| ▲ | vintermann a day ago |
| People hate being manipulated. If you feel like you're being manipulated but you don't know by who or precisely what they want of you, then there's something of an instinct to get angry and lash out in unpredictable destructive ways. If nobody gets what they want, then at least the manipulators will regret messing with you. This is why social control won't work for long, no matter if AI supercharges it. We're already seeing the blowback from decades of advertising and public opinion shaping. |
|
| ▲ | wiz21c a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| People don't know they are being manipulated. Marketing does that all of the time and nobody complain. They complain about "too much advert" but not about "too much manipulation". Example: in my country we often hear "it costs too much to repair, just buy a replacement". That's often not true, but we do pay. Mobile phone subscription are routinely screwing you, many complain but keep buying. Or you hear "it's because of immigration" and many just accept it, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent [-] | | > People don't know they are being manipulated. You can see other people falling for manipulation in a handful of specific ways that you aren't (buying new, having a bad cell phone subscription, blaming immigrants). Doesn't it seem likely then, that you're being manipulated in ways which are equally obvious to others?We realize that, that's part of why we get mad. | | |
| ▲ | intended a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No. This is a form of lazy thinking, because it assumes everyone is equally affected. This is not what we see in reality, and several sections of the population are more prone to being converted by manipulation efforts. Worse, these sections have been under coordinated manipulation since the 60s-70s. That said, the scope and scale of the effort required to achieve this is not small, and requires dedicated effort to keep pushing narratives and owning media power. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is a form of lazy thinking, because it assumes everyone is equally affected. This is not what we see in reality, and several sections of the population are more prone to being converted by manipulation efforts. Making matters worse, one of the sub groups thinks they're above being manipulated, even though they're still being manipulated. It started by confidently asserting over use of em dashes indicates the presence of AI, so they think they're smart by abandoning the use of em dashes. That is altered behavior in service to AI. A more recent trend with more destructive power: avoiding the use of "It's not X. It's Y." since AI has latched onto that pattern. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45529020 This will pressure real humans to not use the format that's normally used to fight against a previous form of coercion. A tactic of capital interests has been to get people arguing about the wrong question concerning ImportantIssueX in order to distract from the underlying issue. The way to call this out used to be to point out that, "it's not X1 we should be arguing about, but X2." This makes it harder to call out BS. That sure is convenient for capital interests (whether it was intentional or not), and the sky is the limit for engineering more of this kind of societal control by just tweaking an algo somewhere. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I find “it’s not X, it’s Y” to be a pretty annoying rhetorical phrase. I might even agree with the person that Y is fundamentally more important, but we’re talking about X already. Let’s say what we have to say about X before moving on to Y. Constantly changing the topic to something more important produces conversations that get broader, with higher partisan lean, and are further from closing. I’d consider it some kind of (often well intentioned) thought terminating cliche, in the sense that it stops the exploration of X. | | |
| ▲ | buu700 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The "it's not X, it's Y" construction seems pretty neutral to me. Almost no one minds when the phrase "it's not a bug, it's a feature" is used idiomatically, for example. The main thing that's annoying about typical AI writing style is its repetitiveness and fixation on certain tropes. It's like if you went to a comedy club and noticed a handful of jokes that each comedian used multiple times per set. You might get tired of those jokes quickly, but the jokes themselves could still be fine. Related: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/03/magazine/chatbot-writing-... | |
| ▲ | swed420 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Constantly changing the topic to something more important produces conversations that get broader, with higher partisan lean I'm basing the prior comment on the commonly observed tendency for partisan politics to get people bickering about the wrong question (often symptoms) to distract from the greater actual causes of the real problems people face. This is always in service to the capital interests that control/own both political parties. Example: get people to fight about vax vs no vax in the COVID era instead of considering if we should all be wearing proper respirators regardless of vax status (since vaccines aren't sterilizing). Or arguing if we should boycott AI because it uses too much power, instead of asking why power generation is scarce. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vintermann 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I assume you think you're not in these sections? And probably a lot of people in those sections say the same about your section, right? I think nobody's immune. And if anyone is especially vulnerable, it's those who can be persuaded that they have access to insider info. Those who are flattered and feel important when invited to closed meetings. It's much easier to fool a few than to fool many, so ,private manipulation - convincing someone of something they should not talk about with regular people because they wouldn't understand, you know - is a lot more powerful than public manipulation. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I assume you think you're not in these sections? And probably a lot of people in those sections say the same about your section, right? You're saying this a lot in this thread as a sort of gotcha, but .. so what? "You are not immune to propaganda" is a meme for a reason. > private manipulation - convincing someone of something they should not talk about with regular people because they wouldn't understand, you know - is a lot more powerful than public manipulation The essential recruiting tactic of cults. Insider groups are definitely powerful like that. Of course, what tends in practice to happen as the group gets bigger is you get end-to-end encryption with leaky ends. The complex series of Whatapp groups of the UK conservative party was notorious for its leakiness. Not unreasoable to assume that there are "insiders" group chats everywhere. Except in financial services where there's been a serious effort to crack down on that since LIBOR. | |
| ▲ | intended 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would it make any difference to you, if I said I had actual subject matter expertise on this topic? Or would that just result in another moving of the goal posts, to protect the idea that everyone is fooled, and that no one is without sin, and thus standing to speak on the topic? | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are a lot of self-described experts who I'm sure you agree are nothing of the sort. How do I tell you from them, fellow internet poster? This is a political topic, in the sense that there are real conflicts of interest here. We can't always trust that expertise is neutral. If you had your subject matter expertise from working for FSB, you probably agree that even though your expertise would then be real, I shouldn't just defer to what you say? | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not OP, but I would find it valuable, if given the details and source of claimed subject matter expertise. | | |
| ▲ | intended 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ugh. Put up or shut up I guess. I doubt it would be valuable, and likely a doxxing hazard. Plus it feels self-aggrandizing. Work in trust and safety, managed a community of a few million for several years, team’s work ended up getting covered in several places, later did a masters dissertation on the efficacy of moderation interventions, converted into a paper. Managing the community resulted in being front and center of information manipulation methods and efforts. There are other claims, but this is a field I am interested in, and would work on even in my spare time. Do note - the rhetorical set up for this thread indicates that no amount of credibility would be sufficient. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The section of the people more prone to being converted by manipulation efforts are the highly educated. Higher education itself being basically a way to check for obedience and conformity, plus some token lip service to "independent inquiry". |
| |
| ▲ | wiz21c a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | exactly and that's the scary part :-/ | |
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People hate feeling manipulated, but they love propaganda that feeds their prejudices. People voluntarily turn on Fox News - even in public spaces - and get mad if you turn it off. Sufficiently effective propaganda produces its own cults. People want a sense of purpose and belonging. Sometimes even at the expense of their own lives, or (more easily) someone else's lives. |
| |
| ▲ | FridayoLeary a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I would point out that what you call "left outlets" are at best center-left. The actual left doesn't believe in Russiagate (it was manufactured to ratfuck Bernie before being turned against Trump), and has zero love for Biden. | | |
| ▲ | daveguy 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Given the amount of evidence that Russia and the Trump campaign were working together, it's devoid of reality to claim it's a hoax. I hadn't heard the Bernie angle, but it's not unreasonable to expect they were aiding Bernie. The difference being, I don't think Bernie's campaign was colluding with Russian agents, whereas the Trump campaign definitely was colluding. Seriously, who didn't hear about the massive amounts of evidence the Trump campaign was colluding other than magas drooling over fox and newsmax? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People close to Trump went to jail for Russian collusion. Courts are not perfect but a significantly better route to truth than the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th... There is this odd conspiracy to claim that Biden (81 at time of election) was too old and Trump (77) wasn't, when Trump has always been visibly less coherent than Biden. IMO both of them were clearly too old to be sensible candidates, regardless of other considerations. The UK counterpart is happening at the moment: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c891403eddet | | |
| ▲ | FridayoLeary 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | >There is this odd conspiracy to claim
that Biden (81 at time of election) was
too old and Trump (77) wasn't I try to base my opinions on facts as much as possible. Trump is old but he's clearly full of energy, like some old people can be. Biden sadly is not. Look at the videos, it's painful to see. In his defence he was probably much more active then most 80 year olds but in no way was he fit to lead a country. At least in the UK despite the recent lamentable state of our political system our politicians are relatively young. You won't see octogenarians like pelosi and Biden in charge. | | |
| ▲ | mx7zysuj4xew 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Hard disagree Biden was slow, made small gaffes, but overall his words and actions were careful and deliberate Aside from trump falling asleep during cabinet meetings on camera, having him freeze up during a medical emergency and his erratic social media posts at later hours of the day (sundowning behavior) Trump literally seems to be decomposing in front of our eyes, I've never felt more physically repulsed by an individual before Trumps behavior is utterly deranged. His lack of inhibition, decency and compassion is disturbing Had he been a non celebrity private citizen he'd most likely be declared mentally incompetent and placed under guardianship in a closed care facility. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I've never felt more physically repulsed by an individual before > His lack of inhibition, decency and compassion is disturbing Yes, but none of that has anything to do with his age. These criticisms would land just as well a decade ago. He's always been, and has always acted like a pig, and in the most charitable interpretation of their behavior, half the country still thought that he's an 'outsider' or 'the lesser of two evils'. (Don't ask them for their definition of evil...) |
| |
| ▲ | jcranmer 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From the videos I've seen, Biden reminds me of my grandmother in her later years of life, while Trump reminds me of my other grandmother... the one with dementia. There's just too many videos where Trump doesn't seem to entirely realize where he is or what he is doing for me to be comfortable. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelipso a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > just smaller maybe This is like peak both-sidesism. You even openly describe the left’s equivalent of MAGA as “fringe”, FFS. One party’s former “fringe” is now in full control of it. And the country’s institutions. | | |
| ▲ | FridayoLeary 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was both siding in an effort to be as objective as possible. The truth is that i'm pretty dismayed at the current state of the Democrat party. Socialists like Mamdani and Sanders and the squad are way too powerful. People who are obsessed with tearing down cultural and social institutions and replacing them with performative identity politics and fabricated narratives are given platforms way bigger then they deserve. The worries of average Americans are dismissed. All those are issues that are tearing up the Democrat party from the inside. I can continue for hours but i don't want to start a flamewar of biblical proportions. So all i did was present the most balanced view i can muster and you still can't acknowledge that there might be truth in what i'm saying. The pendulum swings both ways. MSM has fallen victim to partisan politics. Something which Trump recognised and exploited back in 2015. Fox news is on the right, CNN, ABC et al is on the left. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you think “Sanders and the Squad” are powerful you’ve been watching far too much Fox News. > People who are obsessed with tearing down cultural and social institutions and replacing them with performative identity politics and fabricated narratives are given platforms way bigger then they deserve. Like the Kennedy Center, USAID, and the Department of Education? The immigrants eating cats story? Cutting off all refugees except white South Africans? And your next line says this is the problem with Democrats? | |
| ▲ | hn_acc1 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | CNN, ABC et al are on the left IN FOX NEWS WORLD only. Objectively, they're center-right, just like most of the democrat party. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | To you too: are you talking about other people here, or do you concede the possibility that you're falling for similar things yourself? | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm certainly aware of the risk. Difficult balance of "being aware of things" versus the fallibility and taintedness of routes to actually hearing about things. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | intended a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Knowing one is manipulated, requires having some trusted alternate source to verify against. If all your trusted sources are saying the same thing, then you are safe. If all your untrusted sources are telling you your trusted sources are lying, then it only means your trusted sources are of good character. Most people are wildly unaware of the type of social conditioning they are under. |
| |
| ▲ | teamonkey a day ago | parent [-] | | I get your point, but if all your trusted sources are reinforcing your view and all your untrusted sources are saying your trusted sources are lying, then you may well be right or you may be trusting entirely the wrong people. But lying is a good barometer against reality. Do your trusted sources lie a lot? Do they go against scientific evidence? Do they say things that you know don’t represent reality? Probably time to reevaluate how reliable those sources are, rather than supporting them as you would a football team. |
|
|
| ▲ | exceptione a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > People hate being manipulated.
The crux is whether the signal of abnormality will be perceived as such in society.- People are primarily social animals, if they see their peers accept affairs as normal, they conclude it is normal. We don't live in small villages anymore, so we rely on media to "see our peers". We are increasingly disconnected from social reality, but we still need others to form our group values. So modern media have a heavily concentrated power as "towntalk actors", replacing social processing of events and validation of perspectives. - People are easily distracted, you don't have to feed them much. - People have on average an enormous capacity to absorb compliments, even when they know it is flattery. It is known we let ourselves being manipulated if it feels good. Hence, the need for social feedback loops to keep you grounded in reality. TLDR: Citizens in the modern age are very reliant on the few actors that provide a semblance of public discourse, see Fourth Estate. The incentives of those few actors are not aligned with the common man. The autonomous, rational, self-valued citizen is a myth. Undermine the man's groups process => the group destroys the man. |
| |
| ▲ | heliumtera a day ago | parent | next [-] | | About absorbing compliments really well, there is the widely discussed idea that one in a position of power loses the privilege to the truth.
There are a few articles focusing on this problem on corporate environment.
The concept is that when your peers have the motivation to be flattery (let's say you're in a managerial position), and more importantly, they're are punished for coming to you with problems, the reward mechanism in this environment promotes a disconnect between leader expectations and reality.
That matches my experience at least. And I was able to identify this correlates well, the more aware my leadership was of this phenomenon, and the more they valued true knowledge and incremental development, easier it was to make progress, and more we saw them as someone to rely on. Some of those the felt they were prestigious and had the obligation to assert dominance, being abusive etc, were seeing with no respect by basically no one. Everyone will say they seek truth, knowledge, honesty, while wanting desperately to ascend to a position that will take all of those things from us! | |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't count yourself among the people you describe, I assume? | | |
| ▲ | exceptione a day ago | parent [-] | | I do, why wouldn't I? For example, I know I have to actively spend effort to think rational, at the risk of self-criticism, as it is a universal human trait to respond to stimuli without active thinking. Knowing how we are fallible as humans helps to circumvent our flaws. |
|
|
