XKCD on the dishonesty implicit in the sharing options in social media

[HMSGoose]

Like Slack? This seems to have taken the world by storm, and is pretty much that, no?

[nodolra]

Hm, not quite what I had in mind. Slack is more of an instant messaging service akin to IRC or Jabber (except that unlike those, it’s not based on an open standard, so you’re forced to use the proprietary client software).

I’m thinking more of things like this enterprise version of Google+, which behave more like Facebook. The ones I’ve seen appear to have evolved from wikis, but with a bunch of “social” features glommed on. Because apparently someone decided it would be nice if I could share status updates with my coworkers in a Facebook-style timeline, or ‘like’ people’s comments on internal wiki pages…

[coherent_light]

@mysterr

There’s always the option of starting your own social media site with all the privacy options you wish, as implausible as that might seem. Or simply opting out, as many have.

1. How does one “opt out” of Facebook? “Opt out” means any and all traces of my person, name, image, or things I’ve done are purged permanently from the site.

2. You concede that it is unlikely. For almost everyone, it is effectively impossible to just “create a social media site.”
   That’s like suggesting everyone stuck walking should just invent a car for transportation. Where do you see that happening?

@mysterr

Complaining about the manner by which free internet services operate seems akin to accepting an invitation to a banquet and then complaining about the size of the portions.

3. It is nothing like this at all. Or if it is, much of the food deliberately contains poison which can grow into cancer.
   That seems complaint-worthy.

I can complain about garbage left on my lawn even though it’s objectively “free.”

[anon15258403]

@AndreStmaur

I don’t agree. It seems to me that the telephone system is plagued by automated advertising calls, which I see as malicious manipulation. BBS, at least the large ones, are also plagued by shill users, just look for firms advertising covert advertisement on BBS to find out.

That’s a fair point. I was limiting my thinking in the examples to cases in which the network operator is the one performing the manipulation. I think that is what is effectively both very novel and essentially dangerous for us socially speaking right now, in the sense that society has not developed basic defense mechanisms needed to deal with invisible distortions in the popular mediums of peer to peer communication. We’re used to those existing in traditional received media channels, but if a financially incentivized agent can invisibly prioritize and de-prioritize communications that you’re presented with originating from peers - that can produce a strange situation.

[AndreStmaur]

@anon15258403

@AndreStmaur

I don’t agree. It seems to me that the telephone system is plagued by automated advertising calls, which I see as malicious manipulation. BBS, at least the large ones, are also plagued by shill users, just look for firms advertising covert advertisement on BBS to find out.

That’s a fair point. I was limiting my thinking in the examples to cases in which the network operator is the one performing the manipulation.

OK, I understand your point now. I am still not entirely convinced, however. Telephone networks did not perform the manipulation, but the law prohibited them to do so. As to BBSes, I think that the reason is that most of the ones you may be thinking about were not run as a business. Actually, the counter example here is dating sites which had BBS functions and populated them with fake women to entertain the paying male customers.

I still think the problem is not with technology, but with the fact that any commercial entity will try to maximize its revenue in the frame permitted by the law. If the law does not prohibit user manipulation, they will do it because it brings revenue.