[disown]

> He refined it to, (rough quote), "Changes to your behavior and actions are the product"

That's true of all media. Doesn't matter if you pay for it or not. Even netflix. Even this post.

What is the "documentary" trying to achieve? Change behavior.

Who is behind the social media campaign?

"Ask HN: What do you think about “The Social Dilemma”?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24468533

> That distinction made the insidiousness much more clear than the former statement.

Just as insidious are "documentaries". They are just as sneaky and agenda driven as facebook algorithms.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary.

What is Instagram? Is it a tool for sharing photos, or is a social engineering experiment intended to increase competitive anxiety and narcissism?

What is Facebook? Is it a way to stay in touch with friends and family, or is it a social engineering experiment designed to promote "engagement" through ever-increasing political and emotional extremism?

If I want to make a documentary I can use the camera in my cellphone and maybe a cheap lapel microphone, buy some cheap studio lights, and edit it with cheap software. The research would be harder to buy, but still not impossible for someone with good basic journalism skills.

If it's not defamatory I can post it on YouTube. If it's solid journalism with an original and interesting angle there's even a fair chance I'll be able to sell it a media network.

If I want to create my own global social network - that's a slightly more challenging project.

[disown]

> Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary.

Except that the masses believe "documentaries" = truth. I know I did when I was younger. No documentary claims to be "agenda ridden 'movie' from biased individuals funded by even more biased individuals".

> If it's not defamatory I can post it on YouTube. If it's solid journalism with an original and interesting angle there's even a fair chance I'll be able to sell it a media network.

Except that you still depend on social media. You depend on youtube or netflix to give you preferential treatment.

> If I want to create my own global social network - that's a slightly more challenging project.

It's also challenging to get the money, not only produce the film, but get netflix to it special treatment and of course buy the "ad" push we see on social media ( ironically enough ).

"The Social Dilemma" isn't just a "documentary". It's a part of a well funded propaganda campaign. There is obviously political and financial backing for this behind the scenes. Not that I'm against the sentiment because social media monopolies or any monopolies are a threat to society. And I also include netflix as a monopoly threat.

[Sebb767]

> Documentaries are made a clear statement of narrative intent. You can disagree with the positioning, but a documentary never pretends to be something other than a documentary.

But you could describe this as propaganda with anti social media agenda. I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but this argument can easily be flipped and feels a bit like going no true Scotsman [0] since there very much are documentations (as listed) with doubtful or undefined intent.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[burkaman]

> What is the "documentary" trying to achieve? Change behavior.

But will the filmmakers profit if they succeed? They don't make any money by successfully changing your mind.

[adnzzzzZ]

You can profit in more ways than just with money. For instance, you can gain status in your sphere by successfully changing people's minds with your documentary, and I would assume that's partly what motivates people working on these projects.

[colinmhayes]

Well yea they will make money if they succeed because that means they made a good documentary and will be paid to make more.

[jolux]

Well, we typically consider films to have intrinsic value that scam ads for boner pills and clickjacking attacks don't.

[YarickR2]

Exactly. Exactly. So many of those are thinly veiled lies in disguise ; and when creators are being pointed to inaccuracies, their response is "we shot this not to accurately convey the sequence of events, but to raise awareness and to start public debate". Obviously, no debate is started, because general public likes to consume, not to analyze what is being consumed. Sorry for the rant, I'm fed up with documentaries being mocumentaries