RedDave2 wrote:

In that river analogy would you not the short term first to give you time to achieve the long term?

Yes that's what I'm saying, we should take emergency measures but we shouldn't consider that as a substitute for a more nuanced solution to a problem.

RedDave2 wrote:

I still don't get the huge reluctance to regulation but I also am not sure I get the massive value in having these huge social networks. Leaving aside the main problems, are they in any way essential to our way of life? I tend not to think so. That's not to say people don't use them in huge numbers or for huge amounts of their time but outside of targeting ads (which yes, I have used for the business) what makes them so valuable that we don't want to regulate them? Communities would still find ways to form, people would still talk. If anything it might help communication if we went a bit back to just phone, email, and text message.

When things were "normal" I remember facing a deludge of communication. WhatsApp, text, phone, email, post, messenger, Facebook comments, Instagram dm, Instagram comments, LinkedIn, twitter.... on and on and everyone thinks they are using the main one. It's draining in of itself and for what end.

Before Facebook and twitter , i could still communicate with just about everyone I needed to and those that didn't want me to I couldn't so good for them.

(Small rant- if you are going to book a restaurant use the fucking booking widget we put on all our social media and sites... don't message us at 3am and then complain at 8am that we didn't get back to you!!)

Whenever a new technology comes along it's always going to be the case that 'people got on just fine before this'. We should recognise the potential of the new medium to have a substantial and qualitative impact on our civilisation and give it the best chance to flourish into something that improves our lives.

That the current set of tools we have in social media and computing have been little more than a convenience booster for the standard methods of communication for the majority of people is an indictment against the ambition and quality of their design. It's not evidence that there's little value in or use for the medium.

Yossarian wrote:

So my argument against setting up an alternative to Facebook is that it probably won’t work and I’m just giving up, whereas your problem with laws is they may not work, so they aren’t even worth trying?

? ..  No not at all, read what I've been saying so far.

Yossarian wrote:

Despite the fact that we can pass more laws or repeal laws or write and rewrite huge amounts of legislation in the “probably years and years” it will take us to try your suggestion. And as Dave says, why not both anyway? Why not legislate to give us years and years to look into this? And any day now, Hunk!

Again, I've already said that legislation is a short term solution to a deeper problem. It's step 1, and we shouldn't put too much weight into it.

Yeah I'm not saying down with this sort of thing, just.. careful now.

And it's worth considering that we've only seen a handful of possibilities for what these systems look like and how they operate. It would be wrong to assume that what we have now has survived and become popular because it's the optimal solution, we can always invent something better.

Interesting stuff, worth reading and thinking about - https://ovid.github.io/articles/how-to-defeat-facebook.html#creating-a-new-social-network

Sure it will. They also have the most to lose, they will probably be the most risk-averse and won't want to substantially change how their product works or open their algorithms for inspection or modification, and they are beholden to shareholders, advertisers and profit margins. They face an incredible amount of scrutiny over their failings and public awareness over their controversies continues to grow.

All these are weaknesses that could be exploited by new platforms that find and create new niches for better ways to communicate with each other.

GurtTractor wrote:

In that river analogy would you not the short term first to give you time to achieve the long term?

Yes that's what I'm saying, we should take emergency measures but we shouldn't consider that as a substitute for a more nuanced solution to a problem.

I still don't get the huge reluctance to regulation but I also am not sure I get the massive value in having these huge social networks. Leaving aside the main problems, are they in any way essential to our way of life? I tend not to think so. That's not to say people don't use them in huge numbers or for huge amounts of their time but outside of targeting ads (which yes, I have used for the business) what makes them so valuable that we don't want to regulate them? Communities would still find ways to form, people would still talk. If anything it might help communication if we went a bit back to just phone, email, and text message. When things were "normal" I remember facing a deludge of communication. WhatsApp, text, phone, email, post, messenger, Facebook comments, Instagram dm, Instagram comments, LinkedIn, twitter.... on and on and everyone thinks they are using the main one. It's draining in of itself and for what end. Before Facebook and twitter , i could still communicate with just about everyone I needed to and those that didn't want me to I couldn't so good for them. (Small rant- if you are going to book a restaurant use the fucking booking widget we put on all our social media and sites... don't message us at 3am and then complain at 8am that we didn't get back to you!!)

Whenever a new technology comes along it's always going to be the case that 'people got on just fine before this'. We should recognise the potential of the new medium to have a substantial and qualitative impact on our civilisation and give it the best chance to flourish into something that improves our lives. That the current set of tools we have in social media and computing have been little more than a convenience booster for the standard methods of communication for the majority of people is an indictment against the ambition and quality of their design. It's not evidence that there's little value in or use for the medium.

Can I just clarify what it is you are defending because I dont really see Facebook or Twitter as 'new tech'. A new medium I can get but even then I dont think its entirely new issues. We can certainly use what we learned from other medias as to how to regulate new mediums. 

Lets take Youtube. In its beginning its a video sharing site and there's nothing wrong with that. People can interact and leaving aside racist/ hateful comments that's grand. But what we have seen in many videos is a get-around of rules that TV & Radio Advertisers would get knocked back for and rightfully so. Its really prevalent in the world of the influencer, especially those product aimed at kids. In effect you get videos which are glorified ads for Toys that would not be allowed on a TV station. But the problem is Youtube isn't a TV station and nor is it one of many TV stations. Its the whole system. 

Sure there's other video sharing sites but that's not the solution because they have the same freedom from regulation. The problem is you have this whole new medium delivery system that can create its own rules, regardless of whether its good or bad, or harmful. Youtube (the platform) doesnt have to concern itself with anything beyond making money and keeping its viewers happy. Imagine if we had TV stations that could do this - unregulated and the only way they stop is if you can affect their bottom line. This is not a good exchange in society. The majority of society could be being harmed but as long as Youtube is making their profit, there is no reason for them to change. 

Going back to your argument on embracing the new medium beyond what it currently is, yes thats definitely something to think about - but it doesn't mean we let it run roughshod over society while it learns what works best (while also hoovering up tons of cash to fortify itself against any new competitors that might have more noble ambitions) We have regulations for many things that are there for safety purposes - why should social media be exempt? We would expect AI driven cars to abide by rules of the road and wouldnt allow them to be able to drive at whatever speed they liked just because of some work around on the law would we? We have laws and regulations covering other forms of media delivery - why make those that are new exempt? 

In relation to the idea that a new competitor will appear - there is a good chance they will. Be that new competitor might be worse than a facebook that is under regulation form multiple governments. It could be heavily linked to one single government a-la wechat.

Final point - remember we aren't talking strictly about new tech or new mediums for the most part. We are talking about companies. Social Media on its own isn't the problem - the problem is at the moment its owned by companies who are making a lot of money out of it and will do things to increase that money making ability (and lets give benefit of the doubt - maybe they really do intend it to be all good ). It is not in their interest to allow competitors to rise or to have their revenue stream compromised (see facebook response to Apple recently) I think what most of us want is regulation more for those (and future) companies to abide by as opposed to restrictions on Social Media as a concept.

Anonymity in the early days of online still haunts socialising on the web today. The main social media platforms have made it harder to create fake accounts compared to 5-10 years ago but there’s still a huge amount of trolling online which is horrid.

I’ve always stuck by the rule that I wouldn’t say anything online to someone I wouldn’t say in person.

I read a lot of stuff people write online (including here) which in a real life face to face social situation they wouldn’t say because it’s inexcusably rude or would get them into trouble but feel it’s ok to write online.

I like our forum rule of don’t be a dick and that we have moderation. I think it’s necessary. It won’t happen but I think people should be kinder and nicer to each other.

I'm not sure how you enforce moral diversity though, without removing the ability for users to curate their own feeds, friends, areas of interest though.

https://osome.iu.edu/demos/echo/ there is an interesting demo on there showing the formation of polorised groups and echo chambers.

This is very interesting, from 1999 - The Law of Group Polarization

In addition, affective factors appear to be quite important and complementary to persuasive arguments. People are less likely to shift if the direction advocated is being pushed by unfriendly group members; the chance of shift is increased when people perceive fellow members as friendly, likeable, and similar to them. Physical spacing tends to reduce polarization; a sense of common fate and intragroup similarity tend to increase it, as does the introduction of a rival “outgroup.” Part of the reason for group polarization appears to be that as a class, extreme positions tend to be less tractable and more confidently held. This point is an important complement to the persuasive arguments theory: The persuasiveness of arguments depends, not surprisingly, not simply on the grounds given, but also on the confidence with which they are articulated. (Consider here both juries and multimember courts.) Group polarization can also be fortified through “exit,” as members leave the group because they reject the direction in which things are heading. If exit is pervasive, the tendency to extremism can be greatly aggravated.

The problem with group polarization is not that people subject to it suffer from some cognitive or motivational defect. The problem is instead that people may be shifted, as a result of entirely rational processes, in the direction of factual, legal, or moral mistakes.

It is likely that processes of this general sort have threatened both peace and stability in some nations; while dire consequences are unlikely in the United States, both fragmentation and violence are predictable results. As we have seen, group polarization is intensified if people are speaking anonymously and if attention is drawn, through one or another means, to group membership. Many Internet discussion groups have precisely this feature. It is therefore plausible to speculate that the Internet may be serving, for many, as a breeding group for extremism.

An oof and a yep.

I have suggested that the best response to this problem is to attempt to ensure against social balkanization and fragmentation, through mechanisms providing a “public sphere” that is used, at once, by people with competing perspectives on facts and values. If a general public sphere is unavailable or not feasible, it becomes all the more important to ensure that in the course of deliberation, people are exposed to a range of reasonable competing views.

I’m certain Trump supporters see themselves as reasonable.

Reasonability can probably be part way defined, as something that has reason behind it, such as a scientific theory that is based on evidence and consensus. No one person or group should 'decide' what counts as reasonable for everyone else, it should be an interconnected system of rigorous assessment. Mostly I think the world tends to work this way anyway, especially in science.

Regarding disinformation, have a look through this - https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/anti-misinformation-actions/ Notice how laws against misinformation tend to lead to prosection of journalists and whistleblowers. To my mind the most reasonable measures are attempts at improving media literacy in the populace, by distributing information on how to avoid falling for misinformation.

I'll be researching more around all this so I'll probably come across some good papers about this specifically. I did see a thing I'm sure I'll find again that differentiated between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, probably worth thinking about.

GurtTractor wrote:

Reasonability can probably be part way defined, as something that has reason behind it, such as a scientific theory that is based on evidence and consensus. No one person or group should 'decide' what counts as reasonable for everyone else, it should be an interconnected system of rigorous assessment. Mostly I think the world tends to work this way anyway, especially in science.

So you aren’t able to post your opinions, only thoughts and observations that have a basis in science and consensus? Do you need to add sources to your opinions? Is there a peer review function?

Also, a quick skim of that Poynter article seems to tell me that countries without a free press mostly used misinformation laws as cover for continuing to persecute journalists rather than the laws leading to persecuting journalists.

Yossarian wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

Reasonability can probably be part way defined, as something that has reason behind it, such as a scientific theory that is based on evidence and consensus. No one person or group should 'decide' what counts as reasonable for everyone else, it should be an interconnected system of rigorous assessment. Mostly I think the world tends to work this way anyway, especially in science.

So you aren’t able to post your opinions, only thoughts and observations that have a basis in science and consensus? Do you need to add sources to your opinions? Is there a peer review function?

No what I'm saying is that you could attach a reasonableness score or weighting to content, perhaps partly automated but preferably done by the reciever (critical thinking). This just means that casual reckons are judged differently than more formal objective arguements that are backed up with sources and corroborating information. You could imagine ways in which an interface can make allowances for all this, or at least I can. I'll look for research and examples later.

Yossarian wrote:

Also, a quick skim of that Poynter article seems to tell me that countries without a free press mostly used misinformation laws as cover for continuing to persecute journalists rather than the laws leading to persecuting journalists.

Even if that is accurate it makes a lot of sense to not give our governments the opportunity and tools to abuse the press in this way.

GurtTractor wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Also, a quick skim of that Poynter article seems to tell me that countries without a free press mostly used misinformation laws as cover for continuing to persecute journalists rather than the laws leading to persecuting journalists.

Even if that is accurate it makes a lot of sense to not give our governments the opportunity and tools to abuse the press in this way.

They have the opportunity and tools already, they can introduce legislation any time they like. The reason that they haven’t has nothing to do with whether or not they’re regulating social media.