Yeah, my little sister had a bit of a fight with her friend and the thing she was the most devastated by was the fact that she broke a Snapchat streak with the friend, not the fight itself.
Maybe, reporters should focus on the ethics behind Planned Obsolescence. The deliberate manufacture and production of goods/ products that are made to expire, spoil or breakdown within a limited time. Planned Obsolescence is not only bad for the environment, it also deprives consumers of a product that lasts a longer time. It's unethical and based on operate greed and increasing sales.
Fascinating conversation with two extremely eloquent and interesting speakers. I think it's also about becoming more honest on social media; not attempting to curate our profiles into impossible ideals or photoshopping our faces and bodies into perfect specimens. If we could start admitting when we feel sad, lonely or have a certain controversial viewpoint, the hours spent on social media could actually provide us with real value and be "time well spent," exposing us to different views, enabling us to have real conversations and allowing us to celebrate the fact that, no matter where we are in the world, we're all human and all have our ups and downs. I'm trying to push this message on my own youtube channel, and conversations such as this one give me faith that we can help push technology in the right direction. As Tristian says, it's about awareness; if we truly know what we are doing and how our psychology is being manipulated whilst we are using these apps, we become far more conscious of using them correctly.
This is why self-reflection is so important. You may not use the same words to explain it, but you can figure out these effects technology has on you by yourself. You are the only one in charge of youe life. Stop blaming other 'evil' people/corporations.
This is already very interesting in a way that's so different from other guests! He's presenting an ethical conservative viewpoint (ie: "companies shouldn't waste peoples' time") but it runs so counter to both your more liberal and libertarian viewpoints that it's clearly a bit of a struggle to even speak to the problem he's presenting. Can't wait to see more!
Ever since Scott Adams opened my eyes to Persuasion, Ethical Persuasion, especially when it comes to Technology, has been a topic of heavy interest in my mind. This conversation pushed my thinking forwards. Thanks Dave.
This to me seems like one of the "subtle denials" for the more serious issues that Google ethics involves. If censorship is not addressed in this full interview, I will be very disappointed. Reading what Quiet Ackshon said is exactly right too. Right out of the gate, I was immediately frustrated with Tristan's "tricks" for broad appeal.
You know what would solve so much of these questions? Give the consumer the option of what happens in these situations. Customizability in the functions of the OS and hardware. But they want everything to be controlled by them.
Would hope that this knowledge would somehow make a difference--make people really care about taking back their lives. I am doing his essay in a college English class for a unit on technology. I am eager to find out how my students will react.
Understanding how our milieu will appear in the future is something that few people within our time are able to anticipate. The likes of individuals as diverse as Nietzsche, Rousseau, Churchill or Orwell may well be able to achieve a futuristic perspective on the hours we are so passively absorbing in the moment; but I do sometimes wonder whether the great unwashed masses within the hidden folds of history are also able to speak with some knowledge about the implications of the present for the reality of the future. Of course, these voices, certainly in the non-socialmedia ( no apologies for a new noun) past hear little or no echo in the future, but I would posit that within any period of human history, there is a relatively large group of ordinary humans who could tear apart the received view of reality in order to anticipate the outcomes of, to them, the then current thrust of politico-social behaviour. This can be seen recently in the unanticipated outcomes of the Brexit and the Trump votes. Yes! I know that there will be a plethora of explanations for this, but one amongst them is that the common, ordinary person in the street was the perfect judge of what was actually happening in their common, ordinary street. Difficult though this is for some to accept, it is, nevertheless, real.
All you have to do is look around and see how close our technological devices have become glued to our lives. And if you think you are immune to this, your probably the most addicted.
I think I'm with a large number of people when I say I'm not for government intervention/regulation on any of these tech companies. I agree that a number of the tricks Mr. Harris brings up are incredibly subtle and deceitful. I myself am 19, and the social inclusivity (or "cult" as it shall now be referred to lol) of Snapchat has been something I've noticed among my peers and have been very frustrated about. However, when Mr. Harris makes the argument that there is no incentive for Twitter to consolidate your feed in order to waste less of your time, I think he's a bit short sighted. I think if consolidated information is a feature that consumers want, Twitter has an incentive to make their service more compelling by doing so. Should they choose not to, they may lose all of the attention of some users who may choose to switch to a possible competitor that does consolidate its users' feeds. Now, social media is tricky because the compelling nature of the product very heavily depends on the size and scope of its user base. However, there seems to me at least, to be no real reason for market forces to not be able overcome this hurdle (social media sites have died and new ones risen from the ashes before). The problem and reason I think we don't see improvement when it comes to the quality of social media services is largely one of consumers' obliviousness. I know nearly all people my age plus or minus a few years don't give a second thought about the time wasting or needlessly compelling nature of the services they're using; they fail to see the possibility or prospect of improvement. It's really an issue of consumer education which is severely lacking among my peers and most adults. Therefore, I must say THANK YOU for this interview Dave. I will be sharing it with my family and a number of friends to spread knowledge about these topics. These are the kinds of ideas that if talked about on national media, could lead to a better society; we just need to be talking about them.
The underlying issue we face on this planet now is our public stock market systems and how they function. The system itself breeds the very problems Tristan talks about. Our crisis is philosophical and dare I say, spiritual in nature. If Apple, for example, replaced their board next year with altruistic executives who decided to help humanity by charging a fair price for their stuff and investing a sensible portion of their profits toward good causes, their shareholders would promptly replace the board. Shareholders want profits (and share prices) growing in perpetuity. We need a positive change in consciousness where the majority of us collectively realise at a deep human level we are going in the wrong direction. I'm not implying changing this system would be easy (or even possible). However I am suggesting it seems like something like this is needed for the mental, emotional and psychosomatic health of our species moving forward. My idea is to plant a seed that sets a trend. The premise would be to found companies who make great products with underlying altruistic company goals. Private companies who's mission statement would go against the very idea of ever going public. In spite of how large they may become. Example: an appliance company who makes great appliances and uses a good portion of their profits to fund a service for people that would otherwise be unaffordable. And people thusly support said company for BOTH these reasons. So said private company has no public shareholders and if founded in the right way with the right intentions has no real desire for profit for profit's sake. Perhaps a well designed legal company constitution could underly this system?
What much more disturbing is his view that because companies "steer what you think" you need the state to censor them and only allow "steering" that is beneficial to the state.
You are already being steered by these massive profit oriented companies. Only question is whether you want some alternative to that, be it personal, social or governmental.
So straight out of the gate he's confirming that the big tech companies are trying to sway public opinion. What could be wrong with that? Secondly, ethics in corporations is an oxymoron. It's like asking a psychopath to empathises with their victims.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations are run by people who have morals. They may not line up with your morals, but having a sociopath in power is relatively rare. Usually if you find something reprehensible being done, it's because they feel their competitors would do it if they didn't (tragedy of the commons). Also, saying that a corporation is trying to sway public opinion is redundant. That's the whole purpose of advertising. Sway the public into buying your product. You'd do it too if you were in that position.
Quiet Ackshon, The point is all companies you interact with have influence on you more than you realize. He never said that Google or any other company was trying to make you more liberal or conservative, simply they want money and they spend a lot of time thinking about how to do that.
I think if you really study how Power is Gained then you will find that Sociopaths actually make up a larger percentage of the leadership than their percentage of the population at large. The politics, backstabbing and general unsavory nature of the climb up any power structure usually keeps people of high morals and principle from even playing that game. There are exceptions but really take a look at the Type A personalities who do well there.
I think a better way to regard this manipulation on the part of SnapChat, etc., rather than the removal of your choice, which is an incredibly disempowering, almost solipsistic way to look at it, is as a vindictive temptation. It is your choice for which you have to take responsibility, on the one hand, what temptations you indulge or not. Yet at the same time it is a mean thing to do to tempt other people to do things you know they shouldn't. That should be perfectly legal, as it is still a consensual activity, but it is unethical. Public knowledge should improve and people should regard these sorts of social media companies with appropriate contempt, as an attack on their resources, their precious time. At the same time, a company who chooses not to maliciously tempt people, but instead to offer them something they may not even yet know that they want, is not really "holding itself back", but rather tapping into supply and demand in a normal enough way. A trustworthy intent *not* to tempt you into doing something stupid on a regular basis, is a positive value which I think even these very social media companies themselves can market and profit from.
Free wil has nothing to do with whether big corporations manipulate you or not. I agree that we don't have free will. But despite that fact it is still possible to be smart enough and think for yourself enough to not get manipulated.
All he is arguing is who is manipulating you. Do I trust him to make the decision for me? Goggle? The government? Imagine he were having same discussion about MySpace and the time-sink that was, and you realize how idiotic this sounds. I prefer to have an uncurated web without dolts like this deciding what is best for me.
His utility analogy was faulty. No one has a lower quality of life because they took longer showers and wanted a really green lawn. It's a totally different issue.
While it's important to understand how technology is gamed to maximize use at the expense of our time, I would not support any government action that regulated how companies create and deploy apps.
You should get Roy Beck from Numbers USA on the show to talk about mass immigration and sustainable population growth vs. George Soros' Open Boarders Foundation.
I feel like he is not giving the user enough credit. One of the first things I do when I download an app is look at the settings and turn off notifications if I think it will be a problem. I don't think the answer is regulation, but giving the user more choice about how they can customize their experience. Even if companies are just interested in ad sales, the app that is designed smarter and allows for a less stressful experience is that one that people will use. No need for government involvement or regulation; let the free market do its thing.
I have gmail account but I do not like it. I use Juno. Com much more easy to use. It has ads but I use a blocker that takes away most Ads. Gmail moves my mail into Categories then I can’t find them easily. It changes settings after I set them up.
All of this is unavoidable, and is going to steadily continue to get worse. The only way out is to train your mind via something like awareness meditation.
Everyone uses email differently based on skill level and their need for the technology. I know some people who check their email each time one comes in, and some who never check email and all things in between. The solution is sane defaults, and making it easy to change them. This guy is so far up his own ass I'm surprised he doesn't have to turn around to face Dave.
here's another liberal advocating for the nanny state, people are responsible for their own actions, no matter if it's hard or not, you've got to make it your self, you've got to be responsible and control your self, I don't want and ethicist or government agents or anybody else deciding what's best for me. because once you give anybody this power, where does it end? Is it gonna leave the unnatural technological world and go into your natural life ? putting seatbelt in the car should be optional, wearing a motorcycle helmet should be optional, having some type of alert or not on your gadget should be optional , that is the social obligation of a manufacture, is giving the option, anything beyond that is up to the individual to decide for themselves. I don't need or want government or corporations [one in the same] protecting me from me ...
Haus skul - I didn't hear anything "Nanny State" related, he didn't suggest or advocate for any Government regulation. All he suggested is that App companies think about finding ways to potentially regulate the addictivity of their own Apps. Where the issue becomes much more complicated than your response suggests is when the Young (an ever-growing segment of users) and the Dumb (most people, sadly, judging by spelling, grammar, and logic deficits on RUclips and elsewhere), who are unaware of just how easily they can be manipulated, are having their neurons and neurochemistry seriously modified via their interaction with their Smart Devices. Harris pointed out the ethical concerns surrounding those issues without actually advocating any kind of Government regulation of the same. Go back and listen again if you doubt it. Given, though, just how serious the effect can be on younger, developing brains, Parents (at the very least) need to seriously consider - and manage - the way their kids interact with such devices (as I'm doing with my own kids, encountering - of course - tremendous resistance in the process). That's one of the main jobs of a parent, to train their children to control their impulses, behaviors, habits, and thoughts, and to learn how to live and carry on when faced with the less pleasant aspects of (adult) life. Parents who fail to do that end up with overgrown children, and society sees a reduction in fully capable, productive adults, which can be incredibly detrimental in the long run.
it is kinda funny. i find his suggestions less ethical than the things he criticises. for example a variable bill. it disincentivizes power users. and it pushes towards automation.
He lost me at "regulatory board". I get the problem of perverse incentives, but ultimately the onus should be on the users to control behavior that could be destructive to them. The tech company's goal is to provide a service we want and to make money. The end.
ThePersephoneK yeah but they also fine-tune all the aspects to their app to make you love to reload the messages or get a message its all a persuasive game
Discussing the ethics of subliminal manipulation in a free market...hmmm lol I guess the conversation can help users/consumers with introspection but if you think companies will EVER consider implementing ethical standards to advertising think again, the very idea is almost a conceptual contradiction.
Phil Cowan - He didn't, he was finding an analog in the "Old School" business world, where one can be encouraged to reduce one's use of a certain resource. As he pointed out, the "regulation" in the Utilities world is generally self-imposed, in order to avoid outside regulation. He never suggested that the government should regulate apps (though he obliquely hinted that it COULD happen, a possibility he didn't spend much time on), only that other industries who have a vested interest in seeing you maximize your use of their product have found ways to create built-in "regulating" measures that reward you for modulating your use of limited resources (in that instance, water, natural gas, etc.). Maybe such talk seems like a Stalking Horse for future government regulation, but I don't see the conversation going that way, and I don't think Harris does, either. Hence, he's exposing the severe degrees of manipulation built into smartphone apps, trying to bring it to the attention of the masses, hoping, I would think, to guilt large App creators (especially Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) into introducing self-regulation into the equation.
I'm sorry. Three minutes in and I'm thinking "These people have convinced themselves that their actions have way more significance than they really do." Sounds like a lot of bullshit.
Three minutes in and I was thinking "how's about letting the market decide" - and as for kids - "parental reponsibility." Of course it all started with that Kevin Bacon fella wanting to DANCE
Appreciate your input, but my gut says "nope, this is garbage!" The notion that I can't put down a phone and need someone to decide if their Skinner Box notification design is ethical or not is ridiculous.
Have you ever felt annoyed using an app? Have you ever lost track of time browsing social media? Experiences like those are proof of the effects of user-experience design on people.
I have listened to almost all of Rubin interviews and he almost never/never challenges the narrative of the guest, even with his hardcore libertarian guests... but here in this one he challenges the guest (at the very end) to push a libertarian narrative. Ok... I have argued against it when others have argued it, but my mind has been changed. Rubin is not a liberal, he is not a classical liberal, he is libertarian. I still like Rubin, but the man is a libertarian. It would be nice if he could just be honest about it and stop with all the classical liberal nonsense. PS There is no realistic libertarian solution to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.
Yeah, my little sister had a bit of a fight with her friend and the thing she was the most devastated by was the fact that she broke a Snapchat streak with the friend, not the fight itself.
Tristan is an amazing person- thank god he is making noise on this topic
You should have Douglas Murray on again, this time in studio!
Agreed. Would be nice to have him discuss his new book, "The Strange Death of Europe."
Indeed! I highly recommend his new book
TeoriadoDiabo2 Yea, we are way overdue. Stay tuned!
The Rubin Report looking forward to it!
Nice. Keep the great work Dave!
Maybe, reporters should focus on the ethics behind Planned Obsolescence. The deliberate manufacture and production of goods/ products that are made to expire, spoil or breakdown within a limited time. Planned Obsolescence is not only bad for the environment, it also deprives consumers of a product that lasts a longer time. It's unethical and based on operate greed and increasing sales.
If you're at all interested in this topic, listen to Sam Harris's discussions with tech experts. They are in-depth and more advanced.
We shot this while on location for Ayaan. Fear not, back in the comforts of our studio next week!
Fascinating conversation with two extremely eloquent and interesting speakers. I think it's also about becoming more honest on social media; not attempting to curate our profiles into impossible ideals or photoshopping our faces and bodies into perfect specimens. If we could start admitting when we feel sad, lonely or have a certain controversial viewpoint, the hours spent on social media could actually provide us with real value and be "time well spent," exposing us to different views, enabling us to have real conversations and allowing us to celebrate the fact that, no matter where we are in the world, we're all human and all have our ups and downs. I'm trying to push this message on my own youtube channel, and conversations such as this one give me faith that we can help push technology in the right direction. As Tristian says, it's about awareness; if we truly know what we are doing and how our psychology is being manipulated whilst we are using these apps, we become far more conscious of using them correctly.
Echo Location Thanks so much man, glad you enjoyed the video!
This is having a huge effect on society and especiallly the attention span and moral condition of our kids.
Please have Charles Murray on.
Dan Scott, Yes! 👍👍👍
+Jamie He was AWESOME with Sam Harris! HIGHLY recommend.
This is why self-reflection is so important. You may not use the same words to explain it, but you can figure out these effects technology has on you by yourself.
You are the only one in charge of youe life. Stop blaming other 'evil' people/corporations.
This is already very interesting in a way that's so different from other guests! He's presenting an ethical conservative viewpoint (ie: "companies shouldn't waste peoples' time") but it runs so counter to both your more liberal and libertarian viewpoints that it's clearly a bit of a struggle to even speak to the problem he's presenting. Can't wait to see more!
Neil Postman just doesn't get enough recognition and it's shame. Postmans' concerns in "The Disappearance of Childhood" was borderline prophetic.
Interesting discussion. You never realize the dots that you dont connect until someone comes and connects them and makes you think.
just realised that i got steered towards tristan Harris. Thanks to youtube recommendations .. what a irony..
Ever since Scott Adams opened my eyes to Persuasion, Ethical Persuasion, especially when it comes to Technology, has been a topic of heavy interest in my mind. This conversation pushed my thinking forwards. Thanks Dave.
Well, Twitter is engaged in intellectual cleansing, so don't expect ethics there. I also realised I'm addicted to my online banking!
This to me seems like one of the "subtle denials" for the more serious issues that Google ethics involves. If censorship is not addressed in this full interview, I will be very disappointed. Reading what Quiet Ackshon said is exactly right too. Right out of the gate, I was immediately frustrated with Tristan's "tricks" for broad appeal.
You know what would solve so much of these questions? Give the consumer the option of what happens in these situations. Customizability in the functions of the OS and hardware. But they want everything to be controlled by them.
Would hope that this knowledge would somehow make a difference--make people really care about taking back their lives. I am doing his essay in a college English class for a unit on technology. I am eager to find out how my students will react.
This directly ties into Dr. Yuvah Noah Harari's book "Homo Deus." Please have him on, Mr. Rubin. I promise you'll be fascinated.
Excellent point at the about perverse incentives - don't see why we can't regulate tech companies to serve are interests
Understanding how our milieu will appear in the future is something that few people within our time are able to anticipate. The likes of individuals as diverse as Nietzsche, Rousseau, Churchill or Orwell may well be able to achieve a futuristic perspective on the hours we are so passively absorbing in the moment; but I do sometimes wonder whether the great unwashed masses within the hidden folds of history are also able to speak with some knowledge about the implications of the present for the reality of the future. Of course, these voices, certainly in the non-socialmedia ( no apologies for a new noun) past hear little or no echo in the future, but I would posit that within any period of human history, there is a relatively large group of ordinary humans who could tear apart the received view of reality in order to anticipate the outcomes of, to them, the then current thrust of politico-social behaviour. This can be seen recently in the unanticipated outcomes of the Brexit and the Trump votes. Yes! I know that there will be a plethora of explanations for this, but one amongst them is that the common, ordinary person in the street was the perfect judge of what was actually happening in their common, ordinary street. Difficult though this is for some to accept, it is, nevertheless, real.
You should have Charles Murray, and talk about his unjustified crucifixion by SJWs, and also his views on universal basic income.
All you have to do is look around and see how close our technological devices have become glued to our lives. And if you think you are immune to this, your probably the most addicted.
Dave used to look really exhausted. Glad he seems to have more rest now days.
I think I'm with a large number of people when I say I'm not for government intervention/regulation on any of these tech companies. I agree that a number of the tricks Mr. Harris brings up are incredibly subtle and deceitful. I myself am 19, and the social inclusivity (or "cult" as it shall now be referred to lol) of Snapchat has been something I've noticed among my peers and have been very frustrated about. However, when Mr. Harris makes the argument that there is no incentive for Twitter to consolidate your feed in order to waste less of your time, I think he's a bit short sighted. I think if consolidated information is a feature that consumers want, Twitter has an incentive to make their service more compelling by doing so. Should they choose not to, they may lose all of the attention of some users who may choose to switch to a possible competitor that does consolidate its users' feeds. Now, social media is tricky because the compelling nature of the product very heavily depends on the size and scope of its user base. However, there seems to me at least, to be no real reason for market forces to not be able overcome this hurdle (social media sites have died and new ones risen from the ashes before). The problem and reason I think we don't see improvement when it comes to the quality of social media services is largely one of consumers' obliviousness. I know nearly all people my age plus or minus a few years don't give a second thought about the time wasting or needlessly compelling nature of the services they're using; they fail to see the possibility or prospect of improvement. It's really an issue of consumer education which is severely lacking among my peers and most adults. Therefore, I must say THANK YOU for this interview Dave. I will be sharing it with my family and a number of friends to spread knowledge about these topics. These are the kinds of ideas that if talked about on national media, could lead to a better society; we just need to be talking about them.
Good conversation so far....but I know I'm not the only one who wants to see Steven Crowder on the show
He's done an interview with Crowder, check his vids.
he's already been on the show before
He's been on but will have him back for sure!
Have on Douglas Murray to talk about his new book, "The Strange Death of Europe"!
"How do you ethically steer people [via subliminal messaging and content dispersal]"
YOU
FUCKING
DO NOT
New drinking game:
Take a shot every time Dave says either "stuff" or uses "in and of itself" the wrong way / unnecessarily
Jk- love the show ❤️
NICK OEFFINGER it's like Cenk Urgur or Karan Straughan saying "right" a lot or when Camille Paglia says "ok."
timely and relevant for myself, I just deleted Facebook and Twitter last week. Felt odd for the first couple days but now Im back to "normal" lol
The underlying issue we face on this planet now is our public stock market systems and how they function. The system itself breeds the very problems Tristan talks about. Our crisis is philosophical and dare I say, spiritual in nature.
If Apple, for example, replaced their board next year with altruistic executives who decided to help humanity by charging a fair price for their stuff and investing a sensible portion of their profits toward good causes, their shareholders would promptly replace the board. Shareholders want profits (and share prices) growing in perpetuity.
We need a positive change in consciousness where the majority of us collectively realise at a deep human level we are going in the wrong direction. I'm not implying changing this system would be easy (or even possible). However I am suggesting it seems like something like this is needed for the mental, emotional and psychosomatic health of our species moving forward.
My idea is to plant a seed that sets a trend. The premise would be to found companies who make great products with underlying altruistic company goals. Private companies who's mission statement would go against the very idea of ever going public. In spite of how large they may become. Example: an appliance company who makes great appliances and uses a good portion of their profits to fund a service for people that would otherwise be unaffordable. And people thusly support said company for BOTH these reasons. So said private company has no public shareholders and if founded in the right way with the right intentions has no real desire for profit for profit's sake. Perhaps a well designed legal company constitution could underly this system?
16:03
"You can't open your mouth without being exposed to this persuasive draw"
nice hand gestures
Also, if you enjoyed this interview/conversation, he also had a great conversation with Sam on Waking Up, a couple weeks ago. Cheers.
am I the only one just a little disturbed about the idea of people "steering what people think?"
What much more disturbing is his view that because companies "steer what you think" you need the state to censor them and only allow "steering" that is beneficial to the state.
You are already being steered by these massive profit oriented companies. Only question is whether you want some alternative to that, be it personal, social or governmental.
So straight out of the gate he's confirming that the big tech companies are trying to sway public opinion. What could be wrong with that? Secondly, ethics in corporations is an oxymoron. It's like asking a psychopath to empathises with their victims.
Quiet Ackshon not an argument
So what.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations are run by people who have morals. They may not line up with your morals, but having a sociopath in power is relatively rare. Usually if you find something reprehensible being done, it's because they feel their competitors would do it if they didn't (tragedy of the commons). Also, saying that a corporation is trying to sway public opinion is redundant. That's the whole purpose of advertising. Sway the public into buying your product. You'd do it too if you were in that position.
Quiet Ackshon, The point is all companies you interact with have influence on you more than you realize. He never said that Google or any other company was trying to make you more liberal or conservative, simply they want money and they spend a lot of time thinking about how to do that.
I think if you really study how Power is Gained then you will find that Sociopaths actually make up a larger percentage of the leadership than their percentage of the population at large. The politics, backstabbing and general unsavory nature of the climb up any power structure usually keeps people of high morals and principle from even playing that game. There are exceptions but really take a look at the Type A personalities who do well there.
I think a better way to regard this manipulation on the part of SnapChat, etc., rather than the removal of your choice, which is an incredibly disempowering, almost solipsistic way to look at it, is as a vindictive temptation. It is your choice for which you have to take responsibility, on the one hand, what temptations you indulge or not. Yet at the same time it is a mean thing to do to tempt other people to do things you know they shouldn't. That should be perfectly legal, as it is still a consensual activity, but it is unethical. Public knowledge should improve and people should regard these sorts of social media companies with appropriate contempt, as an attack on their resources, their precious time. At the same time, a company who chooses not to maliciously tempt people, but instead to offer them something they may not even yet know that they want, is not really "holding itself back", but rather tapping into supply and demand in a normal enough way. A trustworthy intent *not* to tempt you into doing something stupid on a regular basis, is a positive value which I think even these very social media companies themselves can market and profit from.
Love the black background. Easy on my eyes and amazing on LED phone screens
Lol-ing at all the commenters who believe they have free will and aren't easily manipulated
Free wil has nothing to do with whether big corporations manipulate you or not. I agree that we don't have free will. But despite that fact it is still possible to be smart enough and think for yourself enough to not get manipulated.
All he is arguing is who is manipulating you.
Do I trust him to make the decision for me? Goggle? The government?
Imagine he were having same discussion about MySpace and the time-sink that was, and you realize how idiotic this sounds.
I prefer to have an uncurated web without dolts like this deciding what is best for me.
Agreed.
I agree.
Although I have no choice.
Like those people who think advertising has no effect in what they buy haha
Absolutely fascinating conversation Dave. I hope that someday this who discussion will enter the international zeitgeist.
His utility analogy was faulty. No one has a lower quality of life because they took longer showers and wanted a really green lawn. It's a totally different issue.
Totally interested in this topic, looking forward to the next parts of this conversation
While it's important to understand how technology is gamed to maximize use at the expense of our time, I would not support any government action that regulated how companies create and deploy apps.
You should get Roy Beck from Numbers USA on the show to talk about mass immigration and sustainable population growth vs. George Soros' Open Boarders Foundation.
I like the black distraction-less setting. Dave's regular area has a lot of stuff that is distracting.
I feel like he is not giving the user enough credit. One of the first things I do when I download an app is look at the settings and turn off notifications if I think it will be a problem. I don't think the answer is regulation, but giving the user more choice about how they can customize their experience. Even if companies are just interested in ad sales, the app that is designed smarter and allows for a less stressful experience is that one that people will use. No need for government involvement or regulation; let the free market do its thing.
Great stuff thanks for exposing the mechanics of how mind control works Tristan.
Is this worth listening to if you've heard the Sam Harris podcast or is it just a re-hashing of the same stuff?
are statistics on youtube channels publicly available, or only to the channel itself?
Interesting topic
Amazing interview.
one of the most important talks, thank u dave so much!
It would be great to have some nonprofit companies making good apps.
Most interesting interview topic in a while keep it up bossman!
Who's watching in 2020? Rather prescient.
NEIL POSTMAN!!!
....so good.
should be required reading.
You should invite Penn Jillette to join you sometime.
I have gmail account but I do not like it. I use Juno. Com much more easy to use. It has ads but I use a blocker that takes away most Ads. Gmail moves my mail into Categories then I can’t find them easily. It changes settings after I set them up.
they stop the comments on one of the vids that show they need to stop
I miss the old set.
If you have nothing to be ashamed of why are you not transparent.
hey dave so are you going to do a video on how trump just went over the deep end with the degenerate sauds?
Regulating the way social media companies do their business will be the death of the internet as we know it.
Is this Sams even more nerdy little bro?
All of this is unavoidable, and is going to steadily continue to get worse. The only way out is to train your mind via something like awareness meditation.
Hey! Why is this "on location" guys???
@17:44 'ethicality' is the word
Jeff Orlowski saw this video
The word is "ethicality."
its kinda like how youtube gets extra views by making you go to video go read a response comment
Everyone uses email differently based on skill level and their need for the technology. I know some people who check their email each time one comes in, and some who never check email and all things in between. The solution is sane defaults, and making it easy to change them. This guy is so far up his own ass I'm surprised he doesn't have to turn around to face Dave.
Douglas Murray again please Dave
here's another liberal advocating for the nanny state, people are responsible for their own actions, no matter if it's hard or not, you've got to make it your self, you've got to be responsible and control your self, I don't want and ethicist or government agents or anybody else deciding what's best for me. because once you give anybody this power, where does it end? Is it gonna leave the unnatural technological world and go into your natural life ? putting seatbelt in the car should be optional, wearing a motorcycle helmet should be optional, having some type of alert or not on your gadget should be optional , that is the social obligation of a manufacture, is giving the option, anything beyond that is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
I don't need or want government or corporations [one in the same] protecting me from me ...
Haus skul - I didn't hear anything "Nanny State" related, he didn't suggest or advocate for any Government regulation. All he suggested is that App companies think about finding ways to potentially regulate the addictivity of their own Apps. Where the issue becomes much more complicated than your response suggests is when the Young (an ever-growing segment of users) and the Dumb (most people, sadly, judging by spelling, grammar, and logic deficits on RUclips and elsewhere), who are unaware of just how easily they can be manipulated, are having their neurons and neurochemistry seriously modified via their interaction with their Smart Devices. Harris pointed out the ethical concerns surrounding those issues without actually advocating any kind of Government regulation of the same. Go back and listen again if you doubt it. Given, though, just how serious the effect can be on younger, developing brains, Parents (at the very least) need to seriously consider - and manage - the way their kids interact with such devices (as I'm doing with my own kids, encountering - of course - tremendous resistance in the process). That's one of the main jobs of a parent, to train their children to control their impulses, behaviors, habits, and thoughts, and to learn how to live and carry on when faced with the less pleasant aspects of (adult) life. Parents who fail to do that end up with overgrown children, and society sees a reduction in fully capable, productive adults, which can be incredibly detrimental in the long run.
it is kinda funny. i find his suggestions less ethical than the things he criticises.
for example a variable bill. it disincentivizes power users. and it pushes towards automation.
Design EEEET..Ethcist
He lost me at "regulatory board". I get the problem of perverse incentives, but ultimately the onus should be on the users to control behavior that could be destructive to them. The tech company's goal is to provide a service we want and to make money. The end.
ThePersephoneK yeah but they also fine-tune all the aspects to their app to make you love to reload the messages or get a message its all a persuasive game
Isn't pointing guns at people (government regulations) a crude and uncivilized way to solve these kinds of social issues?
Do not even tell me that this dude just said 'ethicity'
What they discuss isn't incorrect, but sounds a bit like mental masturbation, no? What incentive do for-profit companies have to change?
Discussing the ethics of subliminal manipulation in a free market...hmmm lol
I guess the conversation can help users/consumers with introspection but if you think companies will EVER consider implementing ethical standards to advertising think again, the very idea is almost a conceptual contradiction.
just make the kids watch this video...
Have on Elon Musk, it ain't rocket science.
I manipulate technology
He looks a little like lil Dicky
Did he just say Silicon Valley is a libertarian culture? I don't think he understands what a libertarian is.
56jmoney The left has taken over true liberalism and distorted it.
I can't stand Silicon Valley body language.
Wait what's this! A ad played on the video. O_O
Dude lost me when he started talking about regulating tech companies like utilities.
Phil Cowan - He didn't, he was finding an analog in the "Old School" business world, where one can be encouraged to reduce one's use of a certain resource. As he pointed out, the "regulation" in the Utilities world is generally self-imposed, in order to avoid outside regulation. He never suggested that the government should regulate apps (though he obliquely hinted that it COULD happen, a possibility he didn't spend much time on), only that other industries who have a vested interest in seeing you maximize your use of their product have found ways to create built-in "regulating" measures that reward you for modulating your use of limited resources (in that instance, water, natural gas, etc.). Maybe such talk seems like a Stalking Horse for future government regulation, but I don't see the conversation going that way, and I don't think Harris does, either. Hence, he's exposing the severe degrees of manipulation built into smartphone apps, trying to bring it to the attention of the masses, hoping, I would think, to guilt large App creators (especially Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) into introducing self-regulation into the equation.
8:04 unsolicited anti-Trump tangent.
Everybody has something to say.
Interesting points, but his liberal jesting is off-putting. Pooling resources to combat fake news and cyberbullying is not money well spent.
I'm sorry. Three minutes in and I'm thinking "These people have convinced themselves that their actions have way more significance than they really do." Sounds like a lot of bullshit.
I would suggest listening to more than 3 minutes... it's not bullshit.
It is if you listen to more than 3 minutes. You then become the social proof instead of remaining an independent agent.
Three minutes in and I was thinking "how's about letting the market decide" - and as for kids - "parental reponsibility."
Of course it all started with that Kevin Bacon fella wanting to DANCE
Appreciate your input, but my gut says "nope, this is garbage!" The notion that I can't put down a phone and need someone to decide if their Skinner Box notification design is ethical or not is ridiculous.
Have you ever felt annoyed using an app? Have you ever lost track of time browsing social media? Experiences like those are proof of the effects of user-experience design on people.
Silicon Valley is libertarian, LMAO. Greed and being phoney is not a prerequisite to being a libertarian.
rumco No, but a creepy, Scientology-like belief in modern neofeudalism is certainly a prerequisite.
You hurt my feels.
Boooo!!
So he's suggesting government regulation of the internet? No thanks. Hands off my life.
I have listened to almost all of Rubin interviews and he almost never/never challenges the narrative of the guest, even with his hardcore libertarian guests... but here in this one he challenges the guest (at the very end) to push a libertarian narrative.
Ok... I have argued against it when others have argued it, but my mind has been changed. Rubin is not a liberal, he is not a classical liberal, he is libertarian.
I still like Rubin, but the man is a libertarian. It would be nice if he could just be honest about it and stop with all the classical liberal nonsense.
PS
There is no realistic libertarian solution to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.
I turned off all my notifications
Please interview ShoeOnHead.