one method for doing something
One of the ways I tryThe Social Dilemma · 2020 — Chapter 8 of 14 · 3'09" · C1
The Wikipedia Analogy, Explained: reckon with
The argument sounds technical: feeds, autocomplete, calculations. The real point is that a shared page and a personalized one are not the same public world: “Facebook is in charge of your news feed” and two close friends can see “completely different worlds.” The scene keeps returning to what people accept as facts.
What happens
A speaker uses Wikipedia as a thought experiment: a page everyone sees the same way would instead give each person a customized definition, paid for by commercial interests. From there the argument moves to Google autocomplete, Facebook and YouTube feeds, the Truman Show, and a magician's card trick to explain why people end up with different facts.
Listen for
hold in commoncustomized definitionon behalf ofa function of
00:00 / 03:09Space play · ← → lines · R repeat
Now
Phrase of the scene
reckon with
face and deal with something
The speaker describes a point where opposing information cannot be processed at all.
Any team launching a feed must reckon with the bias it creates.
Also in this scene
- hold in common
share something with others
- customized definition
a definition tailored to one person
- on behalf of
for someone's benefit or as their representative
- a function of
be determined by something
- false sense
a mistaken feeling of certainty
Everything marked in this scene
28 notes across 46 lines
share something with others
The speaker treats Wikipedia as one of the few shared reference points left online.
So, it's one of the few things online that we at least hold in common.one of the small number of things
So, it's one of the few things online that we at least hold in common.Keep 'one of the' as one quick unit; don't hit every word.
So, it's one of the few things online that we at least hold in common.for someone's benefit or as their representative
The imagined Wikipedia is paid to nudge a person slightly, and the phrase carries a commercial transaction.
"What's the thing I can do to get this person to change a little bit on behalf of some commercial interest?" Right?enter text with a keyboard
When you go to Google and type in "Climate change is,"Link 'type' into 'in' without a pause.
When you go to Google and type in "Climate change is,"varying according to something
you're going to see different results depending on where you live.going to (informal) — Common in speech and subtitles; use going to in formal writing.
In certain cities, you're gonna see it autocomplete with "climate change is a hoax."not determined by something The not splits the phrase; the underlying structure is still be a function of.
And that's a function not of what the truth is about climate change,prepositional clause: The what-clause is the object of of, setting up a contrast with but about later.
And that's a function not of what the truth is about climate change,Let 'not of' run together, with the t barely landing.
And that's a function not of what the truth is about climate change,identical in every detail
Even two friends who are so close to each other, who have almost the exact same set of friends,not that way in the slightest
But it's not like that at all.a mistaken feeling of certainty
The speaker describes the comfortable illusion that a feed full of echoes equals broad agreement.
Over time, you have the false sense that everyone agrees with you, because everyone in your news feed sounds just like you.sounds exactly like you
Over time, you have the false sense that everyone agrees with you, because everyone in your news feed sounds just like you.appositive clause: The that-clause spells out what the false sense is, rather than describing the noun.
Over time, you have the false sense that everyone agrees with you, because everyone in your news feed sounds just like you.in the same manner
it turns out you're easily manipulated, the same way you would be manipulated by a magician.subject clause: The whole What-clause is the subject; the that-clause after was gives its content.
What you don't realize was that they've done a set-up,a rigged arrangement — Used for tricks and rigged situations; avoid in formal documents.
What you don't realize was that they've done a set-up,control or be responsible for
Facebook is in charge of your news feed.another version of the facts Facts is countable here, meaning each side's accepted set of truths.
We all simply are operating on a different set of facts.on a large, system-wide level
The problem is no longer one person's feed but a system operating across millions.
When that happens at scale,face and deal with something
The speaker describes a point where opposing information cannot be processed at all.
you're no longer able to reckon with or even consume information that contradicts with that world view that you've created.a framework for seeing the world
you're no longer able to reckon with or even consume information that contradicts with that world view that you've created.double relative clause: Two that-clauses attach to different nouns: information is contradicted by the world view you built.
you're no longer able to reckon with or even consume information that contradicts with that world view that you've created.the opposing camp Here it means the opposing side in an argument, not a physical place.
And then you look over at the other side,Stress 'so stupid' to hear the disbelief and contempt.
and you start to think, "How can those people be so stupid?The Wikipedia Analogy, explained
What's really going on
The real subject is not Wikipedia but the loss of a common reference point. The speaker contrasts a page “you're seeing the same thing as other people” with a system that calculates “What's the thing I can do to get this person to change a little bit on behalf of some commercial interest?” The magician analogy makes the point sharper: choice is offered, but the outcome is set up. The closing lines turn the difference into a social one—if everyone’s feed “sounds just like you,” you get a “false sense that everyone agrees with you,” and you start to think people on the other side are stupid for missing information they never see. The scene’s claim is that personalization can dissolve shared facts.
Theme
DeceptionPersonalization is framed as a magic trick: choice is offered, but the deck is already set.
PhilosophyThe scene asks whether shared facts can survive when every feed builds a private world.
Listen for
- one of the — Keep 'one of the' as one quick unit; don't hit every word.
- type in — Link 'type' into 'in' without a pause.
- not of — Let 'not of' run together, with the t barely landing.
- so stupid — Stress 'so stupid' to hear the disbelief and contempt.
We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented.People treat the world they are shown as simply the world; here the line is linked to the Truman Show and to personalized feeds.
Over time, you have the false sense that everyone agrees with you, because everyone in your news feed sounds just like you.A feed that mirrors your views can make agreement feel widespread, even when that agreement is only an effect of what you are shown.
We all simply are operating on a different set of facts.People are not working from one shared account of reality; personalization leaves different users with different factual starting points.
Facebook is in charge of your news feed.The platform, not the user's friend choices, controls what appears in the feed.
Can you imagine that? Well, you should be able to, 'cause that's exactly what's happening on Facebook.The Wikipedia hypothetical is not far-fetched; the speaker says the same commercial manipulation is already happening on Facebook.
Questions about this scene
Why does the speaker bring up Wikipedia?
To make personalization concrete: Wikipedia is described as one of the few online places where users 'hold in common' the same page. A customized version paid by commercial interests would show how a shared reality can be altered.
What is the point of the magician comparison?
The magician says, “Pick a card, any card.” The setup, however, has already been done. The comparison argues that choosing friends or links does not mean you control the feed: “Facebook is in charge of your news feed.”
Why can two close friends see different Facebook feeds?
The lines say their feeds are 'based on these computers calculating what's perfect for each of them,' so they 'see completely different worlds' even when they have almost the same friends.
Why do people on the other side seem to miss the information you see?
Because each person sees information tailored to them. The answer given is that the other side is 'not seeing that same information,' so they miss what you constantly see.
Is the scene saying users choose their own feeds?
It challenges that idea. The lines dismiss “you pick your friends” and “You pick the links” as “all nonsense”; the platform controls the news feed, like a magician's setup.
The Social Dilemma · 14 chapters
All chapters →
Up next · Chapter 9tilt the floorFake News Spreads Faster Than Truth
Chapter 1rakes in moneyYou Are the Product
Chapter 2human futuresSurveillance Capitalism Explained
Chapter 3dial up the adsTech Insiders Explain the Growth Dials
Chapter 4fall prey toPinterest President Can't Put Phone Down
Chapter 5let the record showBen Takes the One-Week Phone Bet
Chapter 6conflateWhy Social Media Harms Teens
Chapter 7a mind of its ownAIs Plot Ben's Resurrection
Watching · Chapter 8reckon withThe Wikipedia Analogy
Chapter 9tilt the floorFake News Spreads Faster Than Truth
Chapter 10weaponizing social mediaFacebook Weaponized in Myanmar
Chapter 11digital FrankensteinsSpeaker Reframes the Tech Threat
Chapter 12willful ignoranceThe Civil War Interview
Chapter 13put the genie back in the bottleInterviewees Call for Regulation
Chapter 14set in stoneTech Insiders Explain What Went WrongChapter 8 of 14 · about 16 min to go