> But this also makes them the most effective people to talk about it.
Nope nope nope. While tech people might have some insight into how some of the tech works, they're still lost in how to both define the problem [1] and describe how these technologies may shape society [2]. Nothing in their professional or personal experience has adequately prepared them to answer these questions.
The thing tech people can do now is listen carefully to people who study and understand the many areas tech touches in society, and work with them on solutions that are well-vetted and considered. Tech people need to open their minds and use their power to give voice to those who can more clearly see and explain what's wrong [3].
> I believe him that he didn't for-see it would someday cause a rise in suicides among young women. How could anyone?
There were, in fact, people who could have predicted this. They study things like... teens and mental health. Not things people in tech tend to study. Lets not assume what we don't know must not be known.
We got into this mess because of hubris. That same hubris will not get us out of it.
[1] you will note they struggled with this part in the documentary.
[2] beyond facile doom and gloom.
[3] Center for Humane Tech's podcast has some good interviews with experts, but those voices were largely absent in this doc, and the response I see to this doc still largely falls in the camp of 'techies should evangelize/solve it', which is what I'm responding to here.
The Center for Humane Tech's founders, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, were the main people interviewed. You can't say they don't know what they're talking about, and then cite their organization.
I think it means a lot coming from people who created the technology. Maybe not to me or you, but it definitely does to non-tech people.
It's like how a thousand people can say K-Cups are bad for the environment, but it's way more shareable that the creator regrets it.
Oh I agree that the story 'I made it and I regret it' is catchy and very useful to add to the conversation. It's a 'man bites dog' type of headline in that it gets the general audience to pay attention. It's valuable to have that perspective.
I like Tristan and Aza and CHT and think they're smart, well-meaning people who are doing their best, and I value what they bring. I especially like their focus on trying to explain some complex stuff in terms and ideas that are simple enough for people to grasp. I'd love to see more well-vetted solutions from them; screen time was a valuable concept they advocated for.
As far as whether tech people are the most effective people to talk about the problems they created, I don't agree. I'd prefer someone who has expertise in the implications of technologies, who can root what is happening in social dynamics, human psychology, etc. Someone whose voice in those areas is highly respected, not someone who read a few articles or a book and then translated it. We need more of a Carl Sagan of sociology/psychology/history who can integrate and explain these things.
Any sufficiently complex topic and area of power needs checks and balances, people with different perspectives and backgrounds who help define the boundaries for discussion and consideration. My concern is we're always hearing from tech people; by default they have a seat at the table because they're in the seat of power in this domain. Their voices need no further elevation nor does their lack of expertise in relevant fields warrant it. We need their counterbalance.
> As far as whether tech people are the most effective people to talk about the problems they created, I don't agree. I'd prefer someone who has expertise in the implications of technologies, who can root what is happening in social dynamics, human psychology, etc. Someone whose voice in those areas is highly respected, not someone who read a few articles or a book and then translated it. We need more of a Carl Sagan of sociology/psychology/history who can integrate and explain these things.
Until you or someone else that fits this personal preference of yours, I guess the problem is that we don't have a lot of choices in terms of interesting, enlightening, clear, and coherent documentaries that describe this problem.
So, yes, you may be right that someone else could describe this situation differently ... but absent that actually existing, this is (in my opinion) a pretty fine documentary, even if some of the talking heads are / were 'tech people'
I'd love to give you a long list but I don't have it - I just know what I don't know. I'm actively looking for more sources as I'm interested in working in this area, given its societal importance.
Not sure if she explicitly wrote about likes = teen suicide, but I'm sure danah boyd would have had something to say about it, given her research focus on the intersection of social tech and teens lives.
She was already well respected at that time and known to my team when I worked in Yahoo's online communities division in 2006 and went to her talks.
The relationship between suicide & social status has been well known for decades. It therefore would not have been a leap for someone in the know to conclude that a tool that conferred social status or approval (such as a like button, a list of friends, etc) would therefore have these social implications.
Nope nope nope. While tech people might have some insight into how some of the tech works, they're still lost in how to both define the problem [1] and describe how these technologies may shape society [2]. Nothing in their professional or personal experience has adequately prepared them to answer these questions.
The thing tech people can do now is listen carefully to people who study and understand the many areas tech touches in society, and work with them on solutions that are well-vetted and considered. Tech people need to open their minds and use their power to give voice to those who can more clearly see and explain what's wrong [3].
> I believe him that he didn't for-see it would someday cause a rise in suicides among young women. How could anyone?
There were, in fact, people who could have predicted this. They study things like... teens and mental health. Not things people in tech tend to study. Lets not assume what we don't know must not be known.
We got into this mess because of hubris. That same hubris will not get us out of it.
[1] you will note they struggled with this part in the documentary.
[2] beyond facile doom and gloom.
[3] Center for Humane Tech's podcast has some good interviews with experts, but those voices were largely absent in this doc, and the response I see to this doc still largely falls in the camp of 'techies should evangelize/solve it', which is what I'm responding to here.