Social media and discussion - A Musky odour
-
Well the main problem of the internet is one of the things it was meant to solve - putting the desperate and poor in touch with society. The problem being that society is actually a bit of a money seeking twat."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
SpaceGazelle wrote:I think social media can be saved if it's a paid for subscription. Then the algos hopefully focus on keeping people happy rather than making them angry. It's still algo-contrived behaviour but at this point I'll take anything.
The responsible publisher model is maybe the quickest way out of this but how do you automate this amount of content into law? That goes for the media companies and the enforcers. So little staff, so much stuff.
Maybe most of it simply isn’t made publicly available. Most social media posts aren’t aimed at or read by a wide audience, those probably can pretty much be considered a private conversation, hidden from view and left alone. If you want to create something which can be seen outside your circle, then there is an extra step that you need to take, maybe that’s providing identity documents so this can be traced back to an individual, or getting it signed off by an administrator, or having built up a good standing with previous work. -
There are 2.5 billion FB users. You expect them to send ID to Uncle Sam?"Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
b0r1s wrote:Regulation is the only way and they actively fear it which is why all big tech companies regularly support, fund and court both the dems and GOP. Then their staff become advisors.
But that is a relatively easy fix compared to (as Brooks mentions) the core issue with the algos. They thrive on conflict and that has led to the population being combative. Even if there is an algo change now it is still going to take years or even decades for that worldwide confrontational attitude to change.
As for freedom of speech. I’ve seen first hand how insidious, particularly on YouTube, far right supporters are playing on a range of celebrities who are decrying woke culture and a lack of freedom of speech. The problem is that the YouTubers who want to reinforce a rhetoric are only taking part of an interview (e.g. Stephen Fry) where the answers around free speech will be more nuanced, or the people being interviewed don’t caveat free speech with the need to be responsible with it or they don’t also make it clear that they are not out to support far right movements in their desire for free speech.
And while that last point shouldn’t need to be pointed out, it clearly does as the far right are actively leveraging the intellectual equity of people who I don’t think are racists or facist, for the own agenda.
The thing is, the algorithms don't thrive on conflict, we do. The algorithms give us what they think we want based on our viewing habits and those of people like us. If they are serving up aggravating content, that's because that's what that viewer likes to watch (at least what grasps their attention). -
Hmm. The thing to remember with all this added bureaucracy is that it's all well and good under a benevolent government, but what if things take a sinister turn to something facistic or tyrannical? Your description of having to sign off with ID to make a public post scares the shit out of me to be honest. Like that surely seems like some very dark dystopian shit?
Anonymity is an essential part of much of journalism, so would you propose to have different rules for journalistic establishments? Would that not lead to further entrenchment of said establishments as the only sources of information? I dunno, this seems like a dark path to go down. -
SpaceGazelle wrote:There are 2.5 billion FB users. You expect them to send ID to Uncle Sam?
No, not if they just want to be able to share things with a small group, which is all the vast majority of Facebook users want to do. If you want your posts available publicly to people outside your network, then maybe you have to take an extra step. -
GurtTractor wrote:Hmm. The thing to remember with all this added bureaucracy is that it's all well and good under a benevolent government, but what if things take a sinister turn to something facistic or tyrannical? Your description of having to sign off with ID to make a public post scares the shit out of me to be honest. Like that surely seems like some very dark dystopian shit?
Anonymity is an essential part of much of journalism, so would you propose to have different rules for journalistic establishments? Would that not lead to further entrenchment of said establishments as the only sources of information? I dunno, this seems like a dark path to go down.
If a journalism outlet published something that was against the law anonymously then the editor would be in court. -
GurtTractor wrote:Hmm. The thing to remember with all this added bureaucracy is that it's all well and good under a benevolent government, but what if things take a sinister turn to something facistic or tyrannical? Your description of having to sign off with ID to make a public post scares the shit out of me to be honest. Like that surely seems like some very dark dystopian shit?
Anonymity is an essential part of much of journalism, so would you propose to have different rules for journalistic establishments? Would that not lead to further entrenchment of said establishments as the only sources of information? I dunno, this seems like a dark path to go down.
Journalists won’t publish things without knowing who the writer is.
It doesn’t have to be verification via ID anyway, there are other routes you could go down, ones that involve more human intervention. -
Sounds fucking awful.
-
Yossarian wrote:
No, not if they just want to be able to share things with a small group, which is all the vast majority of Facebook users want to do. If you want your posts available publicly to people outside your network, then maybe you have to take an extra step.SpaceGazelle wrote:There are 2.5 billion FB users. You expect them to send ID to Uncle Sam?
Let me get this straight. You're saying your views will only be widely shared if you send very sensitive data to a social media company?
Hey journos around the world, if you want to be heard send us your personal data! In no way is this dangerous or likely to be abused. We will not share it with anyone unless they offer cash. Yoss says it's fine and he works for the g."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
No, I’m not saying that.
-
Good, ok. Just that this strongly reminded me of that -
Yossarian wrote:or having built up a good standing with previous work.
And I understand that the context of what you are saying isn't necessarily comparable, I'm just really really doubtful that your suggestion is the right path to go down for public online discourse. It could be heavily abused. -
The ID thing was one possibility.
But it’s not like it matters whether an individual can think of a system to make this work, no individual could come up with the system that Facebook has become now before its inception, not even Zuckerberg who was just trying to create a way to rate how hot women on his campus were. It became what it is because of the need to drive profits.
Give them a different set of incentives via regulation and they’ll take their highly trained, highly paid and highly clever workforce and put them to work on solving this and almost certainly come up with something better than I can, and the fact that none of us can envision what it might look like is neither here nor there. -
Yossarian wrote:No, I’m not saying that.
Well that's good because for a moment there I thought you'd gone batshit mental."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Some people would take that option if offered, just look at Parler.
I’m definitely not saying that ID should be the only route for doing this, but it’s a pretty easy option to offer for those who would want it. Meanwhile, you could additionally offer alternative routes, which would necessarily involve greater friction, for people who can’t or won’t share their ID. -
I think it's worth thinking about what 'social media' means in the larger context. You can break it down to a basic information delivery system, with weightings based on your preferences or those of the advertisers (ugh), and then there's the communication part where people can discuss things with each other. You could almost define the entire web as one big social media platform I guess.
My point is that a social media is or should be more than just a particular communication format that is controlled by a corporation, it's a fundamental part of the internet that we can freely share information and talk with one another about it. Monitoring and accountability could easily go too far in one direction. I guess I'm just saying ...careful now. -
I’d say that the harms caused by social media outweigh the benefits right now. If it’s irretrievably broken by attempts to put it on a more stable footing, so be it.
-
I had a fruitless debate with someone on Facebook a few years ago, who felt I was part of the problem for not seeking out bigots and whatnot to challenge.
My view's still the same: that wokism's main goal should be provision of sanctuary, with zero pressure to engage in arguments with issuers of hurtful comments for inclusion. The idea that someone isn't doing their duty unless they further expose themselves to hurt for the collective cause against that hurt...
During the Corbyn years I was fairly active on Twitter, but kept 99% inside my own leftwing bubble. For me it was just a place to vent with likemindeds for mental support and the sharing of hope, and on the rare occasions I tweeted something at a rightwinger it was never in anger.
Anyone who'd really have riled me I consciously avoided, while I and many others were there for fellow lefties. -
Brexit and Corbyn essentially lead to me to stop using Facebook (the only SM were I am me, and have irl friends associated). There were just so many friends and colleagues who felt it was fine to be fucking vile online, and behave in ways they never would face to face, made me realise I was done with it all.
-
Similarly I've felt like there can be a pressure to have a certain opinion, if you don't loudly proclaim it you might be against the cause, or something. I think it's ok to not have a strong opinion about something if you don't care or have much vested interest in it, or if you lack enough substantial information about it to be able to have a useful contribution.
-
Genuine opinions are just a sideline of social media. The big bucks are in anger. The left was founded on anger but now it's lost its guiding compassion. Without both it's fucked."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
The compassion's still there, just not represented by any major MPs once again. When Starmer sinks to ~10m GE votes we'll have lots of articles asking where they went.
GurtTractor wrote:if you don't loudly proclaim it you might be against the cause, or something.
Yeah, and I've seen a few people who used to come across as pretty jovial now seeking out content from wrong 'uns to challenge, with the lone result of increasing their depression through exposure. Sometimes you can't avoid hurtful comments in the real world (and it's absolutely cool to take that online for support), but social media for most of us, like our homes, can be a refuge if we choose it to be.
So I don't like people implying it's selfish to disengage for your mental health if it's not in tip-top shape. It's not like these arguments don't have a crushingly low success rate in changing minds for the better, more often than not increasing division between people with the potential to accept each other because of the medium's adversarial nature.
One notable exception I've found is when I see someone ‘brinking’, as in beginning to turn on Johnson for a recent example, in which case I'm inclined to gently encourage them. -
It can take a long time for people to come around or to begin to doubt their convictions, it's definitely worth giving them at least a nudge now and then to help the process, if you can stomach it. And it should be a back and forth in most cases, you might come across a useful modification to your own position.
In all of these things it's certainly important to focus your energies where it really matters. -
There's a thing people do where we double down on misinformation when it's demonstrated to us that it's actually false. We cling stubbornly on to our mistakes. We get angry at justified corrections. Social media seems to intensify that, making any kind of debate both thoroughly pointless and likely to descend into abuse. -
I’ve said for years that you should have to pass a test of sorts to use the internet and once you do, you get a license to use it. While I have concerns about who controls that license, I fear that there’s greater risk in the anonymity afforded by the internet.
If I go in person to a football match (those were the days) and shout racist abuse, or have a drunken brawl, I’ll be given a ban - often lifetime - from going again. Online, I could do this (or incite violence) and I’d get away with it without real consequence. Most likely outcome is losing my account, which is no real issue as I can open another one immediately after.
I do feel like the social media companies should take greater responsibility, but we should absolve users in doing so. -
GurtTractor wrote:@Armitage_Shankburn
I understood the words, just not what they were supposed to mean in relation to Lex Fridman. I now understand your point about triangulation and will remain vigilant about that, thank you. He has spoken openly about whether he should or should not interview certain contraversial people, FWIW.
I certainly don't believe I'm neutral or that anyone I 'follow' is neutral. Seeing through bullshit is an ongoing project that will never be completed, I hope I never feel like I have all the answers.
You are not my enemy, I don't think that. You just don't get to call me out by making general statements out of the blue about some error I may have made like we are all supposed to know what you are talking about without providing context or evidence, without me also calling it as best as I can see it. It didn't have to be this way, you came at me like so many people do to others, casually, on social media and comment sections everywhere. I have done similar before, we all have. My main point is that nothing good will come from this.
Lex did a great interview with Wolfram. I don't really give a fuck about Lex. -
The algorithms by their very nature reinforce any beliefs. They narrow content down so much one would have to search for stuff in order to exercise critical thought.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
This is fun.
-
Heh.
Egress charges are the sting with cloud infrastructure providers.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,713
- Games1,877
- Off topic836