HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Propaganda Games: Sesame Credit - The True Danger of Gamification - Extra Credits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

"Panopticon?"

Sesame Credit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

There's an interesting video from Extra Credits about this. It's based on early announcements and repeats some of the popular points, but it addresses the gamification and social pressure side of the issue which I haven't seen discussed that much elsewhere. I recommend watching: https://youtu.be/lHcTKWiZ8sI

China has been working on this for a while, and barring people from transportation is not the scary bit. That's last-century scary. No, it's the emergence of a new sort of ideological warfare making use of the recent knowledge developed in gaming industry that is the scary bit. This is a new kind of threat, something we as humans haven't learned how to deal with.

Here's some analysis from a game designer from 2015: https://youtu.be/lHcTKWiZ8sI

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI) came out almost 3 years ago..

⬐ openasocket

I was about to discuss the same thing! I haven't been able to find other documentation about it, whether it was actually implemented, or if it applies to this kind of restrictions. But that has really stood out in my mind as one of the most outrageously dystopian concepts

I believe much of this can be dealt with, if we start RIGHT NOW to address a serious issue in our systems - the lack of a way to represent Morals and Ethics (the When and the Why) in the systems we are building. This needs to provide important input to, and thus shape the DIKW(D) pyramid.

I've been doing some work with the IEEE on this - and I'm looking here on ycombinator to get some real-world feeedback on what people are thinking and concerned about.

I have some (personal) ideas that might work to address the concerns I'm seeing.

{NOTE Some of this is taken from a previous post I wrote (but kinda missed the thread developing, I was late I don't think anyone read it). It is useful for this thread, so a modification of that post follows.}

First, I think you need a way to define 'ethics' and 'morals', with a 'ontology' and a 'epistemology' to derive a metaphysic for the system (and for my $.02, aesthetics arises from here). Until we can have a bit of rigor surrounding this, it's a challenge to discuss ethics in the context of an AI, and AI in the context of the metaphysical stance it takes towards the world.

This is vital, as we need to define what 'malicious use' IS. This is still an area (as the thread demonstrates) of serious contention.

Take sesame credit (a great primer, and even if you know all about it, it is still great to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI ). Now here is a question for you:

Is it wrong for the government to create a system that uses social pressure, rather than retributive justice or the reactive use of force, to promote social order and a 'better way of life'?

Now, I'm not arguing for this (nor against for the purposes of this missive), but using it as a way to illustrate that different cultures, governmental systems, and societies, may have vastly different perspectives on the idea of a persons relationship viz a viz the state when it comes to something like privacy. I would suggest that transperancy in these decisions is a good idea. But right now we have no way to do that.

I think the current way the industry is working - seemingly hell-bent on developing better, faster, more eficient, et al ways to engineer Epistemic engines and Ontologic frameworks in isolation is the root cause of the problem of malicious use.

Even the analysis of potential threats (from the article referenced 'The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation' - I just skimmed it so I can keep up with this thread, please enlighten me if I'm missing something important) only pays lip service to this idea. In the executive Summary, it says:

'Promoting a culture of responsibility. AI researchers and the organisations that employ them are in a unique position to shape the security landscape of the AI-enabled world. We highlight the importance of education, ethical statements and standards, framings, norms, and expectations.'

However in the 'Areas for Further research' section, I would point out that the questions are at a higher level of abstraction than the other areas, or discuss the narrative and not the problem. This might be due to the authors not having exposure to this area of research and development (such as the IEEE) - but I will concede that the fact that the note about the narrative shows that very few are aware of the work we are doing...

This isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff, it has real-world use in areas other than life or death scenarios. To quickly illustrate - let's take race or gender bias (for example the Google '3 white kids' vs. '3 black kids' issue a while back in 2016). I think this is a metaphysical problem (application of Wisdom to determine correct action) that we mistake for an epistemic issue (it came from 'bad' encoding). This is another spin on kypro's concern about the consequences of AI deployment to enable the construction of a panopticon. This is about WISDOM - making wise choices - not about coding a faster epistemic engine or ontologic classifier.

Next, after we get some rigor surrounding the ethical stances you consider 'good' vs. 'bad' (a vital piece that just isn't being discussed or defined) in the context of a metaphysic - you have to consider 'who' is using the system unethically. If it is the AI itself, then we have a different, but important issue - I'm going with 'you can use the AI to do wrong' as opposed to 'the AI is doing wrong' (for whatever reason, its own motivations, or it agrees with the evil or immoral users goals, perhaps, and acts in concert).

Unless you have clarity here, it becomes extremely easy to befuddle, confuse, or mislead (innocently or not) questions regarding 'who'.

- Who can answer for the 'Scope' or strategic context (CEO, Board of Directors, General Staff, Politburo, etc.)

- Who in 'Organizational Concepts' or 'Planning' (Division Management, Program Management, Field commanders, etc)

- Who in 'Architecture' or 'Schematic' (Project Management, Solution Architecture, Company commanders, etc)

- Who in 'Engineering' or 'Blueprints' (Team Leaders, Chief Engineers, NCO's, etc.)

- Who in 'Tools' or 'Config' (Individual contributors, Programmers, Soldiers, etc.)

that constructed the AI.

Then you need to ask which person, group, or combination (none dare call it conspiracy!) of these actors used the system in an unethical manner? Might 'enabled for use' be culpable as well - and is that a programmer, or an executive, or both?

What I'm getting at here, is that there is both a lack of rigor in such questions (in general in this entire area), a challenge in defining ethical stances in context (which I argue requires a metaphysic), and a lack of clarity in understanding how such systems come to creation ('who' is only one interrogative that needs to be answered, after all).

I would say that until and unless we have some sort of structure and standard to answer these questions, it might be beside the point to even ask...

And not being able to ask leads us to some uncomfortable near-term consequences. If someone does use such a system unethically - can our system of retributive justice determine the particulars of: - where the crimes were committed (jurisdiction) - what went wrong - who to hold accountable - how it was accomplished (in a manner hopefully understandable by lawmakers, government/corporate/organizational leadership, other implementers, and one would think - the victims) - why it could be used this way - when could it happen again

just for starters.

The sum total of ignorance surrounding such a question points to a serious problem in how society overall - and then down to the individuals creating and using such tech - is dealing (or rather, not dealing) with this vital issue.

We need to start talking along these lines in order to stake out the playing field for everyone NOW, so we actually might have time to address these things, before the alien pops right up and runs across the kitchen table.

There was a extra credit episode on that. Yes, that is purest evil. The sort that laughs alone, at night in front of a mirror, because even other evil shuns such company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ None

None

A quick intro to the SCS:

https://youtu.be/lHcTKWiZ8sI

Here is also a good and disturbing look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ touristtam

So it's a gamification of social interaction, meaning that can be gamed (exploited).

Extra Credits made a video about Sesame Credit a couple of years ago. It's 7.5 minutes long, and well worth the watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

Being a game design channel, they discuss Sesame Credit as obedience to the party, gamified.

Beyond that, consider what Tencent are doing with a "social credit score" to compete with Alibaba's Sesame Credit. It will be scary when these systems eventually migrate to or evolve in the US.

Tencent social credit:

* https://qz.com/1049669/chinas-tencent-hkg-0700-is-quietly-te...

Sesame Credit video from Extra Credits (almost a couple years old now, but most easily-engaged piece I've seen on implications of social credit):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

I've seen the "Social Credit System" discussed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

Video describing a similar system (linked to from the wiki page):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

Possibly one of the scariest concepts I've seen in a while.

And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ kronos29296

Well damn. I am happy that I am not there.

Extra Credit's episode about Sesame Credit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

So, where else is there a widespread system of social media scores used to enforce conformity? Right here! The only difference is that there is a greater diversity factions influencing this in the west. From what I've seen, we are all being very effectively conditioned to hate "the other."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

What if we begin to rate citizens as Apps rate users: will someone get blacklisted because he got a bad rating?

This Extra Credits video is about an attempt by the Chinese government to implement this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

This is a good video about the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

When Extra Credits "Propaganda Games" video came out about a year ago[1], I was relived when I read that "Sesame Credit" was a complete fabrication, and even questioned EC for posting such a video without source checking.

Apparently is wasn't completely fabricated after all.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ krick

I several times heard accusations of it being fake, but never once saw any credible source, proving it's fake. So I still don't know where these accusation came from.

⬐ devy

Your logic is backwards. Neither Extra Credit or you cited any credible sources to prove the terrible outcomes of such system claimed in that YouTube video is accurate or true.

Note that I don't totally disagree with Extra Credit in that such credit rating system may potentially be abused by government. However, from this Chinese version of wikipedia page of Sesame Credit[1], it specifically read as those credit rating agencies are independent 3rd party entities. Also in the use cases, it mentions online shopping transactions and dating site records, car rentals but nowhere does it mention social networking sites activities(I mean people don't talk about radical political views in their dating site profiles, do they?) like what Extra Credit claim Sesame Credits will source data from.

[1]: http://baike.baidu.com/view/12108011.htm

⬐ shaobo

It is not fabricated, it just wasn't accurately reported.

Every article I read described it as a government system already implemented and measuring every aspect of your life, when it was actually a scheme created by a private company within their ecosystem and most people used it for showing off.

The government proposed system is still in pilot stage.

https://www.techinasia.com/china-citizen-scores-credit-syste...

⬐ westiseast

Yeah, your answer should be pinned at the top. Most discussions going on here are without a real understanding of what's actually happening.

I have a Sesame credit score. It's pretty low. The whole system seems incredibly creepy though, even without the misreported government political intrusion aspects. I basically have to let a private company know all the details of my education, work and personal life (plus they have my entire purchasing history on Taobao, which covers most aspects of my life), and then they'll give me a score. I totally understand the need for a credit score in the context of giving loans, but the threat is always that this score then gets applied to other arenas as a generalized trustworthiness rating.

Propaganda Games: Sesame Credit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

Relevant extra credits episode: https://youtu.be/lHcTKWiZ8sI

I'd imagine all these pro-privacy guys cheering right now, shouting "we told you where this is going!" if only it wouldn't be so terrifying and not funny at all. First they collect your personal data to show you ads, and people don't mind, because why not? Then they monopolize the market more and more, and basically all your data ends up in their hands, making them know you literally better than yourself do (as you don't normally quantify your life and are not watching over yourself really well). And people don't mind again, because "I have nothing to hide". Then they are officially profiling their clients to use the data for political purposes. First this might be ads, then some more. And people won't mind again, because it's unacceptable for USA citizen not to hate ISIS (but it doesn't really matter what is the most iconic black sheep at the moment). Then (at the moment, actually, but just in China[1] for now) the most used social network is running "citizen loyalty bonus-points" program. And people are accepting still, because it's all so cool and nice and what not.

And even though it might seem terrifying to some, I don't think "the people" will ever actually regret this: the "acceptable norm" will just become narrower and narrower, and everything else will be treated as a criminal offense, a sickness that must be cured.

It makes me think that this is just how life goes, the natural way an organism evolves. But the thought of it makes me feel sick anyway.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ oliv__

That video was scary.

⬐ john_reel

But it’s not real.

⬐ krick

Is it not? There are other sources, e.g. BBC[1], but I haven't seen any trustworthy sources that would state otherwise.

[1] - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

They already are doing this (in China): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

Ads as content isn't that bad of a problem. Consider a review or a show that uses a product for legitimate reasons.

The (far) bigger problem will be using your friends against you[1]. Advertising by making various "credit scores" dependent on your friends using the "right" products will be very hard to counter. I suggest fighting it now.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

All it will take to "imprison the mind" is convincing enough people to use a system that gives positive reinforcement when your friends act "correctly". Normal social behavior will do the rest. China (with Tencent) is already trying this, and Facebook has at least explored this area[2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

[2] https://consumerist.com/2015/08/05/facebook-patent-would-all...

⬐ yarou

That's what memes are, aren't they? A prison for your mind. I'm sure corporations and governments are already researching how to exploit the viral nature of memes. It's inception, except we're awake (arguably). Social consciousness is gone, replaced by tiny "nano"-ideas that spread faster than an Asian woman's legs for a white dude.[0]

[0] http://oktrends.okcupid.com

(Adding the source so dang doesn't accuse me of incivility when my speech reflects reality. I know HN is a no fun allowed zone, but I couldn't resist.)

No, that's not quite how Sesame Credits work in China.[1][2] The system computes a social score for each citizen. But it's not run by the Government or a bank. It's run by Tencent and Alibaba. It tracks what you say online, what you buy, and who your friends are. Having a low-scoring friend brings your score down. New feature: Baihe, China's largest dating service, now uses Sesame Credit scores in matching. It's voluntary now, but will become mandatory in 2020.

This is the successor to the Dang'an, a permanent record kept for each citizen of China since it went Communist. The record was typically maintained in a book by the employer, in conjunction with the Public Security Organization. The Dang'an system became less relevant as more non-state employers appeared. Now it's getting an upgrade.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

⬐ siosonel

Thanks for the clarification. I think by "central bank", the article just meant a non-decentralized currency system.

It's good that you pointed out the possibility for scores to go down in that system, and I assume that would affect the ability of low scoring participants to transact in the system. If that's the case, it makes me doubt the article's strong assertion regarding that example of a reputation currency.

Kind of like what China is trying to do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

I'm sure there are more direct examples, but I watched a video about Sesame Credit recently and it paints a rather dystopian picture of what's possible when you mix surveillance and gamification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

Check out this nightmare of a system China is implementing to use gamification to control populations:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ rubberstamp

Yes, I read about that some time ago. Unfortunately, unless the people stop using that system or actively games it, its a disaster. I bet things will get better in china in 30 years. If the current Chinese form of government was better serving people, there would be no dissent and hence no need to create a surveillance state. Its neither communism or democracy.

⬐ rashkov

Oh, my god. I've read about this before but that link really drove the point home. What a dystopia we're headed for if this works out well for China, and there is every reason to believe that it could. Thanks for sharing that

⬐ JoeAltmaier

Oh its ok for corporations in the USA to do this to control purchasing and marketing. But do it for some actual societal good and suddenly its (more) evil?

I'm of two minds on this one. Gamification works in lots of arenas (from pizza coupons to annual reviews). Why not social/public morals?

⬐ rashkov

I'm not sure how you can watch the parent's youtube link and still compare the two. They are in different leagues altogether, in my opinion, so I'm finding it hard to relate to your comment. I think it's also pretty hard to define "social/public morals" in a way that is agreeable to most people. Would not linking to tiananmen square, or discussing China's stock market slide be a public good? Are you really comfortable with that kind of censorship?

⬐ JoeAltmaier

Remember people are not mindless drones. These games are there to let you know how you're expected to behave (like tax incentives, street signs etc). This is different, sure. But not unprecedented.

⬐ rashkov

What's different, however, is the level of coordinated surveillance that enables this scheme, as well as the centralized power of coercion that the state yields. Ad-tech companies, financials, silicon valley data silos, surveillance bodies, and most importantly the government are not legally able to coordinate on a level that would allow let them baldly track your purchasing history, your social media presence, as well as your private communications and then assign you an aggregate score! Besides the legal separation issues, their interests aren't nearly as aligned with each other as in the case of China so there are some checks and balances. Then to take that aggregate score and further coerce you by making loans scarce or jobs unavailable is a whole other level. What we're talking about is a totalitarian system of control over the population. Tweaked and targeted on an extremely personal level, and leveraging social pressure and shame. Say what you will about the malevolence of the US government and our capitalistic system but it is simply incapable of this scale of totalitarianism.

⬐ samstave

100% 1984 on steroids!

It's nuts - and this is what people should revolt against.

Fight club was a documentary :-)

⬐ JoeAltmaier

Wonderful and scary. Inevitable I suppose.

⬐ thomasthomas

for historical reference, this reminded me of east germany http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/stasi-snitches-all-around-recor...

There is a huge difference between a "private" rating system and a public rating that uses your friends against you as manipulation. See Extra Credit's description[1] of how this works.

We aren't there yet, but consider that Facebook wants to use your social network associations in your credit score[2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/facebo...

⬐ arethuza

Thanks - that is a really good video - I had heard about that scheme but I hadn't thought about the implications for an entire society of using gamification in that way.

⬐ krick

Jesus. If that first video is true, then that's what should be top-upvoted submission on HN. Why isn't it better known? I mean, at least I personally never heard about it and I might be not the most informed person on the Internet, but certainly I'm not the least. And this is much more important thing to know than… well, everything I usually hear on the news.

I don't get often surprised by all that dystopian stuff, because I assume we already are quite fucked, but this one did surprise me. That's just crazy.

⬐ joveian

It looks like it is starting to get some attention at least. Here is HN discussion of the article that seems possibly the primary source for the video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10329733

It sounds like the system does not currently use politics and such, but the government would like to combine it with the existing citizen tracking system which is employer based.

And a BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

I think the US system is fairly insidious as well and has more government influence than it might seem (look into "redlining" for instance and the role the government played). Creditors can know quite a bit about your private life (particularly if you significantly outside the mainstream) and I don't think it is that uncommon for individuals to share credit scores. In any case, I think it is worth considering how "social trust systems" work everywhere and not just in the worst imagininable case. It is harder to think about in the less obviously centralized cases.

⬐ pdkl95

That video has been submitted numerous times, but it never got any attention.

To be clear, I believe there is some disagreement as if this is one or multiple programs in China, but that doesn't really matter; we need to defend against the establishment of this kind of program regardless.

The trick where positive reinforcement is used to trick people into wanting to participate is utterly terrifying... because it will work. It's obvious that it will work, because it is effectively the weaponization of "high school clique"-style tribalism and carefully re-framed self interest.

⬐ guscost

For some perspective, the weaponization of cliques and "othering" is very old, and it has worked for just as long. We call it politics.

But a state sponsored gamified social network where the incentives are all designed by the ruling class, and the penalties have the force of law, is pretty darn awful.

Hopefully the affected citizens prove to be as unpredictable and hard to control as others have in the past, because that's really their only hope.

> It smacks of a solution in desperate need of a problem

That's because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. This kind of junk makes sense when the problem is "how can we trick people into giving over their personal data".

It doesn't have to actually work (that is, save energy or offer some significant convenience) as long as it lets you generate a database of when people spend time in their home. It's telling that insurance companies are already mentioned - as if that was a good thing.

Aral Balkan's observation[1] that a lot of modern business plans are based on surveillance ("it's about the data"), Al Jazeera recent investigation[2] of this power grab is surprisingly detailed.

> that cannot be allowed to be a thing

I completely agree. I only hope this can be fought before we end up with one of the nastier end-games[3].

[1] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAL1lVvJxew

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ DKnol

From http://www.alibabagroup.com/en/news/article?news=p150128

Sesame Scores are indications of the users’ creditworthiness, which range from 350 to 950 points. Users will be able to check their Sesame Scores both in the Alipay Wallet mobile app and through merchant websites that accept Sesame Credit services. The higher the scores, the lower chance the user may default. The scores are calculated using five different factors, each with different weightings that can vary according to individual profiles:

Credit History reflects a user’s past payment history and indebtedness, for example credit card repayment and utility bill payments.

Behavior and Preference reveals a user’s online behavior on the websites they visit, the product categories they shop, etc.

Fulfillment Capacity shows a user’s ability to fulfill his/her contract obligations. Indicators include use of financial products and services and Alipay account balances.

Personal Characteristics examine the extent and accuracy of personal information, for example home address and length of time of residence, mobile phone numbers, etc.

Interpersonal Relationships reflect the online characteristics of a user’s friends and the interactions between the user and his/her friends

From another forum: "TL:DR China will make this manditory in 2020 where they follow your social networking, give you a score, and give you benefits for being more in line with their ideals. Having friends with low scores will lower your score, and they tell you what everyone score is. Ostracizing people who do not agree with the government."

⬐ krapp

Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10746110

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10782703

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10750789

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10757548

Strangely, for a story which appears to intersect with several of Hacker News' interests, almost no one seems to be interested...

⬐ aspirin

This is so horrible that I'm left speechless. Maybe others feel the same and skip to the next headline.

⬐ DKnol

Two types of people read this post on HN:

1) Things like this couldn't possibly happen in the US, crazy Communists!

2) This development doesn't surprise me, and if I comment with thoughts on this story just for them to be downplayed by those in group #1, I may just finally end myself.

⬐ None

None

⬐ dragonwriter

I suspect part of the problem may be it keeps getting submitted as a youtube link; It may be the case that people are loathe to follow video links without a clearer indication of what they are getting. (I know I personally am, both because I often use HN in a place where I don't want to use video -- or, more to the point, audio -- and also because I find video presentation to be generally more time investment for value than text; unless there is a compelling pitch, I'm loathe to check out video.)

I googled "Sesame Credit" and found and submitted a related story from a text source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10804494

> anti-free-basics mindset

Ahh, the usual attempt to create factions.

> Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere.

The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. Yes, other providers already exist (removing any need for "free basics"), which is why Facebook is abusing their position as a social network to manipulate people into supporting their plan.

They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.

> And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics.

If you read any of the other threads on this topic, you will find examples Facebook's tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". That is their existing power as a social gatekeeper. The entire point of this new plan is to extend their gatekeeper position into one of the largest untapped markets on the planet.

Without even considering how this position would allow Facebook to monopolize the market, their power as a gatekeeper to monitor social interaction (why do you think they MitM encryption?) and manipulate public opinion is so powerful it should be seen as a threat to national sovereignty. You probably think this is hyperbole, but I'm deadly serious. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the end game of this power to use friends against each other already exists in China under the name Sesame Credit. I recommend watching this short video[1] about it by Extra Credits. Their perspective as game designers about how people can be manipulated with the mechanics of a platform is key to understanding how these new powers work.

> anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.

(minor suggestion: it's customary to note when you edit a post)

It only looks sloppy if you only focus on the narrow framing Facebook is pushing in their propaganda. If you consider the last few hundred years of history and the recent-ish trends in political and social power, Facebook's power grab is obvious.

One of the problems with your analysis, I suspect, is that you seem to be assuming that some sort of market solution will sort itself out. This is an obvious fallacy: "the market will fix things" is not a law of nature, people are not in any way "rational" in the way economists use the term ("homo economicus" doesn't exist), and the very idea of a market only works if-and-only-if consumers have accurate information, which is exactly what Facebook is manipulating.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ fwn

I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!) There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN.

Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case.

> The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access.

I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread." It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing.

While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is "Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan."

"Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don't like."

Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship?

"They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.'

Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism.

> [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics".

Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work.

Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them.

You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the "but there's no perfect information" memes.

⬐ pdkl95

> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political.

Of course they are. Everything is political, because everything affects people. The idea that some people have that technology (or anything else) is somehow not political is extremely naive.

The point of my comment was that you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic instead of discussing the subject matter itself. Your new reply does a lot of the same.

> reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it?

Obviously. Are you suggesting that any critique must be made in the framing Facebook has been setting with their propaganda? Facebook gets to control the stage?

> Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button

Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.

Did you miss Facebook's scandalous "emotional contagion" experiment? Or the various other stories about how they manipulate what people see? As usual, Facebook likes to fall back on calling these tactics "an accident" when they are caught.

> size-based exceptionalism

WTF are you talking about?

Why are you inventing a straw-man big-vs-small argument while ignoring that they are a gatekeeper with the power to monitor and manipulate social interaction.

> You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists.

Nope. That was 100% based on your suggestions that the market would sort this out.

⬐ fwn

> Everything is political, because everything affects people.

You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider "extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies.

> [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...]

Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic.

People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it.

All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides.

Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular.

> Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.

Right.. https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png

> [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out.

You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument, because I think you are mistaking our debate with another.

> > size-based exceptionalism > WTF are you talking about?

If you could elaborate on what you weren't able to grasp I'd have the opportunity to explain it further. :)

⬐ pdkl95

> Right

If you want to deny reality, that's your business. See the other HN thread for a couple examples.

> elaborate

I'll just point out that this is yet another reply where you have talked about everything except the point about Facebook's power to manipulate people. I have better things to do than be pulled into increasingly off-topic, delusional nonsense.

⬐ dang

Your comments in this thread ("Ahh, the usual attempt to", "WTF are you talking about", and here) break the HN guidelines. Please don't be uncivil, regardless of how wrong you think someone is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

⬐ pdkl95

My apologies. I didn't intend for those to be uncivil, but as a nerd, I know I can misjudge these things.

I'll try to be more careful in the future.

⬐ dang

Thank you. We're all figuring this out together.

> convince you that all your friends are supporting their proposals

This is a serious problem, because China already showed us the end game of this tactic with Sesame Credit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

⬐ None

None

⬐ ePierre

Can anyone based in China provide more information on this? Is there such a system? Is it working as explained in the video?

⬐ gypsy_boots

And for those interested, an article on the subject: http://theantimedia.org/china-just-launched-the-most-frighte...