Teens, We've Been Sneaking Into Your Brains
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2021
- Why does tech have such a grasp on our attention? What is the impact?
Listen as Max Stossel, Youth and Education Adviser for the Center for Humane Technology and former social media UX designer speaks directly to high school students about how persuasive technology works.
To learn more about the hidden harms of social media, watch The Social Dilemma (#TheSocialDilemma) documentary featuring Center for Humane Technology President and co-founder Tristan Harris.
This talk was filmed at Thayer Academy in Braintree, MA in October 2019.
quote: "I would rather be dismissed for who I am than to be accepted for who I am not."
I have been watching Social Dilemma and this video with my teenage kids for 15 min a day and digesting it day in and day out is very, very helpful! Our kids are getting educated and can think around these subject more and more. I'm very grateful for your efforts in producing this! Keep Going!!!!!
That is awesome, thank you for watching!
Please continue to do what you do! We need more Ethically Woke professionals - so happy to know you are doing this at schools.
Thank you for this important work you’re doing.
Where can we find the slide deck?
I deleted all social apps
This guy is very good
what was the artist's name 18:25
2mins in and I'm already itching to change the video 😅
Is it still relevant to say "my data my privacy my choice (rights)"? Or to discuss about Bias and Black Box (Responsible AI)? 🤔
Ig, that's how I found my crush's social media
Media education seemes to be underdeveloped in "developed" countries.
Mel Robbins uses 5-second rule.
I have no gaming apps
No dating apps I have
Max, this is a great talk but every time I watch something from Tristan or a similar thinker, it has no impact on my behaviour. I deleted social media after the social dilemma only to redownload a few days later. It's too engrained!
Thank you for the kind words on Max's talk! Would like to clarify that deleting social media apps isn't necessary - any steps towards a more fulfilling relationship with social media, however you define that, is beneficial. Sounds like you are engaged with the topic, so would just keep pulling that thread.
Think about if you really need social media. I actually only need a messenger for contact with friends and family. The rest like work I can do with my laptop. And everytime I have the need to open my phone I use a book instead. It's difficult at first, but you get used to it.
All right, this is completely analogous to food choices, and the current psychiatric trends are like diabetes. Why does the speaker leave it up to "education" to help people make better choices and not "intervention". We like the idea of the FDA regulating addictive substances or toxins in our food, why not in media?
I watched a portion of your video titled "outthinking hate" and I find it concerning that someone from your group was calling for the repression of "hate" groups, because I think that often times, hate is a very nebulous accusation that is sometimes wrongfully ascribed to people who have actual valid criticism. Same with the terms "misinformation & disinformation." On multiple occasions, the government, the press, and the major social media companies have falsely defined things as "disinformation" only to later admit that they were true. This seems to be an alarmingly common, underhanded political strategy (for example, the Hunter Biden laptop story was wrongly called disinfo, yet after the heat from the election died down, it was admitted to be true) I want to believe in your cause so badly, and I appreciate what you do, but I'm worried that you are unaware that you are a biased organization, and that your bias might create unknown blind spots in your judgement. I feel as though a company with a mission like yours should be politically neutral. I'm not insinuating that you should support actual hate groups or support the spread of misinformation and disinformation by any means. It's just that judging by some of the language that you were using in that video, I'd be willing to bet that you might wrongfully label someone as a member of a hate group, based on your own disagreement of their political stance, or that you would be inclined to label something that you politically disagree with as misinformation and/or prop up a narrative that you agree with that could possibly eventually turn out to be false. I'm hopeful that you understand that some of these political stances that you expressed in that video are debatable, and that there are valid reasons to disagree outside of just "being hateful." For the record, I want to clarify that I'm against bullying and ethno-nationalism of any kind. Just as you are well intentioned, so are those which you might politically disagree. I hope that you understand and will consider my message. Keep up the good work & thanks for all that you do.
So how exactly is an organization supposed to avoid bias? And I am 100% asking this in good faith, because by simply wanting to accomplish a goal they will have a bias toward that goal. There is really no way to remain "politically neutral" on anything. In the case of tech's power, imagine you have two political parties. One says tech never does anything harmful, and the other says tech does do harmful things and sites specific examples that are correct. So one side is correct and the other is incorrect. How do you stay neutral between correct and incorrect without sacrificing the truth? Sometimes one party is right about something and the other isn't. That should be pointed out rather than trying to remain "neutral" because in cases like that, neutrality would mean equating a true and untrue position.
And yes, sometimes organizations, media, etc presents incorrect information. But that's not a huge problem if the organization corrects their incorrect story. Of course, intent comes into play as well. If a news organization has been proven wrong about something, and they refuse to correct it or correct it and then keep telling the incorrect story then that is wrong. But retractions exist for a reason. Sometimes all of the known available information is reported, and then it can end up wrong or not the whole story. That is why retractions in journalism exist. In this case the problem is actually that people assume an information should be 100% reported correctly from the beginning with no changes, but that just doesn't happen, especially depending on the context. For example, after 9/11 news orgs were reporting whatever information they had that seemed credible. Some was and some was not. But over time a more factual picture is figured out and the reality of the situation is determined.
So in the case of the Center for Humane Technology, they are basing their purpose on what they feel is the best information they can find and then determining what recommendations they would make to the world based on tech. So for example, let's say they find that social media causes depression in teens, have strong data to back it up, and then reports those findings. Then political party 1 says they disagree (with no evidence to refute it) and teens should actually use more social media. Party 2 says they agree with the factual data and that it does appear social media is causing depression in teens. How would the Center for Humane Tech be able to remain neutral in this situation while still staying true to their data? Instead of being politically neutral, they should simply be truthful and if one party is wrong then so be it. "Political neutrality" for the sake of it is not important, because seeking the truth and coming up with good solutions to any problems is what is actually important.
@@maladjustedmillennial7533 I was commenting about another video from their channel that had the comment section disabled. I just decided to comment here in hopes that they might see it and consider what I had to say, but I might have been a little too vague to be understood.
The video I was referring to is titled "outthinking hate" and the panel in the video were discussing how to boost up some voices while censoring "hate groups." They specifically used the example of wanting to protect queer kids from hate speech. The reason that this concerns me is that, very often, I see valid criticism labeled as hate speech and censored/banned from the major platforms. I'll use pubertal suppressants as an example. There is no true medical concensus on whether puberty blockers are really a safe and appropriate treatment, due to the potential major health risks. There have been multiple class action lawsuits against one of the drugs called Lupron, due to people in their early 20's developing full blown osteoperosis and having the equivalent bone health to an 80 year old. And when it comes to these types of treatments, it's very hard to sue for malpractice, because these types of treatments are pretty much experimental at the moment. Yet the prevailing sentiment on the internet is that there are no risks whatsoever and anyone who expresses concern or disapproval of these treatments is automatically labeled a terf, a transphobe, or a child abuser. There is a viscious cycle of censorship that makes information about this topic extremely difficult to find and imo makes informed consent completely impossible. The main reason is that there are a lot of activists that believe that being able to openly discuss the negative health consequences and side effects of these treatments somehow harms trans people, so they label it hate speech, mass report, and get people banned/get entire pages, forums, etc. scrubbed from the internet. Then, anyone who doesn't take a 100% affirmation only stance gets labeled a terf, no matter if they have something valid to say or not. Then, the terfs get labeled a hate group, and since they're a hate group, they get censored. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I use this example because I have a young family member who is going through this, and my aunt and uncle aren't allowed to really do anything but sit and watch, because in some areas in the US, parents are threatened with the removal of their children.
My point is that I think that when it comes to calls for censorship, it's necessary to come from a balanced perspective. An organization might have a knee jerk reaction to dismiss and censor something that someone they disagree with has to say, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there that needs to hear it. There is a huge difference between real hate groups and groups that are unfairly labeled hate groups. So, if you have an organization that is calling for censorship that happens to lean too far in one direction politically or philosophically, there is potential to unfairly squash valid opinions that have a place and a purpose in the world.
@@bananabread6148 In the same way you can say there is speech that is wrongly labeled hate speech and banned, you can also point to quite a lot of hateful speech that isn't banned. I have seen many examples of people not just stating their opinions, but actually harassing people online because they are trans and the harasser isn't banned. Unfortunately, language is open to interpretation, but you can often determine the intent of someone or other harmful actions coincide with them stating an opinion.
Take your example of concerned parents. Are there actually concerned parents? Yes, I'm sure there are. There are also people who use their "concern" which is often just an act so they can put people down, harass, troll them, etc. These are very different cases and in my view they should be viewed differently, which goes back to intent.
But this points to exactly the problems the Center for Humane Tech point out frequently. One point is that these are private companies and platforms. You don't have a right to them and they have the right to run them as they see fit. If they have terms of services saying they don't allow certain things, and you violate that rule, they can kick you off. It may seem unfair, but can a trans person barge onto your property and lecture you as much as they want? Of course not, it's your property. So no one should be mistaking these platforms as some kind of public square. And even in public squares there are limits to what you can say, do, or how you can treat other people. The idea that there are no limitations to free speech and there never should be is just incorrect.
And secondly, the other problem is that social media platforms are some of the worst places to go for complex information, such as medical topics. Again, I feel for confused parents, but they should be seeking out medical/psychological professionals if they have concerns or don't know how to handle the situation. They should not be consulting morons and often discredited "professionals" on Facebook. But I think often the problem is that parents don't want to consult a medical professional and get information they don't want to hear. So they convince themselves that some clowns on social media have better answers.
And it's fine to look up information online, but to assume it is better or that the reader will understand it better than a real life doctor is asinine. But they often don't want information that conflicts with their religious, political, or whatever other views.
These are just some of the problems with tech and why people shouldn't really spend so much time on social media. They should also realize that it isn't real life, and it is easy to be deceived, especially with medical issues. And in real life you can't just give people medical opinions without credentials, evidence, and certifications. Why on earth should that be allowed online?
@@maladjustedmillennial7533The problem is that these platforms do act as a public square though. Most communication online happens almost exclusively on the main platforms. They might be private companies but they are where the public gathers to exchange ideas and information that effects the way people think and even the way that people vote. That being the case, I think that censorship should be kept to an absolute minimum and only applied with a balanced hand, if ever. I've seen and experienced harassment first hand, and I agree that there is a big difference between concern and harassment. Theoretically, it should be obvious to discern between trolling and concern. But, I've also seen people feeling harassed and attacked by information that is not only completely true and valid, but also wasn't even directed towards any individual to begin with. Like, the information was just posted as a resource for people to access. What do we do when people *feel* targeted by something that wasn't meant for them? If I'm morbidly obese and someone randomly posts a tweet that is not directed towards me that talks about the risks of being obese and my feelings get hurt, should I be able to classify that as harassment and hate speech? What would be the difference, if any, between that scenario vs someone posting about the risks of pubertal suppressants? If enough people feel hurt by those kinds of posts, should they be scrubbed from the internet? Is it really helpful to spare someone's feelings in the present by obscuring any information that might stress them out or make them feel bad but could potentially benefit them to know? And going back to my earlier example, do you think that children, preteens, and teenagers are getting their information exclusively from family members & doctors? No, they're getting it from tik tok, youtube, twitter, etc. So, that being the case, I think they need to be exposed to a balanced diet of information, not just the glamorous parts. And even aside from all that, the internet is an extremely valuable resource for medical information, because you can reach out to other people who have your condition that might be rare or unusual enough to be outside of the realm of knowledge/expertise that your doctor might have. I've experienced instances myself where I've had to find my own information to bring up to my doctors/veterenarians, because they kept misdiagnosing reoccurring health issues and I was tired of paying money to basically recieve the same non-answers over and over. If it weren't for information found in a facebook group, my mom's cat would have died of megacolon a long time ago. Someone in the group told her about a medication that her vet didn't know about. Meanwhile, the only suggestion that the vet was able to give was to euthanize.
Idk. Seems like we might need to agree to disagree. Speaking from experience, I've benefitted in the long run from information that hurt my feelings & stressed me out at the time. Sometimes the stuff that is going to give you a wakeup call and change your life isn't pleasant. And I think that censorship is a slippery slope, because things don't actually work in practice the way that they do in theory. Theoretically, the only people that should get banned and silenced are people who deserve it. Harassers, trolls, people who threaten people, etc. But in reality, the ban hammer tends to be applied way more liberally than that. As a rule of thumb, if you wouldn't be comfortable with someone who had a bias or political motivation that you disagree with in control of who gets to speak freely vs who gets censored, then you shouldn't be ok with it when someone you do agree with is in that position.
@@bananabread6148 Whether or not people perceive these platforms to be a public square doesn't mean they are. If people chose to gather at a McDonalds that would not make it a public square legally just because people treat it as such. This is a reason people need to switch off social media and maybe gather in real life in real public squares. Social media is also a great tool to manipulate people because they can be getting information from bots, propaganda agencies of all stripes, etc. Much harder for that to happen in real public squares. When it comes to social media companies, they operate for profit, and the problems with their platforms pull them into many directions, which is why you see rules applied inconsistently and so forth. But this is an unfixable problem. People need to just abandon these platforms if they actually want to improve communication and engage in real public squares.
And yes, I don't doubt that sometimes people are able to get useful information online, but it can often be a fluke. For every time some health information is helpful on social media, there are many examples where people took weird medications or engaged in some unhelpful treatment because of something they saw on social media. This is why there is the idea of getting second opinions in medicine. And if that is too expensive or impossible for some reason, that points to other things that should be fixed instead of rolling the dice on social media.
And as far as censorship being a slippery slope, well slippery slopes are a logical fallacy for a reason. Some people are banned incorrectly, some correctly. I still see just about every view available somewhere online, including all the social media sites. But again, this is a problem of the companies' profit motives, willingness to enforce their terms of service, and so on. And again, no one is owed someone else's private platform. You aren't censored if someone tells you to leave their property. Am I censored if McDonalds doesn't let me sit in their restaurant bothering their other customers with my beliefs? No, that is their right to tell me to leave if I am bothering their customers. That is what social media companies are doing, as well. This isn't so much a slippery slope problem as much as it is people mistaking one type of venue for another. There are simply different rules on private vs actual public property. Confusing the two or forcing a company to act as some kind of public square will not fix the inherent problems with these platforms.
And that doesn't even account for things like algorithms, addictive designs, and so forth. You don't get those in real life in real public squares, which is why social media will never be conducive to people actually talking things through productively, or being able to trust the information they are getting.