I don't think we should expect Facebook to change. We need better tools that allow people to stay away from it (and other such distractions in future). We need tools that help people understand how to manage their internet time better. They need to understand what kind of emotional costs (which will vary a lot) are associated with extended FB usage. And such tools will ideally be browser addons.
Imagine a browser that I can configure based on my weekly goals. There are domains I want to avoid. There are domains where I most want to be (for that week). And some neutral domains like search engines. Maybe assign weights to these. Then over the week, browser reminds or guides us towards most productive behaviors. If our behavior is inconsistent with our initial goals, it assigns heavier penalties (like block domain for a week) for those negative domains.
There are many interesting implications once someone starts thinking about some of these options. But at this point, I don't see exciting innovation on this.
Though I do find your intent admirable, I think that it's misplaced - the reason there's no innovation on this front is because these sorts of time management tools are entirely dependent on the self-control of the persons they are targeted for, self-control issues being the reason they're glued to Facebook in the first place.
While such a time management tool may benefit a small few, the majority of people at a computer just don't seem to care too much - heck, even today many users need to be compelled to install an adblocker and to keep their software up to date -- imagine trying to convince that user base to also restrict their ability to go places online voluntarily.
Change has to come from within as an actual want - you have to want to be running every day to lose weight, you have to want to practice every day to learn an instrument or a language, and the type of change you're discussing has to come from an internal want to actually disassociate from Facebook and its ilk. Right now it's not so much that people don't want Facebook so much as they're not sure what else to do - the centralization of the web into a few major hub websites has left a lot of people completely lost as to what being online can actually do for you. You can see this effect all over the place - just watch how many people will upvote a "betterment" thread on reddit or imgur filled with free learning links, but never actually take the time to follow through on these threads. The few that do are the exception, not the rule.
As great as it would be if we all learned a bit more self control, mindlessly browsing Facebook is the new "TV on in the background" and has been for awhile.
First of all, separate app isn't the same.
Secondly, it just gives reports. That's a passive action. The "guide towards more productive behavior" part of my comment meant that actively tries to stop you from negative domains or push you towards better domains.
Are you refering to things like change.org? I am not sure what's the success rate of those models but on the surface they seem quite ineffective to bring any substantial change.
I meant something more tangible. A way to assess issues, classify, organize, root them in the economical context and try to find a better organization to resolve tensions.
The problem is that for any such systems to operate, you need experts. If you democratize too much, you end up risking with ignorant and inefficient long term solutions (like Trump). And with experts, there will always be some scope of corruption. Unless we are talking AI experts that are similar to IBM's Watson.
Very good point. I was hoping for a middle ground where people would reach a better understanding and solve their issues by communicating. But maybe that's unnatural and just a pipe dream.
I haven't read the full article yet but this reminds me of a study last year "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" which was published in the journal Judgment & Decision Making and was a fun read[1].
I will post the conclusion here which is rather funny:
> Bullshit is a consequential aspect of the human condition. Indeed, with the rise of communication technology, people are likely encountering more bullshit in their everyday lives than ever before. Profundity ratings for statements containing a random collection of buzzwords were very strongly correlated with a selective collection of actual “Tweets” from Deepak Chopra’s “Twitter” feed (r’s = .88–89). At the time of this writing, Chopra has over 2.5 million followers on “Twitter” and has written more than twenty New York Times bestsellers. Bullshit is not only common; it is popular.3 Chopra is, of course, just one example among many. Using vagueness or ambiguity to mask a lack of meaningfulness is surely common in political rhetoric, marketing, and even academia (Sokal, 2008). Indeed, as intimated by Frankfurt (2005), bullshitting is something that we likely all engage in to some degree (p. 1): “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share.” One benefit of gaining a better understanding of how we reject other’s bullshit is that it may teach us to be more cognizant of our own bullshit.
The construction of a reliable index of bullshit receptivity is an important first step toward gaining a better understanding of the underlying cognitive and social mechanisms that determine if and when bullshit is detected. Our bullshit receptivity scale was associated with a relatively wide range of important psychological factors. This is a valuable first step toward gaining a better understanding of the psychology of bullshit.
Why doesn't youtube show future frames when you scroll over a video's thumbnail? This feature has existed on many porn sites for quite some time yet youtube lacks it for some reason. Or is there a way to change this in settings?
Perhaps they expect one good keyframe to draw your attention, then the title to help you decide whether to watch. I suspect most YouTube watchers are not in it for the aesthetics, but rather for the content, so a title like "Jelly Bean Factory Tour" can be quite sufficient vs. something like "Amazing amateur video." Your interest in jelly bean factories is probably not predicated on whether the presenter is hot, or whether the beans are a certain color.
Without being involved in the industry I would imagine this is a case of supply and demand.
There are plenty of people willing to be a presenter for the amount they are willing to pay. So they get to be more selective - attractiveness is one of the most obvious things to select further on.
They could pay less. Then they'd have less attractiveness in the presenter, which hypothetically doesn't matter, and more money, which we know matters. They don't seem to want to do that.
No. The skillset for being a presenter is a subset of other skills used in business. They have to remain competitive other wise people won't work for them - there is a price floor.
Imagine a browser that I can configure based on my weekly goals. There are domains I want to avoid. There are domains where I most want to be (for that week). And some neutral domains like search engines. Maybe assign weights to these. Then over the week, browser reminds or guides us towards most productive behaviors. If our behavior is inconsistent with our initial goals, it assigns heavier penalties (like block domain for a week) for those negative domains.
There are many interesting implications once someone starts thinking about some of these options. But at this point, I don't see exciting innovation on this.