teacher trying to get his or her students to be more critical in their thinking, would just be another part of the media, also just pushing the same half truths.
Not sure what is the definition of "social media" in this video. Netflix is indeed a form of media, but there are no social interactions (such as comments) available on it. What is the "social" part?
I believe he just called Netflix a part of of New Media and not Social Media. New Media is to my understanding media which uses data as a commodity and has a recommendation algorithm.
These accusations of hypocrisy are often really unhelpful. In order to criticise the system you have to involve yourself in some way. To me it often feels like posturing, a declaration of how smart you are that you can recognise an irony. Realistically I don't think there's any value to doing so most of the time.
It definitely shouldn't play such a major role in the critique since it is self obvious and tautological, and doesn't take philosophy degree to be discovered, while more subtle aspects are missing out or lacking, some aspects are misrepresented, like e.g. independent media. "All information is manipulated" is a sort of sophistry since very information is manipulated even on the level on biology, since most of our sensory inputs are dismissed as "not crucial'. And since overarching idea of "illusion" or our entire reality was not addressed here even slightly, it comes as disingenuous and manipulative
I don't think the word docudrama should segnify any sensationalist documentary. It's docudrama only if it has main characters that go thru a dramatic nerative.
O wait, ok the movie does have a sort of plot with the young man. It was so weak I forgot.
You are just talking about the surface
We grow more and more dependent and accepting of passively accepting media and less and less doing anything else. A big issue is generally technology or advancement is accepted by society with little critique. You accept media and any tech change. Why would you think about it if you just accept it. Most people aren’t introverted self examiners or independent critical thinkers. Most people are floating through like ancient Chinese fish in a zhuangzi story but instead of being guided by the dao they’re more and more by companies and groups who have media influence and profit motive which are more and more replacing actual social interaction.
social media etc make much more apparent the manipulative psychology of (modern) marketing.” “Don’t forget to like and subscribe my darling community” Has social identity ever been more apparent? Every interest and identification is a potential “community” so even if you’re not that into the topic maybe you’ll be drawn into the social aspect that we lack from our lives.
Human societies everywhere seem to have aversion to dealing with (addressing) people’s insecurity and other very important life affecting/undercurrent psychological/emotional needs. It’s often a dead zone and it’s ripe for exploiting.
Alternatively, I think critiques slip through the media due to their inability to read the moral landscape. Take Russel Brand on MSNBC criticising journalism
or they don't care? like being convinced smart critiques won't be even understood by viewers and end up being tool to be viewed less seriously and shortening distance from viewer laughing of own biases
world of educated apes
theres something particularly dissatisfying about listening to a removed intellectual expound about the lies of a movie criticizing addiction and surveillance capitalism, only to be told the solution is "awareness". Like, my man...
Like, what?
@@FourthExile Presumably somebody has to die.
@@stiffyvokes2404 That and there was no subverting expectations. We got what we expected.
I found much of this video unproductive - I don't think that ideas like 'there is no truth', 'every message is inevitably a lie', 'it's hypocritical to use the enemy's own weapon against him' are particularly helpful ways of looking at things - but I enthusiastically agree with the concluding proposal in the last minute or so.
Deprivatization of media will result in a very bland and boring media at best and a propaganda machine at worst.
Being recommended to watch SD, I could not resist my disgust and turned it off after 10 or 15 minutes. I like your analysis, though it seems that you do exactly the same what netflix did. On a smaller scale, I can do the same to your analysis, somebody else to mine, etc.
I have to disagree your analysis around 8:30-9:45.
When the subjects discuss truth in this context, they are not referring "truth", in a metaphysical sense. They are referring to verifiable, empirical statements, which can be tested and understood within a larger schema.
For example, the statement that the earth is round. This is not a question of metaphysics, and shouldn't be looked at from a theoretical, or abstract perspective. We can test this, we can observe this. It is a true statement; which is distinct from the truth, as such.
I would also strongly disagree with your statement that there can be no consensus on anything. I think once again, you are wilfully failing to understand the context under which this argument is made. Consensus means general agreement, or acceptance. It is not the same as unanimity. Without at least some form of shared understanding between citizens, society - at least insofar as we know it - can not exist. This is not a lie, I actually believe it's a pretty fair statement.
The end of society, as we know it, is not the same as the end of our species.
All that said, this was pretty enjoyable to watch after suffering through the film. There is a lot wrong with it ahah, and I think you nailed most of the problems! I just have to disagree with you on those things I mentioned.
I came here to say the same. Reuters or AP, for example, delivers impartiality much more reliably than, say, National Review or Salon.
Throwing up your hands and claiming there can’t be objective truth is simply wrong.
Exactly, when enough people believe something, it effectively becomes true for that group of people. This video is pretty shallow in it's analysis of media and lacks serious nuance. All media may manipulates but to differing extents and effectivenesses. The binary argument he makes are straggling weak for a professor of philosophy.
you have a bizarre idea of society, if you gift-wrap the concept in consensus. That isn't society, nor is it culture. The culture (the material substrate of west occidental thinking) is precisely one that allows for alterity and perspecitivism. Of course, there is no shared understanding (outside the barest idea of phenomenological archetypes)! Besides which, I think you're wilfully not understanding that the context here is the "wish-fulfilment" of escaping manipulative media sources (impossible) and thereby to achieve some noumenal reflection on the world (which is always framed in its communication). Any other form of "consensus" is just some kind of fascistic wet-dream, carried on aesthetic tropes and migrated into the realm of politics
@@Ba-pb8ul
I’m not sure if you’re being purposefully obtuse, or if you genuinely believe that consensus is impossible…but let me give you some examples of what I mean by consensus, and how the concept relates to society. This is not an academic concept; it doesn’t require an understanding of Kantian ethics, or dialectics, or whatever philosophical framework you might employ.
.
Most citizens would agree with the statement “killing children is wrong”. It’s easy to understand why failure to agree with this would be detrimental to society. Hopefully we are on the same page here.
On a more basic level, most citizens would agree with the statement that: within the decimal system, 1+1=2. If large groups of people refused to acknowledge the truth in this statement, society insofar as we know it, could not function.
Roads would not be repaired, the economic system would collapse, healthcare equipment could not be produced, etc. Note that I have repeatedly added the condition: insofar as we know it.
.
I never mentioned the word culture. That is an entirely separate conversation. And, I’m not referring to consensus on the basis of politics. I’m criticizing Moeller’s inability to step outside of his theoretical framework to acknowledge common sense.
.
Using polysyllabics, ad-hominems, and theoretical jargon doesn’t make your point any more valid btw. My point has nothing to do with fascism, and even less to do with fascistic wet-dreams lol
@@Nathanatos22 the information reported by these media can be as much as possible in quantity, using least sentimental words as possible, but they have still gone through an edited process, either by the reporter when carrying out research under his discipline or limitation (e.g. deadline) or the editor that act as the second filter.
Therefore objective truth via media is like radius: 3.1415927....
You can be as close to it as possible, but you can never arrive at it.
"stupid people" instant loss of respect for this man.
18:00 and who will fund them ? the world goverment.
Please talk about 1984 and the "eye" that Orwell talks about
+1
This video is quite poor. The business model of Netflix is entirely different to that of the social media companies that they are referring too. I’m not saying Netflix is perfect but it’s also a very different problem to the social media “freemium” advertising business that involves the users self publishing.
This video ironically is a very thin attempt to critique the movie which I think you can do but this video fails. It shows a lack of understanding of the step shift in the technology used because of its ability to manipulate with new and better techniques that can be used in very sinister ways. Yea it’s possible to do this via 1930s news papers. But this is different and this video doesn’t actually address that very well at all
No private property on media is communism from a totalitarian view. What you call dilemma I call paradox. What you define as an essential manipulation nature of media, I call as a natural (quantitative) partial incapacity for impartiality in the media. Your analysis here is totally flawed.
Brazil
Brasil 😮😮😮😮
When asked "what can we do about it" you give an answer that Netflix should disolve itself and become a non-profit.
If you entertain solutions that require actors to grossly violate their own self-interest then all problems are trivial. What should we do about global poverty? The rich should give to the poor. What should we do about global warming? We should spend large amounts of money on building renewables and storage and researching more cost-effective forms of carbon-neutral energy. What should we do about some groups holding the bulk of political power while marginalised groups having little to none? The powerful should move over and make room for them.
To invent a solution to a social problem you have to find a way to change the incentive structure (especially the incentives of those with the most power in the current system). Boycotts, protests, strikes, and good old fashioned threats of violence have all been used to do this (for good or ill) in the past. I don't know if any of those things can help here (not least because you need to use the media to drive interest in your cause and plans). When asked what we should do, merely suggesting goals without a strategy is a worthless answer; you might as well shrug and say "I don't know".
Having public media was the serious suggestion, Netflix dissolving itself was just irony.
Am I the only one that sees a lot of truisms here used as arguments? I mean sure, an algorithm recommends the movie and it talks about how that works. Media lies because it's media, individualism cannot be achieved through media . I am confused. If stupidity is achieved by failing to notice truisms, here's one: decomodifying media requires decomodifying the world 😱
well, that solution is not possible.
The only real solution is to quit them. I guess I'm also a hypocrite because YT is in itself a form of social media.
@@alexwr here we can use effective ad blocks, cookie blockers, tracker blockers. And it's a good social media, I use to learn a lot of things - while I work on my stuff. A double edged blade per se.
But I don't use fb, ig, and stuff like that.
Now, I may not be a fancy, big-city philosopher, but I'll take my persuasive and paradoxical entertainment chances straight from Disney, rather than the obsessive, ideological lockstep of Marxism, be it "new and approved " or otherwise.
your "persuasive and paradoxical" Disney movies contain ideology as well. Under capitalism there is also an ideological lockstep. watch more videos on this channel maybe you will understand.
While this opinion is sound it is also useless. A common theme in philosophy.
The solution is a joke. All public media. Are you kidding?
Tbf, he did say it was an extreme solution (and let's face it, would create it's own issues). Just earlier to that he mentioned a different solution, which was simply making sure individual's are educated, aware, and able to keep a critical head while necessarily existing under the survalience capitalism.
@@jshx709 It not perfect, it's just a better problem which will have it's own trade-offs. I still think it's better than trying to make sure people are educated etc., because that just reinforces surveillance capitalism because the education is going to require utilising this same media. Plus, the individual cannot be always alert, or even mostly alert -- while AI and such technologies never sleep, never look away, and are always on; the individual educated or otherwise, has no chance against that. Hence the systemic prescription of the public body having purchase on media
Ugh, displace comodification with institutionalization. The monopoly on violence is always the solution with lefties.
I think the blockchain technology will eventually result in decentralized social media, which might be better than government subsidized public media
Oh yeah, The Messiah of Blockchain! Do you still wait for Him in 2023?
Some really good points apart from the marxist approach to no privet property in the media at the end.
Yeah that part really caught me off guard at the end lol... The idea of dissolving private property in the media realm seems almost absurd on its face... Maybe he has some bigger theory not extrapolated here?? Media has been big business for a long time now. I don't think that genie can be put back in the bottle especially with the internet and the types of tools people have at the ready these days... Our entire relationship with the physical world is becoming more and more wholistic towards a media simulation it would seem... It's ungovernable, or self-governing... I mean maaaaybe I can imagine a world in which all of the big media companies become arms of the US government, but really do you even want that world??
I think what he’s imagining isn’t just the government taking all media and having a “Pravda” replace them I think he wants more of having each local and national news organizations to be run by the people who work there not by some faraway executives or board members who only care about profits (which de-incentives news organizations from expensive real-world journalism and incentives cheap opinion pieces that pander to one political faction or the other)
@@nikolategeltija That probably speaks to that bigger theory that I mentioned, so I appreciate the extrapolation. I guess when I hear what you're laying down, I just think of smaller internet channels. I'm not sure if the model you propose is possible in many cases, it would require a local network of funding, with enough wealth or capital in the system to fund it indefinitely... Look at smaller, independent media outlets online, sometimes they do great work, other times they are just as poorly incentivized as mainstream media, clickbait, sensationalism, fake news.... I think a lot of this just ends up being case by case. There is always a decision about what to report and always a question of "who decides?"
That was his point, though. There's no solution to this that involves the continued existence of the current media landscape.
Media can't be free when it's for sale.