Netflix's documentary "social dilemma" truly uncovered the mystery of technology (Internet) companies, allowing us to see the vulnerability of individuals in the face of a complete set of system technologies and profit goals. This kind of fragility has a pure power contrast, but compared with the impact of technological change in history, this round of science and technology has unprecedented ability to use human nature weaknesses to help the operators behind them, and even those behind the operators complete their tasks. Purpose.
In this documentary, several early employees and important members of Silicon Valley technology companies expressed this point of view one after another: "Technology was for a better goal at the beginning, but it changed as we walked. We didn't expect it to be. In this way.” Indeed, Google’s information, Facebook’s connection with friends and relatives, and even Meituan’s takeaway courier were all at the beginning to meet people’s normal needs and make life better. When did it start to get worse?
In these Internet companies, all things goals are ultimately divided into three categories: engagement, growth, and monetization. Let users stay as long as possible, let as many users join as possible, and make as much money as possible from them. Going one step further, this is actually making the most money for a long time from as many people as possible, a typical state of capitalism.
But can capitalism be blamed for this? The logic of capitalism is so powerful and mature that the operation of modern society is inseparable from it. Instead of starting with ideology to solve problems, it is better to drop one rank and try from the social, political, technological, and institutional levels.
Making money is actually a neutral thing in nature, and the purpose itself is not sinful or harmful to people. At present, the business model has only found the easiest way to make money, inciting people's emotions and instincts to get more attention, and finally turning into making money. But is there no other choice than to incite emotions? This is indeed the most convenient way, but if you replace it with something better and a little more complicated, can you keep making money, but at the same time reduce the harm to society and individuals?
For example, dating software. Using dating software, it is easy for people to pay attention to indicators like how many people they like and how many matches, but are these indicators really what people need most? Behind how many people like and match is an empty influence and power. In contrast, I think what most people want most on dating apps is to socialize with real people, whether it's making friends, emotions, or sex. Quality is more important than quantity. However, most dating software focuses on how to match people, and it doesn't matter if the match arrives (or doesn't match). Just like happily ever after in a love story after marriage, but real life is not like this. Products should help people better understand and cope with real life.
As a marketing analyst, my daily job is to calculate the likelihood of users buying goods, select users who are more likely to buy, and push emails and information to them. When I was working on a project, I looked at tens of millions of users and treated them as numbers, and calculated how much sales and purchase rates would increase. I never thought that behind each of these numbers is a real family reality. People.
In order to change this situation, it is of course possible to use external restrictions, such as government legislation. But is there a way for companies to find other beneficial and more rational indicators to include in the assessment criteria? Or change the business model of advertising so that companies can clearly support advertising and link their names with social responsibilities? This requires many improvements. Just like the recent discussion about takeaway riders, algorithms are only an intermediate medium, a thought transmission medium for investors, consumers, and operators. To solve the problem, the research and efforts of all sectors of society are needed.
I am now trying to make an online debate/discussion app and plug-in with two friends, hoping to improve the comment environment on the Internet, by displaying the pros and cons of a topic under the content at the same time, reducing harmful speech and enhancing The display of information sources is to reduce false information. Engagement is stratified according to the complexity and participation of the comments made by members to improve the online discussion experience and make it more rational and comprehensive.
If you think of any related solutions, or related topics, welcome to discuss.
View more about The Social Dilemma reviews
