RedDave2 wrote:In that river analogy would you not the short term first to give you time to achieve the long term?
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!!)
hunk wrote:I'm with Yoss here. Chances of regulation succeeding are far far higher than taking FB head on and reinventing social media's algo's. I also don't believe changing social media algorithms is the definitive answer to protecting people from a new Trump. Closing the wealth, socioeconomic and education gap however is. Not that people shouldn't keep working on innovating tech and algorithms. I'm a big fan of Linux and still waiting on it to overtake windows as main desktop OS.
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?
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!
By late 2007 and into 2008, Myspace was considered the leading social networking site, and consistently beat out the main competitor Facebook in traffic. Initially, the emergence of Facebook did little to diminish Myspace's popularity; at the time, Facebook was targeted only at college students.
GurtTractor wrote:Another thought: I really don't know why people think that Facebook is too big to be surpassed or challenged, their entire value is based on people using the service, if people start moving away it will hurt them. They will try and buy out competitors, which is why an un-monitisable and more decentralised alternative is a good idea. Just look at Myspace -Sounds like a niche platform overtook a giant to me.By late 2007 and into 2008, Myspace was considered the leading social networking site, and consistently beat out the main competitor Facebook in traffic. Initially, the emergence of Facebook did little to diminish Myspace's popularity; at the time, Facebook was targeted only at college students.
GurtTractor wrote: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.In that river analogy would you not the short term first to give you time to achieve the long term?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.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!!)
By highlighting the role of moral convergence and identity fusion, the current research has important practical implications. Our results highlight the importance of moral diversity in online social networks to avoid affective polarization and creation of moral echo chambers that could contribute to radicalization through formation of cult-like identities to which individuals get vehemently attached. Specifically, it is necessary for deradicalization efforts (Johnson et al., 2019) to diversify morally-homogeneous information ecosystems by attitude “demoralization” (Skitka et al., 2021) and encouraging “defusion” from the group (Fredman et al., 2015).
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.
An oof and a yep.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.
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.
The Romans became known for their methods in assessing an individual's conduct according to the scale. It became common practice to attribute a "reasonability" score between 1 and 5, where 5 would indicate that a party had acted reasonably and would be entitled to the full sympathy of the court.
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.
Yossarian wrote: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?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.
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.
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.
dynamiteReady wrote:I'd noticed that some of you have referenced the Parler situation.
What do you think of the Facebook / Google / Apple ban?
Do you that's fair?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!