[HN Gopher] The Social Media Problem
___________________________________________________________________
The Social Media Problem
Author : janvdberg
Score : 20 points
Date : 2020-08-12 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jacquesmattheij.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jacquesmattheij.com)
| [deleted]
| core-questions wrote:
| > It would really help if both Facebook and Twitter would be far
| more pro-active in shutting down these fountains of nonsense.
|
| When I see this, especially from someone who bills themselves as
|
| > "Professionally I get paid to separate fact from fiction"
|
| it horrifies me. What they're saying is that the existing
| draconian control of speech that is implemented on the social
| media networks is not enough, that we need to hire even more
| people to do moderation, that free speech needs to die even
| harder, because we can't trust poor stupid people to make their
| own decisions, read what they want to read, and say what they
| want to say.
|
| What a bunch of elitist bullshit. Small wonder that people are
| increasingly finding people like Jacques Mattheij to be
| unpalatable, nanny-state toadies that are to be routed around at
| best and attacked argumentatively when needed.
|
| Yes, there's bullshit about COVID and chemtrails and aliens all
| over the internet. Why do you care so much? You're so worried
| that people are going to make their own choices, live their own
| lives, make mistakes that impact others?
|
| This shows me that people have not learned what free speech is,
| what it is for, and why it was a hard-fought right that continues
| to need fervent defense. Mattheij can't conceive of a world where
| his draconian moderation system could possibly backfire. Mattheij
| hasn't looked at what's happening in Belarus, in India/Pakistan,
| and what happened during the Arab Spring when governments decided
| to use the power at their disposal to shut down on the people's
| ability to freely converse with one another, even about
| Unapproved Topics, even with Officially Illegal Opinions.
| Mattheij either didn't read any of the excellent 20th century
| dystopian science fiction, or thought it was a user's manual for
| how to create an idealized totalitarian state.
|
| Because of course, gigantic corporations and the government are
| going to choose what's in everyone's best interests. Of course,
| it is inconceivable that they would have any agenda of their own,
| or would want to make cultural changes at scale without the full
| consent of society. It's never been tried, anywhere, right? Never
| ends badly?
|
| Ahh, but it's to save us from ourselves, right?
| actuator wrote:
| I am mostly a free speech absolutist but let me take one of the
| examples you gave, India.
|
| Only yesterday, there was a FB post which said something
| negative about Islam. This led to people from that community
| rioting in Bangalore in which 3 have died and parts of city
| have burnt. [1]
|
| This is not the first time a social media post has caused this
| over there. I would say the issue is very nuanced specially in
| areas where the social fabric is not that strong and if some
| amount of moderation can help, be it. But as always, who will
| watch the watchmen.
|
| [1]: Warning: Cancerous ads:
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/riot-hit-...
| throwaway45349 wrote:
| I think you can stay absolutist (albeit, being a bit cold
| about the situation). The principle of free speech is that
| it's paid for in blood because it's the least worst choice.
| dvt wrote:
| Man, it's sad that HN is going down the reddit rabbit hole,
| spam downvoting these kinds of well-though-out posts that
| (admittedly) go against the zeitgeist of SV "know-better-than-
| thou" elitist mentality -- with absolutely _zero_ discussion or
| counter-arguments. The arguments here are sound:
|
| - Free speech is a virtue worth striving for
|
| - Disinformation -- to the detriment of the public -- is a
| price we're willing to pay (barring some narrow cases)
|
| - The alternative is draconian authoritarianism
|
| As Juvenal asked almost two millenia ago: _Quis custodiet ipsos
| custodes?_ I 'm sick of programmers that never picked up a
| philosophy or political science book in their lives think they
| just solved the world's problems by giving Google or Facebook
| _carte blanche_ to censor as they see fit (because you happen
| to agree with the outcome today).
| tyrust wrote:
| I'm guessing that it was down-voted for the vitriol and
| personal attacks which aren't relevant to the arguments.
| throwsadlfksjdf wrote:
| The personal attacks were warranted, he said exactly how I
| felt reading that article.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| It is not a well-thought-out post. It uses a bunch of
| emotionally-loaded but content-free trigger phrases like
| "elitist bullshit" and "nanny-state toadies" rather than
| well-supported arguments, and is being spam-downvoted for
| that reason.
| dvt wrote:
| It _definitionally_ is elitist bullshit though -- Mattheij
| 's entire post implies that he _knows better_. Sure the
| term might trigger you, but that doesn 't make it any less
| true. To wit, I personally would've been _much_ more
| scathing: I mean, has he even _heard_ of John Stewart Mill?
| There 's been a lot of trial and error here, and the blog
| post conveniently ignores it all.
| tyrust wrote:
| >has he even heard of John Stewart Mill
|
| I read On Liberty recently in the hopes of shining some
| light on the moderation debate. Unfortunately it came up
| short. I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate
| just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global
| scale.
|
| The closest he comes in the essay does argue that
| inflammatory speech should be punished:
|
| >No one pretends that actions should be as free as
| opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their
| immunity, when the circumstances in which they are
| expressed are such as to constitute their expression a
| positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion
| that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that
| private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when
| simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur
| punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob
| assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when
| handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
|
| Is there some other writing from him that you're
| referring to that provides more relevant info?
| throwaway45349 wrote:
| Agree with everything you said.
|
| My only concern is the political aspect. I see mainly
| establishment media, elites and politicians are the ones
| pushing for the censorship because they're afraid of free
| dissemination of information online. Most others are pushing
| for the exact opposite, except for some fringe groups who
| wish to weaponize censorship.
|
| The problem is that Google/Facebook now have to choose which
| side of a deeply political issue they will lie on, so of
| course they're siding with the powerful - the alternative
| would be risking breakup or regulation. No matter what they
| choose, a large number of people will be against them.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| There's nothing inevitable about freedom of speech. China is
| 4000 years old, and they still don't have it. It WAS hard
| fought for. Speaking and thinking are the same thing. A society
| that cannot speak without fear of censorship is one that cannot
| think. It cannot ask difficult questions. It cannot speak truth
| to power. It is as much a cultural value as a legal one. It
| should be promoted and celebrated.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Ok I'll bite. I'm sure this person means well. But I have to ask
| - why are they the authority on what is OK for people to believe,
| talk about, and propagate? Who owns the truth? Why is this
| persons views the correct ones? Or even more, what about things
| that are talked about on the internet, have their groups, that
| they don't find problematic but others do. And why are those ok?
| Because they believe this?
|
| The foundation of Liberalism (I'm not saying left wing here) is
| that no one owns knowledge. No one has the last day and all
| opinions can be heard. And mocked relentlessly. And through this
| we will discover as close to the truth as we can.
|
| Nobody - no group, movement, person, or authority owns the truth.
| All ideas are fallible. If people use the internet to say the
| most outrageous things then do be it. The minute someone gets to
| say "that's ok to be said and this other thing is not. End of
| story" we are in trouble. It doesn't mean someone can't be raked
| across the coals for their awful ideas - you need to own it. But
| anyone or group that gets to determine what is ok and what is not
| is, in essence, a fundamentalist regime.
|
| We don't need inquisitors. We don't need thought police. We do
| need people willing to say "that's bullshit and here is why". If
| you can prove that generally speaking 2+2=5 then the foundation
| of arithmetic is broken. But meanwhile I can poke holes in your
| argument. Until you can prove it better than 2+2=4 then I can
| judge you for a sophist at best, a dipshit less generously.
| fossuser wrote:
| I think he's right, but there's a subtlety here that's often
| missed. Zuckerberg talks about it directly [0] and I think his
| approach is probably the most reasonable.
|
| Social Media platforms do have some responsibility to moderate
| (and they have the legal Good Samaritan protection to do so in
| the US thanks to section 230). They have a particular
| responsibility since their 'engagement' algorithms have often
| historically led to making things worse by elevating
| controversial content.
|
| FB for their part has put a lot of effort into determining this
| kind of moderation standard [1]. The recent political stuff is
| interesting in part because Zuckerberg is arguing that
| democratically elected politicians should be an exception to
| these rules, basically that citizens have a right to see the
| speech of their elected leaders (and lies should be corrected by
| a free press). While FB is legally able to moderate the speech of
| an elected politician on their platform, Zuckerberg argues it's
| wrong for FB to decide what political speech is okay to block
| because they shouldn't be in the position to make that call. I
| think he's right to be concerned about that precedent. This
| doesn't apply to the speech of regular users or even to the
| political speech of non-democratically 'elected' politicians.
|
| [0]: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-
| and-f... [1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-
| scum-inside-...
|
| [Edit]: Also this:
|
| > "One thing that interests me and that I have so far not been
| able to find out is how it starts. How does a 'normal' person
| step into this cult world where up is down and not think to
| themselves: "Hm, this does not seem like it is believable"."
|
| I think people _do_ think this at first, but I think we are all
| more vulnerable to being infected by bullshit then we like to
| believe. People are wildly inconsistent, even in their own views
| most of the time. We think poorly, many people believe crazy
| things, we argue via motivated reasoning, don 't extend views
| globally, don't consider things the same when they're out of
| sight etc.
|
| When exposed to lots of wrong information repeatedly I think most
| people get corrupted, even those that are pretty analytical. I
| think it takes continuous vigilance to not believe crazy things
| (and I think people get worse as they get older at being able to
| do this well).
|
| I don't think these are outliers, I think this is the norm. Most
| people just don't wonder about things at all so avoid being
| radicalized into harmful action based on their own crazy beliefs.
| I also suspect in-person interaction has a lot of built in de-
| escalation mechanisms that bias towards unity and friendliness
| most of the time, so things get worse when you lose that natural
| control.
| not2b wrote:
| What I notice about the Facebook way of doing things is that,
| especially in their mobile app, they will highlight the most
| outrageous and flame-worthy comment on any contentious topic.
| The algorithms, I'm sure, are doing this deliberately, because
| they prioritize "engagement". They want people pissed off so
| they'll respond, get into arguments, and see more ads in the
| process.
|
| Remember the classic XKCD comic "Duty Calls":
| https://xkcd.com/386/ ? It seems the social media companies
| have decided that promoting this kind of thing, keeping that
| guy up all night arguing, makes them more money.
| baby wrote:
| So we have great tools to facilitate communication between
| people, and yeah there is downside to having people communicate,
| does it mean communication is bad? I don't think so.
| dexen wrote:
| Two observations:
|
| 1. The crazy ideas _jacquesm_ decries have a limited _influence_
| on one 's life. Those are (predominantly) singular topics rather
| than all-encompassing ideologies. They are more of conversation
| starters than life guides. Aside of some rare dangerous ones
| (COVID-19 theories perhaps?), their impact places somewhere
| between stamp collecting and junk food consumption. All the flat
| earthers, the 5G's, the moon landing hoaxes etc., - let people
| have weird hobbies. We can handle them as a society.
|
| 2. Given how prevalent conspiracy theories are - across times,
| cultures, geographical locations, social niches - I posit our
| propensity towards them is not a random fluke of human psyche.
| No, I posit the conspiracy theories play a role in some other
| societal processes. I posit that trying to eradicate or suppress
| _the underlying mechanism_ , without understanding the mechanism
| in the wider context of all societal processes would cause
| unforeseen negative consequences.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Also, any effort to regulate via law what people are spouting
| quickly becomes a cure worse than the disease.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Ain't the software; it's the peopleware.
|
| > But there are a lot of them and they all have the vote, waiting
| to be pushed as useful idiots to some higher goal. Politicians
| have started to realize that they don't actually need to get a
| real mandate, and that they won't be held accountable for lying.
| At that level, every time someone lies more people become
| susceptible to being pulled in to this web of deception.
|
| One viable thing to do is redistribute political power instead of
| wealth.
|
| The act of trying to centralize everything into a legacy,
| monolithic, waterfall, big iron system results in a Tower of
| Babel.
|
| Its proponents swear it's Progress.
|
| Return to the enumerated powers on the Constitution, and refactor
| all this Progressive cruft to the State level, where voters can
| either be wise or spendthrift at their leisure.
|
| Doubtless we'll prefer a more catastrophic collapse, but dreaming
| is still occasionally legal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-12 23:00 UTC)