[libertine]

> They ("techno lords") can nudge our feeds however they want and manipulate. We wouldn’t know.

But there's a detail here that its hard to answer, or at least for some platforms. Given the complexity of some of these algorithms, do the techno lords have that sort of control of deliberate control, or it's just the uncontrolled optimization for a given outcome?

I'm not saying that reality is better, it might be even worse to know that no one is at the wheel.

> Technofeudalism has smashed the veil between refuge from markets (usually when you got home, you were home, but now you are on your phone); and one such market is the market of “self-discovery”. You need an identity online today, or you basically don’t exist. But what happens then is: you have to think before you post about “who could read this?” What does that entail?

I think that's a tremendous insight to be put forward, especially because we know this and yet the vast majority of people still act it out. Some time ago I saw an interview with Slavoj Zizek where he went deep into this phenomenon with the example of Santa Claus: Parents know it is a lie, yet they act it out to their children who at some point know it's a lie but still act it out not to disappoint their parents and keep that illusion, and this goes on for generations.

This is the exact same thing as this culture of self-discovery/acceptance, everyone preaches it, but end up boiling everything down to their best moments and highlights. It's a collective lie that everyone plays with, and I don't know if there's a clear purpose to it other than to sustain itself.

[greg_V]

The first point is referred to as "criti-hype", when you criticize a thing by claiming it has almost magical powers, which is exactly what the owner would want people to think as they can charge more money for their magical services.

Similar to how the AI apocalypse-talk is hyping up the valuation of OpenAI.

At any rate, if we simplify the question it would sound something like: are the tech giants, notably social media and 24/7 smartphones with internet more efficient at influencing people than say, television or radio or the cinema was?

And the answer would be... kinda? But it's not specific to any of those platforms, rather the way the human brain is influenced when it's constantly in a crowd of their peers, so to speak. Likes, follower counts, reshares, endless feeds etc. are the innovations (over television and radio) that tap into our awareness and turn us hypersensitize. The algorithms are just there to keep hitting the nerves to keep us in that state.

In that sense, the odd feeling of constantly being online is more real than Santa Claus, and no matter how conscious someone is about how everyone is curating their very best, the images effect us all the same.

[fluffet]

> But there's a detail here that its hard to answer, or at least for some platforms. Given the complexity of some of these algorithms, do the techno lords have that sort of control of deliberate control, or it's just the uncontrolled optimization for a given outcome?

I think in this context, the main principle (if I recall correctly) was that when we go on Amazon, we actually exit capitalism and the "free markets". You don't see the same Amazon "store window" that I do -- I will have a very different "for you" - tab. Maybe not even the same prices -- it would be hard to know. Capitalism kinda works best when the market is free and open.

I guess it's the same with my YouTube feed - I've actually picked up some hobbies and recipes and stuff from there which would never have been on my radar if I wasn't "nudged". In this case, it's probably not with intent other than engagement, and it's worked out positively, but you know, maybe my political opinions or vote could also be nudged, so the dark side here is very relevant if it was made with intent.

> This is the exact same thing as this culture of self-discovery/acceptance, everyone preaches it, but end up boiling everything down to their best moments and highlights. It's a collective lie that everyone plays with, and I don't know if there's a clear purpose to it other than to sustain itself.

I'm with you 100%.

Another anecdotal insight: the people I know with massive online followings care so much about their metrics to the point that it steers their content entirely. "I can't post this because it wouldn't align with my followers".

Strange times we live in ^^

[tmcb]

Not OP, but

> But there's a detail here that its hard to answer, or at least for some platforms. Given the complexity of some of these algorithms, do the techno lords have that sort of control of deliberate control, or it's just the uncontrolled optimization for a given outcome?

I think it doesn't matter, and we should be concerned with the outcomes instead. "Control" may be used as a metaphor here, just as OP's point is a synecdoche. They have the inherent goal of making shareholders happy (in the cases where it does apply), and maintaining domination over their respective markets; and they have enough resources for that.

If the usual faces (Bezos, Cook, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.) are the ones making the hard decisions is unimportant, and it is even dangerous to go down this path. This is how conspiracy theorists start f**ing up everything.

[selfmodruntime]

> But there's a detail here that its hard to answer, or at least for some platforms. Given the complexity of some of these algorithms, do the techno lords have that sort of control of deliberate control, or it's just the uncontrolled optimization for a given outcome?

Given that most giant tech-platforms heavily conform to and moderate with a target of left-leaning values, I'd wager that deliberate control does exist.

[RUnconcerned]

> Given that most giant tech-platforms heavily conform to and moderate with a target of left-leaning values, I'd wager that deliberate control does exist.

You and I must have a fundamentally different definition of "left-leaning values".

[selfmodruntime]

> You and I must have a fundamentally different definition of "left-leaning values".

I'm sorry, but DEI committees, forced minority hiring, and continued suppression of right-of-center opinions say different.

I have worked at fortune 500 companies. I have seen their intercompany minority groups. When asked to join, I plainly said that as a typical white guy, there was no group representing me, whatever that even means. You could almost hear the coin fall, but not quite.

You can also look at Ex-Twitter or Reddit for examples of otherthink suppression. The largest German subforum was recently banned because of their immigration-critical (not even anti-immigration) stance.

I'm not even a conservative. It's just that I'm aware of my bubble's inherent bias and that I do not support the progressive-typical suppression of differing opinions in the name of any -isms. Being openly racist is different from criticizing religion or political decisions.

The only reason you don't see techcorps as left-leaning is because you misunderstand the principle of radical capitalism as being inherently conservative.

[tmcb]

Private companies' adoption of affirmative actions is not enforced by law in most countries, I would say. In the U.S., only government contractors have this obligation---since 1965 by the way, so it is not a new thing.

So, companies may opt for it but, as other management decisions, owners are free to do with their company as they like. Of course they will might face backlash from the general public, but this should not be an issue.

So, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?

[red-iron-pine]

you're confusing what the company does internally, and what the algorithm does for customers.

cuz for all of the FAANG DEI drama -- entirely overblown, at that; doubly so since many got laid off in 2022-23 -- their algorithms sure are good at getting gamed by right wing actors. they're willing to pay for advertisements, and that's what they run.

[gremlinunderway]

This is such nonsense because you're claiming that these companies are actively imposing these activities in support of "left-leaning values" when there is absolutely nothing genuine with their support for those initiatives.

Companies don't push hamfisted DEI committees and diversity program because there's a leftwing bias, they push it because its good for marketing to have even just the thinnest veneer of supporting these movements (because outside of marketing, they are in fact popular. Having more diversity is a popular stance and has nothing to do with "left-leaning" values if you're actually using the left-right wing spectrum in any meaningful sense to describe a range of Marxism/socialism to capitalism/libertarianism. "Diversity" isn't a core part of either of these wings.

Companies don't practice anything from an ideology that isn't rooted in one simple factor: profit motives and advertising. All the various "*washing" phenomonens are just facsimiles to cover over the rampant racism, sexism and horrible products fo rthe environment. Pretending these are genuine ideologies is completely silly.

[mlrtime]

You are not wrong but will be downvoted on HN which is ironic given the subject.

Perhaps "left leaning" will be scrutinized but it is a spectrum and definitely left of center.

Even me writing this comment may have some risk as postulated by the OPs quote.