Facebook says it can't guarantee social media is good for democracy
61 replies, posted
[QUOTE]SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O) warned on Monday that it could offer no assurance that social media was on balance good for democracy, but the company said it was trying what it could to stop alleged meddling in elections by Russia or anyone else.
The sharing of false or misleading headlines on social media has become a global issue, after accusations that Russia tried to influence votes in the United States, Britain and France. Moscow denies the allegations.
Facebook, the largest social network with more than 2 billion users, addressed social media’s role in democracy in blog posts from a Harvard University professor, Cass Sunstein, and from an employee working on the subject.
“I wish I could guarantee that the positives are destined to outweigh the negatives, but I can‘t,” Samidh Chakrabarti, a Facebook product manager, wrote in his post.
Facebook, he added, has a “moral duty to understand how these technologies are being used and what can be done to make communities like Facebook as representative, civil and trustworthy as possible.”
Contrite Facebook executives were already fanning out across Europe this week to address the company’s slow response to abuses on its platform, such as hate speech and foreign influence campaigns.
U.S. lawmakers have held hearings on the role of social media in elections, and this month Facebook widened an investigation into the run-up to Britain’s 2016 referendum on EU membership.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-politics/facebook-says-it-cant-guarantee-social-media-is-good-for-democracy-idUSKBN1FB14G?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a65cec104d301781eed27e9&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters.[/URL]
I wonder if this is related to what's happening in cambodia [url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/meghara/facebook-cambodia-democracy?utm_term=.jfpK9018X#.mjQz3MPA8]right now[/url]
They should, in the future I feel, as part of education teach children about how to discern facts through social media and such. I feel that's going to be a important skill to democratic states, not so much totalitarian though.
It feels even more appropriate now than ever to call this the disinformation age.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;53071912]They should, in the future I feel, as part of education teach children about how to discern facts through social media and such. I feel that's going to be a important skill to democratic states, not so much totalitarian though.[/QUOTE]
They did do some stuff about what is a good source when I went to school. They could probably just put more emphasis on that, tell kids they should keep that in mind when they read anything, not just research for an assignment.
I think social media is pretty good for democracy. It's just uneducated people that's the problem
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53071903]I wonder if this is related to what's happening in cambodia [url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/meghara/facebook-cambodia-democracy?utm_term=.jfpK9018X#.mjQz3MPA8]right now[/url][/QUOTE]
if something of that nature is a concern, they never had a democracy in the first place
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53071976]I think social media is pretty good for democracy. It's just uneducated people that's the problem[/QUOTE]
If there's one fundamental flaw the Internet has, it's how easy it is to create echo chambers where only certain views flourish, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories and gonzo politics. The_Donald is almost a textbook example of such a case.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53071997]If there's one fundamental flaw the Internet has, it's how easy it is to create echo chambers where only certain views flourish, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories and gonzo politics. The_Donald is almost a textbook example of such a case.[/QUOTE]
Well, you have that too without the internet. In fact, without the internet it's easier to make stuff up since without it you don't really have a way to fact check stuff
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53072008]Well, you have that too without the internet. In fact, without the internet it's easier to make stuff up since without it you don't really have a way to fact check stuff[/QUOTE]
It does tend to proliferate more easily, especially if you have a fixed set of views and find persons with the same fixed views
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53072014]It does tend to proliferate more easily, especially if you have a fixed set of views and find persons with the same fixed views[/QUOTE]
And you don't think that's the case with tight knittet communities? Like imagine a town with 13202 inhabitants where the only news outlet is fox news
Hey look, it's exactly what I've been saying for the past five years, and everyone called me a silly luddite afraid of the future...
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53072018]And you don't think that's the case with tight knittet communities? Like imagine a town with 13202 inhabitants where the only news outlet is fox news[/QUOTE]
Except on the internet, you can easily surround yourself with other people who share your most niche hobbies or insane beliefs, and you're more likely to make your fringe beliefs public. Like how furry communities only really exist online, or 9/11 truthers, or /pol/.
Let's take some insane belief -- say, flat Earthers, or -- and suppose that an insignificantly small fraction of Americans believes in it -- say, one tenth of one percent. I live in a neighborhood of 15,000, which could have 16 flat Earthers, who, surrounded by 14,984 people who don't share this crazy belief, aren't likely to spout off about it.
Now let's suppose that some smaller fraction uses the internet to find other flat Earthers -- say, 25% -- and thanks to anonymity they're happy to wear their crazy beliefs on their sleeve. That's 56,000 people, all humming away on flat Earth forums and convincing each other that their 1-in-1000 beliefs are normal and rational, because the human brain -- designed without the internet in mind -- can't equate 56,000 people as a tiny fraction of the overall population.
e: or consider NAMBLA or child porn rings, which absolutely nobody is going to admit they're a member of -- on the internet they can anonymously find hundreds or thousands of people who think just like them
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;53071912]They should, in the future I feel, as part of education teach children about how to discern facts through social media and such. I feel that's going to be a important skill to democratic states, not so much totalitarian though.[/QUOTE]
They basically are. There's a [url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0002831216679817]study[/url] out there showing that traditional attempts on the part of schools to teach political knowledge are wildly ineffective and biased, whereas 'media literacy training' and the ability to evaluate argument, sort through different sources, and take 'critical loyalty' to one's own positions is much more effective at spotting false claims.
We've only had social media for a relatively short period of time, it's important to preserve its pluralistic and open platform nature instead of clamping down on this and exploiting its centralized nature to ironically preserve democracy. Its unfamiliar figures, ideologies, and circles stand in stark contrast to a range of media outlets, political figures, and ideas propped up by money that everyone across generations are familiar with. This is a very good thing because there was widespread dissent with American political discourse as it existed beforehand.
In my opinion, the way most social media sites like Facebook and YouTube use techniques to learn what your interests are and start showing you content that goes along with your interests is the most dangerous thing about them because it will easily trap you into an echo chamber whether you like it or not.
For example, i clicked on a few posts from conservative pages on Facebook, and for the next few days my home page was flooded with posts from other conservative pages that I have never even heard of. I had to actively start reading other content to get rid of Facebook's suggestions.
The same happens with your friends posts; Facebook only shows you posts from friends you interact with. I have about 150 friends, but I only see posts from no more than 10 of the friends that I interact with the most on my home page (by interact, I mean liking their posts and commenting on them).
The same happens on YouTube; watch a few videos from a specific political youtuber and your video recommendations will mostly be videos from similar youtubers.
Social media sites do this to keep you addicted to the site but the very dangerous side effect of this is that you will become trapped in a bubble and you will no longer see any content that contradicts your views.
This isn't just about politics, of course; if you watch cat videos on YouTube or like anime pages on Facebook, you will keep seeing that content all the time.
How will people make an informed decision when voting if all they see is what they already agree with and rarely see something that contradicts their views?
Social media is cancer in general, so I'm not surprised they're saying this. It's just so fucking easy to spew absolute bullshit completely anonymously, and with how everyone just cliques up, it's no big surprise at all.
IT's why I don't use any of those sites.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53071976]I think social media is pretty good for democracy. It's just uneducated people that's the problem[/QUOTE]
Eh, not really. It has the [I]potential[/I] to be, but as we see it now, it's just a cancerous cesspool of echo chambers far too easily influenced by hostile actors. Used to be a day you needed agents on the ground to rig elections, nowadays you can throw a pittance at a few pissed-at-the-world teenagers and they can do it from the comfort of their own home. Emphasis on 'few', because you only need enough to seed the idea, it will propagate on its own after a while.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53071976]I think social media is pretty good for democracy. It's just uneducated people that's the problem[/QUOTE]
People who say this clearly didn't watch as during the use of social media to perform uprisings, nearly every single one has failed due to infighting which has been caused by social media.
Social media, at its core, follows the same principals as memes. Short easy messages that are catchy and can spread. You cannot have any form of conversation besides shouting matches and unconditional agreement in such conditions.
Social media is good on paper, bad in practice
I genuinely think cable news and social media are the greatest threats to democracy currently.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53072322]Let's boil it down further: greed.[/QUOTE]
Nah
Canpiagn finance is bad, but a misinformed divided voter base is worse.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;53072341]Nah
Canpiagn finance is bad, but a misinformed divided voter base is worse.[/QUOTE]
why do you think media might want to mislead people
Social Media is like any tool; it's a benefit or a hazard. It's how people use it that matters.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53071997]If there's one fundamental flaw the Internet has, it's how easy it is to create echo chambers where only certain views flourish, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories and gonzo politics. The_Donald is almost a textbook example of such a case.[/QUOTE]
facepunch is also such a case
[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;53072538]facepunch is also such a case[/QUOTE]
Not really. FP is hardly an echo chamber. Anyone can come here and voice their opinions (so long it is within reason - don't expect to last long if you come here and start crying "all black people need to die!!!"), but they also gotta be ready to have their views challenged by a, admittedly, largely left-leaning userbase.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;53072549]Not really. FP is hardly an echo chamber. Anyone can come here and voice their opinions (so long it is within reason - don't expect to last long if you come here and start crying "all black people need to die!!!"), but they also gotta be ready to have their views challenged by a, admittedly, largely left-leaning userbase.[/QUOTE]
In my experience anyone who defends the GOP or Donald Trump almost always get flamed and told they are a retard. For an example, check my visitor messages. That was from me saying that people vote for what ideals they have, not for what the person they voted for have done in their personal time.
[QUOTE=Hatley;53072516]Social Media is like any tool; it's a benefit or a hazard. It's how people use it that matters.[/QUOTE]
it's got hardly anything to do with "people" when facebook's shit-ass algorithm is literally playing with your emotions and inserting ads or headlines for you to react at
[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;53072558]In my experience anyone who defends the GOP or Donald Trump almost always get flamed and told they are a retard. For an example, check my visitor messages. That was from me saying that people vote for what ideals they have, not for what the person they voted for have done in their personal time.[/QUOTE]
To my knowledge nobody who expressed themselves reasonably without relying on doublethink bullshit and skirting lines has ever been targeted for espousing conservative viewpoint except by the most vocal of the liberal posters. And I can personally assure you I've almost never applied blanket statements to supporters of Trump or the conservative party, as long as they attempted to make some sense. I'm willing to debate with them on good faith if they're willing to respond in good faith, but bets are off if you're trying to use the same dishonest tactics the GOP are so desperately employing to keep themselves in power.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;53072549]Not really. FP is hardly an echo chamber. Anyone can come here and voice their opinions (so long it is within reason - don't expect to last long if you come here and start crying "all black people need to die!!!"), but they also gotta be ready to have their views challenged by a, admittedly, largely left-leaning userbase.[/QUOTE]
Facepunch operates in a similar way just like all enclosed communities, it's just way less extreme. Just go into any thread in polidicks and more often than not everybody agrees with everybody. Some topics have a wider variation of opinions than others but facepunch moderators unintentionally moderates in such a way that people of a certain political leaning are concentrated. It's not necessarily bad, and it's impossible to avoid, but it's important to recognize and I think many users here could be a bit more self aware. Honestly something I think would help is that if someone makes a point in a post in a thread, rate agree and abstain from saying the same thing. It would be nice to have more discussion and less ganging up on users making a controversial post. This is getting a bit off topic though, forgive me.
[QUOTE=Pigbear;53072409]why do you think media might want to mislead people[/QUOTE]
Fair point, I guess greed is why after all.
[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;53072558]In my experience anyone who defends the GOP or Donald Trump almost always get flamed and told they are a retard. For an example, check my visitor messages. That was from me saying that people vote for what ideals they have, not for what the person they voted for have done in their personal time.[/QUOTE]
This comes down to a pretty simple reality.
They're uninformed.
For instance, there was a thread about the Government Shut Down in Polidicks. One of the Republican posters there who is a regular poster decided to post his take on the issue. That's all well and fine, but his take on the issue was critically un-informed, was missing several key elements of the story, had tons of details omitted and changed. He cited Fox News as his news source that he was actively watching as he was discussing it.
What is the alternative to mentioning to that person "Hey that isn't true"? People do it in a variety of ways, everyone has their different levels of patience for patently absurd lies.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;53072630]Facepunch operates in a similar way just like all enclosed communities, it's just way less extreme. Just go into any thread in polidicks and more often than not everybody agrees with everybody. Some topics have a wider variation of opinions than others but facepunch moderators unintentionally moderates in such a way that people of a certain political leaning are concentrated. It's not necessarily bad, and it's impossible to avoid, but it's important to recognize and I think many users here could be a bit more self aware. Honestly something I think would help is that if someone makes a point in a post in a thread, rate agree and abstain from saying the same thing. It would be nice to have more discussion and less ganging up on users making a controversial post. This is getting a bit off topic though, forgive me.[/QUOTE]
Political threads had a lot more arguments when it wasn't "facts vs non-reality".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.