On the ethics of social medias: hate speech, violence, misinformation.

[Flinn]

Never Is Now 2019 | ADL International Leadership Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen. I suggest to watch it carefully and listen to every single word he says.



However, that was 2019. Now, this is very recent:

Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public.

In case you have problems to watch the video in the linked article, below is the direct youtube feed



I don't believe it really needs much words, either one sees the issue or they don't. I live in a very divisive country by nature (we are the sons and daughters of the dividi et impera strategy and parochialism is as old as our history), but definitely the social medias, FB in particular, made our society worst and more divided than ever.

One curious thing: this comes out and FB goes offline for 6 hours...


edit:

Spoiler for just saying, eh: 

[Heathen Hammer]

Is there a QRD for ADL video? Life has so many things to offer and watching a hollywood actor mostly famous for his rather "racially insensitive" portrayal of Central Asian people bloviate about racism and diversity while accepting award from a cult-like partisan group that routinely dogwhistles to marxists and globalists is something I can do maybe for 4 minutes, but not all 24.
The 60 minutes video is blocked in my country, but thank gods for VPNs. It wasn't really anything THAT surprising, although its funny how her problem with her organization was not enough censorship. Also her idea of being "radicalized" is becoming Trump supporter, the fact that roughly half of the country being "radicalized" kinda removes the "radical" aspect out of it didn't really enter that big strong brain of hers.
All in all, my own stance on speech has always been that it should be totally unrestricted. The only way for humanity to progress is through free market of opinions and ideas. Of course, we have top-to-down push for censorship from the elites, who simply see society embracing new or different ideas as an existential threat to their power and wealth.
COVID-hysteria is a good example of this process. If you follow the money, you quickly realize that there is a pretty strong link between censorship of criticism of Big Pharma being labeled as "dangerous misinformation" and... Big Pharma itself.
So push for censorship has never been about brining any benefit for the society, but rather safeguarding the interests of groups and corporations that desperately cling to wealth and power.

[Flinn]

I'd say that removing blatant lies or impeding people from spreading hate is not censorship, is keeping barely minimum standards.

I'd still invite you to watch the video, it's very hard to comment on something if you did not bother to properly study it before, isn't it?

[Heathen Hammer]

I'd say that removing blatant lies or impeding people from spreading hate is not censorship, is keeping barely minimum standards.

Its always an excuse to remove unwanted information, plus who gets to decide on what is misinformation and "spreading hate"? Term "spreading hate" itself is stupid, since hate is an emotion, which is ultimately subjective. Best to leave it to free market of ideas, where bad ideas can be argued with good ones.

I'd still invite you to watch the videos, it's very hard to comment on something if you did not bother to properly study it before, isn't it?

Because if he said something worthwhile, then it wouldn't be difficult to summarize.

[Flinn]

Its always an excuse to remove unwanted information, plus who gets to decide on what is misinformation and "spreading hate"? Term "spreading hate" itself is stupid, since hate is an emotion, which is ultimately subjective. Best to leave it to free market of ideas, where bad ideas can be argued with good ones.

Except is not, there are cases which are blatant hate speech: if I say "I hate Russians (or whatever), they all should be killed and their country nuked" there isn't anything as subjective. Pretending to negate hate speech because hate is subjective, is exactly where the problem lies.

[Heathen Hammer]

Except is not, there are cases which are blatant hate speech: if I say "I hate Russians (or whatever), they all should be killed and their country nuked" there isn't anything as subjective. Pretending to negate hate speech because hate is subjective, is exactly where the problem lies.

I'd disagree with statement itself, but you do have a right to say it. Hate is subjective, and thus "hate speech" isn't a real thing. Most country's "hate speech" laws are vague and usually are used to attack dissenters and wrongthinkers. UK with arrest of Count Dancula spring to mind, as well as ironically Russian "extremism" laws.
If someone says something you disagree with, then you have a right to debate it, but that's that.
Plus if you need censorship, then you yourself imply that you think your ideas are so bad that they need enforcement to be taken by the public.

[Flinn]

I'd disagree with statement itself, but you do have a right to say it. Hate is subjective, and thus "hate speech" isn't a real thing.

Again, it's not Maybe putting it this way is better: hate speech is not about your hate, but about promoting hate and violence as a solution. I understand that in some cases or countries that's considered an acceptable solution, it is not so for me and, as far as I know, for the country I live in. Of course if one refuses the very existence of hate generating content, there's nothing to discuss here.

If someone says something you disagree with, then you have a right to debate it, but that's that.

precisely ...

Plus if you need censorship, then you yourself imply that you think your ideas are so bad that they need enforcement to be taken by the public.

this has nothing to do with censorship I'm afraid, but again, it depends on the fundamental values any individual might have or not have, that is

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, it's not Maybe putting it this way is better: hate speech is not about your hate, but about promoting hate and violence as a solution. I understand that in some cases or countries that's considered an acceptable solution, it is not so for me and, as far as I know, for the country I live in. Of course if one refuses the very existence of hate generating content, there's nothing to discuss here.

So? Bible, Quran, Talmud and pretty much every "holy book" inexistence promote hatred and violence. So do countless classical works of literature, art and music. Hate is just an emotion, just like love, anger, spite and confusion. Should we ban "love speech" or "annoying speech"? How about banning "confusing speech"?
Hence why you can't really have "hate speech", since you can't really hurt someone with words lol.

[antaeus]

I think the censorship debate is a red herring. I tend to agree with Heathen, that censorship of speech can be counter productive and divisive, and in an environment where there is free and unfettered access to information, extreme perspectives tend to remain on the fringe.

The real issue I see with social media in general, and Facebook in particular, is that there is a paradox at the heart of how they exist. That in order to be able to function, they need to profit. They don't exist for a social good. They aren't a town square. They are for profit enterprises. They profit from advertising. In order to profit, they need to generate interactions with advertisers. In order to generate interactions they have chosen to use algorithms to pick and choose what we see. They shape what we see in such a way as to promote interactions - which in turn allow them to better learn more about us in order to better target advertising for us to interact with. It is a loop. This lends the algorithm towards picking loud, brash, opinionated, emotion inciting content. This seriously blurs the line between us exercising free will and free speech, and them shaping our free will/speech.

The moment they start shaping our experience in such a way so as to promote interaction, they have essentially removed any potential for a true free speech environment. What we are seeing now, is the result of this. That fringe speech has been artificially amplified by the algorithm because it prompts reactions (and interactions). Because fringe speech has been promoted, in order to reinstate a societal equilibrium where this speech would normally be filtered out by society, they are forced by society to censor - or at least appear to censor. This is a paradox that can't be resolved within the current monetisation structure. This unsolvable tension is at the heart of Haugen's comments.

I don't see a solution to this problem. Social media can't be undone. It is here now. Without content filtering algorithms to maximise engagement, engagement on individual platforms tends to drift away over time as people look for the next exciting platform and fashion changes - and businesses don't exist to let their customer base drift away. This is why algorithmic filtering is introduced whenever big companies buy exciting new indie platforms (hello Instagram), or when indie startups need to monetise (Snapchat/Tik Tok). The algorithm keeps us in place, so they can serve us the adds that pay their bills. Subscription models might work, but not on the scale of Facebook - especially considering the potential democratising effect for those in poverty around the world to have payment-free access to social media. Advertising does work, but advertisers are vulnerable to attrition thanks to wasted money spent when there isn't an algorithm based feeder system in place. Alternative "not for profit" "free speech" platforms end up being havens for those most affected by censorship - those who would normally be filtered out by the societal equilibrium - and while in-principle 'free', in reality they lose the mundane, middle ground content that much of our societal discourse is actually made up of.

I just don't know how to solve the paradox. I don't think turning private corporations into arbiters of free speech is the solution, but realistically, they already are. Certainly it would be good for society to have more transparency over how these corporations decide what we see. But I don't have any real solutions.

[Derc]

Hence why you can't really have "hate speech", since you can't really hurt someone with words lol.

Where have you been in 2020/2021? You speak your opinion and you get cancelled into oblivion. Special snowflakes have hijacked it all. And worst: they are triggered for real.

This one comes to mind every time it happens again:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Flinn]

Hence why you can't really have "hate speech", since you can't really hurt someone with words lol.

Oh dude, that's the goofiest thing I've ever read, really

Ok ok I got your point, as I said in the OP, this is a kind of problem someone can see or cannot see, clearly we see it from a different angle.

Any comment on why FB went down just after that interview became public?

I just don't know how to solve the paradox. "snip". Certainly it would be good for society to have more transparency over how these corporations decide what we see. But I don't have any real solutions.

That would be something, accountability should be the rule in any case.

[Muizer]

@antaeus, I broadly agree with you. I really don't like the idea of moderation on a massive scale either. But I actually am hopeful that there are alternatives. If you think about it, the concept of 'show people more of the things they've been show already' is actually rather simplistic both technologically and as a the theory behind how it leads to profit. I suspect that if people were given the choice between 'show more of what I've already been shown' and 'show me the most reliable info on this subject', most people would choose the latter of their own volition. That option just doesn't really exist atm. It's technologically a lot harder to do, but I don't think it would be beyond the capabilities of the Tech Giants if they set their minds to it. It's not so much a matter of eventual profitability as of complacency or an unwillingness to invest in something when the current system is good enough to make money.

[Heathen Hammer]

Where have you been in 2020/2021? You speak your opinion and you get cancelled into oblivion. Special snowflakes have hijacked it all. And worst: they are triggered for real.

Their "power" is in them being taken seriously, which is thankfully vanning.
I think modern liberal cultists are pretty much same thing as evangelicals in 1980s/90s and it won't be hard for newer generations to bully them away.

Ok ok I got your point, as I said in the OP, this is a kind of problem someone can see or cannot see, clearly we see it from a different angle.

Any comment on why FB went down just after that interview became public?

As I said earlier, I found it hilarious that her only problem was the fact that there wasn't enough censorship, plus the fact that she was on 60 minutes as "whistleblower" is quite sus, given that real whistleblowers like Assange and Snowden had a hell of a time surviving, let alone being paraded by corporate propaganda outlets. The narrative is that Big Tech is ... not censoring those pesky citizens enough. Then she brings up her "radicalized" friend, saying that because he voted Trump. Yeah, it doesn't seem like her criticism is logical or rational and is based on dumb emotional arguments, and I'm saying that as person that cheered for Facebook and its affiliate media went down, hoping that its forever.

[Flinn]

and I'm saying that as person that cheered for Facebook and its affiliate media went down, hoping that its forever.

best 6 hours in a long while, I concur

[Cope]

Any comment on why FB went down just after that interview became public?

Likely a coincidence.

The interview exposed very little. It simply accused Facebook of operating in the way that the mainstream/legacy media has been operating for decades (prioritizing profits over people, spreading disinformation, promoting polarizing/"harmful" material etc). The testimony is being treated as profound only because it aligns with the interests of the press and the political establishment who are envious of Facebook's power (despite the fact that Facebook often kowtows to their pressure).

[Prodromos]

I think if you create something like a social media network, you have a responsibility to see that it won't be used for nefarious purposes. How you accomplish that is up to you, but a totally laissez-faire policy is probably beyond the range of acceptable options. Not that many social media platforms have such a policy, but they could certainly do a better job of restricting immoral content like obscenity and incitement to human rights violations. Needless to say, these content restrictions should be implemented voluntarily and without government intervention.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm fine with restricting "right" of social media corporations to deny platforms for content that isn't illegal (CP and things like that). Just make it open season for any content and for users that don't want to see it, there are always filters, so there isn't really any excuse not to implement it. Let the free market of opinions flourish!
However, any regulation beyond stripping Big tech of the "right" to censor is a dangerous can of worms that is best to remain closed.

[Cope]

What the powerful consider "nefarious" typically includes content which challenges or criticizes orthodox or established thinking. No major social media platform or big tech company has a "totally laissez-faire" policy. The purpose of Haugen's testimony (and its disproportionate coverage) was not to promote a rules-based, neutral approach, but to pressure Facebook into censoring material which offends the liberal mainstream.

[Prodromos]

I'm fine with restricting "right" of social media corporations to deny platforms for content that isn't illegal (CP and things like that). Just make it open season for any content and for users that don't want to see it, there are always filters, so there isn't really any excuse not to implement it.

So you think Total War Center should be forced by the government to stop banning porn? You think The Puritan Board should be forced to let atheists and Catholics join their community? You think Mumsnet should be forced to allow neo-Nazi propaganda on their forum?

If child porn was legalized but Facebook refused to allow it on their site, should the government force them to allow it?

What the powerful consider "nefarious" typically includes content which challenges or criticizes orthodox or established thinking. No major social media platform or big tech company has a "totally laissez-faire" policy. The purpose of Haugen's testimony (and its disproportionate coverage) was not to promote a rules-based, neutral approach, but to pressure Facebook into censoring material which offends the liberal mainstream.

Their problem isn't that they want to restrict content, it's that they want to restrict the wrong kinds of content. Twitter bans "misgendering" people while TWC bans pornography and incitement to genocide. They're not the same. One is justified and the other isn't.

[Heathen Hammer]

So you think Total War Center should be forced by the government to stop banning porn? You think The Puritan Board should be forced to let atheists and Catholics join their community? You think Mumsnet should be forced to allow neo-Nazi propaganda on their forum?

It should apply to major social media platforms, not brick&mortar sites and topical forums. Just like there are tax brackets, there should be popularity brackets, if you go above certain level of usership then you shouldn't be allowed to regulate content, but should allow a filter system that would let users avoid content they don't want. That way all sides are happy.

If child porn was legalized but Facebook refused to allow it on their site, should the government force them to allow it?

If you have government like that, then you have bigger problems.

Their problem isn't that they want to restrict content, it's that they want to restrict the wrong kinds of content. Twitter bans "misgendering" people while TWC bans pornography and incitement to genocide. They're not the same. One is justified and the other isn't.

Its the same as far as fundamental Western values such as freedom of speech are concerned.