Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

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

  1. #21
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    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.
    Haugen's testimony, and the internal research papers she has presented aren't just about political ideas and censorship. It isn't just about censoring content that challenges established thinking, it's about the way Facebook and it's products present extreme ideas in general as normal and inescapable, without context or counterviews. And they do this to profit. There is a clear difference. It isn't about how it offends "liberal mainstream", although the mainstream certainly has jumped at the opportunity to put the boot in. But it affects conservatives, Christians, Muslims, liberals, whatever etc alike. All of their worldviews are exaggerated. Including ironically, the conservative fear of censorship itself.

    But this isn't just about politics. It is about how their platforms shape people from their vulnerable childhood years upwards, they tap into peer pressure on a global scale and deliberately feed content that instils fear, that heightens body issues, self esteem, that exaggerates dislike and distaste. They feed us anything that will make us click more - and often that isn't the stuff that helps us feel good about ourselves. One of the often quoted papers on Instagram that Haugen has presented illustrates this point - that teenage girls come away from Instagram sessions feeling worse, and more likely to have suicidal ideation, but they can't stop using it because of how pervasive the product is in their society and the addictive nature of the material the product serves. And that Facebook knows this, and thinks it is acceptable to continue because it promotes engagement/profit. This means that thanks to the way Instagram's algorithm's process recommendations for teens, all it takes for pro-anorexia content to appear, for example, is for someone in that demographic to search for food: because what teen with poor self-esteem isn't going to click on that feed that claims to have all the answers?

    In this forum, we get fixated on the political elements of free speech and free expression, but it stretches father than this. And the difficulty is that exposing people to the content that is fed to us isn't inherently bad - in fact it could even be good. Teens have been sharing ideas on weight loss for generations. But it is how the platform takes the extreme views - on anything - not just politics, and presents them as normal without context or counter-balance, and doesn't tell us it is doing this. It does it over and over and over until it starts to shape our ability to think rationally about any issue. This denies us freedom of belief, expression, thought, what ever.

    I don't think forcing them to censor material that they already censor for us via algorithm is logical. I think removing the algorithm would solve the issue for us. But that's not going to happen without laws. So for a start as I said, transparency would be a good first step.
    Last edited by antaeus; October 06, 2021 at 05:48 PM. Reason: blurgh.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  2. #22

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

    What's wrong with extreme ideas? Extreme ideas have always driven humanity forward, in every field of life from economy and politics to science and tech innovations. It seems that this demand for censorship is mainly on behalf of the financial elites, that simply realize that future has no place for them, and they desperately want to keep society in "status quo" where they have money and power, even while it is obsolete and archaic by modern standards. A lot of problems in modern Western society stem from that.
    So overall, if anything, normalization of "extreme" views is a good thing - not just because this will help pave way to long-overdue government/elite replacements, but also because they give humanity an intellectual boost. Da Vinci, Wright brothers, Tsiolkovsky, Korolyov - a lot of those men were considered to be "extreme" in their beliefs or methods, but their "extremism" made our lives today so much better.
    If anything, we need to encourage people to be more "extreme" in their thinking, to think more "outside the box".
    World is driven by extremists, not by people that blindly follow established norms.

  3. #23
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    What's wrong with extreme ideas? Extreme ideas have always driven humanity forward, in every field of life from economy and politics to science and tech innovations. It seems that this demand for censorship is mainly on behalf of the financial elites, that simply realize that future has no place for them, and they desperately want to keep society in "status quo" where they have money and power, even while it is obsolete and archaic by modern standards. A lot of problems in modern Western society stem from that.
    So overall, if anything, normalization of "extreme" views is a good thing - not just because this will help pave way to long-overdue government/elite replacements, but also because they give humanity an intellectual boost. Da Vinci, Wright brothers, Tsiolkovsky, Korolyov - a lot of those men were considered to be "extreme" in their beliefs or methods, but their "extremism" made our lives today so much better.
    If anything, we need to encourage people to be more "extreme" in their thinking, to think more "outside the box".
    World is driven by extremists, not by people that blindly follow established norms.
    Nothing is inherently wrong with extreme ideas. I agree that the fringes can provide positive as well as negative change.

    What is wrong, is when they are presented as normal, without context or counterpoint. And when the system itself makes it difficult to actually find a counter point because of the way it saturates you with only the extreme perspective on any given topic. Da Vinci is great to read about - to compare with Michelangelo, Donatello... even Raphael - Until all you see is Da Vinci. Da Vinci. Da Vinci and "the other three aren't real Ninja Turtles" over and over. Wall to wall. That isn't a good scenario. That doesn't allow you to make a rational assessment, or to judge whether Da Vinci is actually good or bad at all. That's a recipe for mindless drones following Da Vinci into oblivion.

    Extreme views are good, until all you see is an increasingly extreme version of the views you are interested in, and reinforcement of why other views are wrong. For a teenager, that means weight loss searches might lead to a saturation of pro-anorexia material wall to wall. If you're concerned about censorship, then all you'll get is increasingly extreme material on censorship without counter arguments. There is no way anybody who spends time on Facebook investigating an issue or idea of their choice can ever get served a balanced view on that issue with arguments for and against. It entirely removes the ability to think critically about a subject on the platform.

    Surely you, a critical thinker, can see where that might cause problems.
    Last edited by antaeus; October 06, 2021 at 06:42 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Haugen's testimony, and the internal research papers she has presented aren't just about political ideas and censorship. It isn't just about censoring content that challenges established thinking, it's about the way Facebook and it's products present extreme ideas in general as normal and inescapable, without context or counterviews. And they do this to profit. There is a clear difference. It isn't about how it offends "liberal mainstream", although the mainstream certainly has jumped at the opportunity to put the boot in. But it affects conservatives, Christians, Muslims, liberals, whatever etc alike. All of their worldviews are exaggerated. Including ironically, the conservative fear of censorship itself.

    But this isn't just about politics. It is about how their platforms shape people from their vulnerable childhood years upwards, they tap into peer pressure on a global scale and deliberately feed content that instils fear, that heightens body issues, self esteem, that exaggerates dislike and distaste. They feed us anything that will make us click more - and often that isn't the stuff that helps us feel good about ourselves. One of the often quoted papers on Instagram that Haugen has presented illustrates this point - that teenage girls come away from Instagram sessions feeling worse, and more likely to have suicidal ideation, but they can't stop using it because of how pervasive the product is in their society and the addictive nature of the material the product serves. And that Facebook knows this, and thinks it is acceptable to continue because it promotes engagement/profit. This means that thanks to the way Instagram's algorithm's process recommendations for teens, all it takes for pro-anorexia content to appear, for example, is for someone in that demographic to search for food: because what teen with poor self-esteem isn't going to click on that feed that claims to have all the answers?

    In this forum, we get fixated on the political elements of free speech and free expression, but it stretches father than this. And the difficulty is that exposing people to the content that is fed to us isn't inherently bad - in fact it could even be good. Teens have been sharing ideas on weight loss for generations. But it is how the platform takes the extreme views - on anything - not just politics, and presents them as normal without context or counter-balance, and doesn't tell us it is doing this. It does it over and over and over until it starts to shape our ability to think rationally about any issue. This denies us freedom of belief, expression, thought, what ever.

    I don't think forcing them to censor material that they already censor for us via algorithm is logical. I think removing the algorithm would solve the issue for us. But that's not going to happen without laws. So for a start as I said, transparency would be a good first step.
    The elevation of polarizing or extreme content for profit has been common within the media landscape for years. There is no “clear difference” between Facebook’s business model and the attention-seeking strategies employed by media outlets, advertisers, the press, Hollywood, record labels or other social media platforms (many of which work in concert with Facebook). It isn't even unusual for the very lawmakers tasked with formulating regulation to be culpable of, or complicit in, the dissemination of extreme, divisive and/or misleading information via big tech platforms.

    Haugen’s “concerns” about democracy and disinformation stretch credulity given her prior position on Facebook’s “civil integrity” team (which was responsible for censoring the Hunter Biden exposé in accordance with liberal Russia hysteria).



  5. #25
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The elevation of polarizing or extreme content for profit has been common within the media landscape for years. There is no “clear difference” between Facebook’s business model and the attention-seeking strategies employed by media outlets, advertisers, the press, Hollywood, record labels or other social media platforms (many of which work in concert with Facebook). It isn't even unusual for the very lawmakers tasked with formulating regulation to be culpable of, or complicit in, the dissemination of extreme, divisive and/or misleading information via big tech platforms.
    And then? Of course the media and political world is a convoluted spider web of self-interested interdependencies . This is a universal. *shrug*

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Haugen’s “concerns” about democracy and disinformation stretch credulity given her prior position on Facebook’s “civil integrity” team (which was responsible for censoring the Hunter Biden exposé in accordance with liberal Russia hysteria).
    Given that she left explicitly because of a frustration with her role and what she perceived as the damage she was complicit in causing, I wonder whether you're letting your politics cloud your judgement... her leaving a role that was responsible for selective censorship and going public with her concerns stemming from that role should lead to the opposite expression from you.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  6. #26

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    And then? Of course the media and political world is a convoluted spider web of self-interested interdependencies . This is a universal. *shrug*
    The selective outrage at Facebook is itself entirely self-serving. It has nothing to do with addressing extremism, polarization or disinformation, much less promoting a rules-based, neutral approach to social media.

    Given that she left explicitly because of a frustration with her role and what she perceived as the damage she was complicit in causing, I wonder whether you're letting your politics cloud your judgement... her leaving a role that was responsible for selective censorship and going public with her concerns stemming from that role should lead to the opposite expression from you.
    As per her own testimony, Haugen (a frequent Democratic Party donor being supported by Bryson Gillette) became disillusioned with Facebook when the "Civil Integrity" team was shut down, not because said team was culpable for classifying a legitimate story of significant public interest as disinformation. She's a liberal operative indirectly representing Democratic Party interests, nothing more.
    Last edited by Cope; October 07, 2021 at 01:34 AM.



  7. #27
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    You lost me at 'operative'
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  8. #28

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

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  9. #29

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Nothing is inherently wrong with extreme ideas. I agree that the fringes can provide positive as well as negative change.

    What is wrong, is when they are presented as normal, without context or counterpoint. And when the system itself makes it difficult to actually find a counter point because of the way it saturates you with only the extreme perspective on any given topic. Da Vinci is great to read about - to compare with Michelangelo, Donatello... even Raphael - Until all you see is Da Vinci. Da Vinci. Da Vinci and "the other three aren't real Ninja Turtles" over and over. Wall to wall. That isn't a good scenario. That doesn't allow you to make a rational assessment, or to judge whether Da Vinci is actually good or bad at all. That's a recipe for mindless drones following Da Vinci into oblivion.

    Extreme views are good, until all you see is an increasingly extreme version of the views you are interested in, and reinforcement of why other views are wrong. For a teenager, that means weight loss searches might lead to a saturation of pro-anorexia material wall to wall. If you're concerned about censorship, then all you'll get is increasingly extreme material on censorship without counter arguments. There is no way anybody who spends time on Facebook investigating an issue or idea of their choice can ever get served a balanced view on that issue with arguments for and against. It entirely removes the ability to think critically about a subject on the platform.

    Surely you, a critical thinker, can see where that might cause problems.
    I think what you are saying about social media applies to corporate mainstream media to a far bigger extent.
    It often presents ideas, while paired with misinformation about context and lack of counterpoints. Just look at how CNN talks about US elections, or FOX talks about Iran. Corporate media outlets do exactly what you said about social media - since corporate mainstream media is interested in providing strictly one perspective and cancel out all alternative viewpoints altogether.
    So if anything, social media exposing society to extreme ideas is helping fix the damage created by corporate media indoctrinating population. At least in case of social media, individual gets to pick one's flavor of ideas in the first place. So I think your arguments fits criticism against mainstream media far more then it does apply to social media. You get to largely pick your social media content, while corporate mainstream media force-feeds you only one perspective.
    For example, to go with your example perfectly, teenagers suffered from anorexia for decades, primarily due to unrealistic beauty standards set by corporate media.
    A darker example would be how CNN/MSNBC coverage of "kids in cages" hoax has resulted with an attempt by a mentally unstable antifa supporter to firebomb ICE facilities, thankfully only resulting in perp's death.
    Maybe if that antifa wannabe terrorist would have been exposed to debunking of that hoax on right-wing pages on social media, he wouldn't have attempted to commit that attack and would have still been alive.

  10. #30
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

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

    Censoring something as broad, personal, subjective and nebulous as "hate" speech can only realistically achieve one thing: It gives martyrs to the targeted group. It adds a sense of injustice on top of whatever their perceived injustice was. It rallies them, focusses them, motivates them and gives them grounds upon which to draw fresh recruits.

    At the same time: What else can we do? We can't allow, what we perceive as, hate to be propagated on principle and any conceivable act that might mitigate it will inevitably embolden it and energise it.
    So any criticism of a free speech policy is equally valid and equally vapid.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  11. #31

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Nothing is inherently wrong with extreme ideas. I agree that the fringes can provide positive as well as negative change.

    What is wrong, is when they are presented as normal, without context or counterpoint. And when the system itself makes it difficult to actually find a counter point because of the way it saturates you with only the extreme perspective on any given topic. Da Vinci is great to read about - to compare with Michelangelo, Donatello... even Raphael - Until all you see is Da Vinci. Da Vinci. Da Vinci and "the other three aren't real Ninja Turtles" over and over. Wall to wall. That isn't a good scenario. That doesn't allow you to make a rational assessment, or to judge whether Da Vinci is actually good or bad at all. That's a recipe for mindless drones following Da Vinci into oblivion.

    Extreme views are good, until all you see is an increasingly extreme version of the views you are interested in, and reinforcement of why other views are wrong. For a teenager, that means weight loss searches might lead to a saturation of pro-anorexia material wall to wall. If you're concerned about censorship, then all you'll get is increasingly extreme material on censorship without counter arguments. There is no way anybody who spends time on Facebook investigating an issue or idea of their choice can ever get served a balanced view on that issue with arguments for and against. It entirely removes the ability to think critically about a subject on the platform.

    Surely you, a critical thinker, can see where that might cause problems.
    I do not see why Facebook is promoting any particular views, it is merely a platform that people can post

    It is the mainstream media, with its editors and editorial decisions that promote a particular view, even liberal (CNN) or conservative (Fox) depending on the particular outlet.

    What Haegan and others want to do is i.pose censorship without the honesty of admitting it is censorship.

    It is the cancel culture that wants FB to impose their censorship.

  12. #32
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    I do not see why Facebook is promoting any particular views, it is merely a platform that people can post

    It is the mainstream media, with its editors and editorial decisions that promote a particular view, even liberal (CNN) or conservative (Fox) depending on the particular outlet.

    What Haegan and others want to do is i.pose censorship without the honesty of admitting it is censorship.

    It is the cancel culture that wants FB to impose their censorship.
    I don't think you've actually listened to Haugen's testimony, or read the Washington Post articles written about/with her supplied material. If you have, then you haven't understood it. I think you have an axe to grind with mainstream media, which is fine, but in this case, it is distracting your opinion. Because the very core of this debate is that Facebook does promote different content, not based on it's accuracy or it's political angle or it's source material, or any other editorial concern, but based on it's engagement ranking - how it stimulates interactions and engagement with components of Facebook that generate income for Facebook(E.g. Advertising), and how they encourage others to interact more.

    Facebook is not merely a platform for people to post. by ranking what you see based on engagement potential, it is actively shaping your experience and by it's nature, it is shaping how you feel about issues, it is preventing you from seeing other perspectives on issues. It is censoring what you see based on what it thinks will make you engage more.

    Sure mainstream media are guilty of a whole host of problems, but in this case, they are merely resources that Facebook is using to drive interactions through engagement based ranking of posts. They aren't the causal problem in this scenario.

    Facebook does this by, as already noted a few times, choosing to promote - via it's algorithm - certain types of posts with particular features that it knows will encourage interactions. Media, both mainstream and fringe have all learned this, so they shape their posts to best maximise how they will be picked up by Facebook's algorithms. Facebook's algorithm promotes anything that is likely to generate interactions. Based on their data, that is anything that incites strong emotional responses. This is not how normal interactions between people occur.

    And the thing that clues me in on how little you have understood, or read Haugen's testimony, is because some of her solutions to this problem include either limiting Facebook's use of engagement based post ranking, or removing it altogether so that posts come up in the order that they are posted.
    Last edited by antaeus; October 10, 2021 at 12:53 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  13. #33

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't think you've actually listened to Haugen's testimony, or read the Washington Post articles written about/with her supplied material. If you have, then you haven't understood it. I think you have an axe to grind with mainstream media, which is fine, but in this case, it is distracting your opinion. Because the very core of this debate is that Facebook does promote different content, not based on it's accuracy or it's political angle or it's source material, or any other editorial concern, but based on it's engagement ranking - how it stimulates interactions and engagement with components of Facebook that generate income for Facebook(E.g. Advertising), and how they encourage others to interact more.

    Facebook is not merely a platform for people to post. by ranking what you see based on engagement potential, it is actively shaping your experience and by it's nature, it is shaping how you feel about issues, it is preventing you from seeing other perspectives on issues. It is censoring what you see based on what it thinks will make you engage more.

    Sure mainstream media are guilty of a whole host of problems, but in this case, they are merely resources that Facebook is using to drive interactions through engagement based ranking of posts. They aren't the causal problem in this scenario.

    Facebook does this by, as already noted a few times, choosing to promote - via it's algorithm - certain types of posts with particular features that it knows will encourage interactions. Media, both mainstream and fringe have all learned this, so they shape their posts to best maximise how they will be picked up by Facebook's algorithms. Facebook's algorithm promotes anything that is likely to generate interactions. Based on their data, that is anything that incites strong emotional responses. This is not how normal interactions between people occur.

    And the thing that clues me in on how little you have understood, or read Haugen's testimony, is because some of her solutions to this problem include either limiting Facebook's use of engagement based post ranking, or removing it altogether so that posts come up in the order that they are posted.
    The mainstream media/press/Hollywood/advertisers were curating content based on "engagement" long before Facebook existed. Exploiting the thirst for sensationalism and conflict isn't something that they've "learned" in the last fifteen years, it's simply something they've transferred to the internet. The red carpet has been laid out for Haugen because her not-so-insightful testimony aligns with the liberal desire to censor and/or regulate Facebook in accordance with their own interests.



  14. #34

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Censoring something as broad, personal, subjective and nebulous as "hate" speech can only realistically achieve one thing: It gives martyrs to the targeted group. It adds a sense of injustice on top of whatever their perceived injustice was. It rallies them, focusses them, motivates them and gives them grounds upon which to draw fresh recruits.

    At the same time: What else can we do? We can't allow, what we perceive as, hate to be propagated on principle and any conceivable act that might mitigate it will inevitably embolden it and energise it.
    So any criticism of a free speech policy is equally valid and equally vapid.
    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't think you've actually listened to Haugen's testimony, or read the Washington Post articles written about/with her supplied material. If you have, then you haven't understood it. I think you have an axe to grind with mainstream media, which is fine, but in this case, it is distracting your opinion. Because the very core of this debate is that Facebook does promote different content, not based on it's accuracy or it's political angle or it's source material, or any other editorial concern, but based on it's engagement ranking - how it stimulates interactions and engagement with components of Facebook that generate income for Facebook(E.g. Advertising), and how they encourage others to interact more.

    Facebook is not merely a platform for people to post. by ranking what you see based on engagement potential, it is actively shaping your experience and by it's nature, it is shaping how you feel about issues, it is preventing you from seeing other perspectives on issues. It is censoring what you see based on what it thinks will make you engage more.

    Sure mainstream media are guilty of a whole host of problems, but in this case, they are merely resources that Facebook is using to drive interactions through engagement based ranking of posts. They aren't the causal problem in this scenario.

    Facebook does this by, as already noted a few times, choosing to promote - via it's algorithm - certain types of posts with particular features that it knows will encourage interactions. Media, both mainstream and fringe have all learned this, so they shape their posts to best maximise how they will be picked up by Facebook's algorithms. Facebook's algorithm promotes anything that is likely to generate interactions. Based on their data, that is anything that incites strong emotional responses. This is not how normal interactions between people occur.

    And the thing that clues me in on how little you have understood, or read Haugen's testimony, is because some of her solutions to this problem include either limiting Facebook's use of engagement based post ranking, or removing it altogether so that posts come up in the order that they are posted.
    Unlike the mainstream media, the Facebook does not create the content it portrays. The mainstream media does create their content. And I don't see the algorithms deliberately pushing a particular ideological agenda.

    If I have something about the mainstream media it is because it deserves it. Mainstream media has
    * Rigged trucks to explode to prove they have a safety defect

    * altered audiotapes to make a man on trial for his life seem guilty of racism

    * Show a picture of a 13 year old when the attacker 2as actually a much bigger 16 years

    *Commonly report if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been different when in fact the roles had been reversed earlier and the outcome was the same, but the media never bothered to report the fact

    * Showed pictures of hospitals in another country to prove how bad COVID was in this country

    I have not seen the concern about the bias reporting and sometimes outright fabrication when it is fone by the mainstream media as is the case of "social media".

    True, deleting the algorithms and using a more objective first posting system seems a reasonable proposal. But mainstream media is also guilty of promoting division just as FB and other social media is accused of. I can help but wonder that the lack of concern with the mainstream media abuses is because the people complaining about social media find the mainstream media largely shares their outlook, and push an agenda they approve of.


    I

  15. #35
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Unlike the mainstream media, the Facebook does not create the content it portrays. The mainstream media does create their content. And I don't see the algorithms deliberately pushing a particular ideological agenda.
    The content itself is irrelevant. As is the political ideology. The algorithm doesn't push an ideology. it pushes content at you which is designed to trigger you. Personally. So if you are interested in conservative issues, you'll get exaggerated loud opinionated and aggressive conservative content forced upon you at the expense of all else. Because their research shows that you'll be more likely to engage in a monetarily significant way for them. The content they feed you is designed specifically to incite reaction out of you. Personally. Which in turn contributes to a hardening of your opinions on topics. It is the same for people who are progressive, racist, SJW, or interested in architecture. Or professional wrestling. Their engagement algorithm is the ultimate censorship machine that denies you freedom of choice of what you see, and by pushing material that is designed to make you respond emotionally, they are denying you the ability to contextualise what you see. By design.

    As my initial post that you quoted explained. The issue is that the engagement ranking algorithms deny us the ability to rationalise topics, by amplifying the loudest, most opinionated content on a given topic, at the expense of all other. You should break out of your ideology mindset, that will hamper your response. This is one of the few topics in which there is broad support across the aisles in Washington.

    The issue with media bias and selective truth telling that upsets you is a real issue. I understand where you're coming from. But that is a different issue that can be dealt with separately.
    Last edited by antaeus; October 10, 2021 at 03:16 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  16. #36

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    The content itself is irrelevant. As is the political ideology. The algorithm doesn't push an ideology. it pushes content at you which is designed to trigger you.
    The content cannot be irrelevant if the problem is the promotion of content designed to "trigger" viewers/users.

    Personally. So if you are interested in conservative issues, you'll get exaggerated loud opinionated and aggressive conservative content forced upon you at the expense of all else. Because their research shows that you'll be more likely to engage in a monetarily significant way for them. The content they feed you is designed specifically to incite reaction out of you. Personally. Which in turn contributes to a hardening of your opinions on topics. It is the same for people who are progressive, racist, SJW, or interested in architecture. Or professional wrestling. Their engagement algorithm is the ultimate censorship machine that denies you freedom of choice of what you see, and by pushing material that is designed to make you respond emotionally, they are denying you the ability to contextualise what you see. By design.
    This is how targeted advertising has always worked. Without this model, most social media type services wanting to turn a profit would have to be subscription based.

    As my initial post that you quoted explained. The issue is that the engagement ranking algorithms deny us the ability to rationalise topics, by amplifying the loudest, most opinionated content on a given topic, at the expense of all other. You should break out of your ideology mindset, that will hamper your response. This is one of the few topics in which there is broad support across the aisles in Washington.
    There is broad support for regulation, not what that regulation should look like. It should be said that those who reached for the defense that private companies "can do what they want" when Trump was banished from social media really have no basis for demanding regulation now.

    The issue with media bias and selective truth telling that upsets you is a real issue. I understand where you're coming from. But that is a different issue that can be dealt with separately.
    It isn't a separate issue. The role of corporate media (which benefits significantly from large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube) is being ignored because it is embedded within DC's institutional framework.
    Last edited by Cope; October 10, 2021 at 08:37 AM.



  17. #37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't think you've actually listened to Haugen's testimony, or read the Washington Post articles written about/with her supplied material. If you have, then you haven't understood it. I think you have an axe to grind with mainstream media, which is fine, but in this case, it is distracting your opinion. Because the very core of this debate is that Facebook does promote different content, not based on it's accuracy or it's political angle or it's source material, or any other editorial concern, but based on it's engagement ranking - how it stimulates interactions and engagement with components of Facebook that generate income for Facebook(E.g. Advertising), and how they encourage others to interact more.

    Facebook is not merely a platform for people to post. by ranking what you see based on engagement potential, it is actively shaping your experience and by it's nature, it is shaping how you feel about issues, it is preventing you from seeing other perspectives on issues. It is censoring what you see based on what it thinks will make you engage more.

    Sure mainstream media are guilty of a whole host of problems, but in this case, they are merely resources that Facebook is using to drive interactions through engagement based ranking of posts. They aren't the causal problem in this scenario.

    Facebook does this by, as already noted a few times, choosing to promote - via it's algorithm - certain types of posts with particular features that it knows will encourage interactions. Media, both mainstream and fringe have all learned this, so they shape their posts to best maximise how they will be picked up by Facebook's algorithms. Facebook's algorithm promotes anything that is likely to generate interactions. Based on their data, that is anything that incites strong emotional responses. This is not how normal interactions between people occur.

    And the thing that clues me in on how little you have understood, or read Haugen's testimony, is because some of her solutions to this problem include either limiting Facebook's use of engagement based post ranking, or removing it altogether so that posts come up in the order that they are posted.
    Haugen's "testimony" was just a poorly-constructed rant. She did attempt to raise a valid point here and there, but for the most part it was just another generic establishmentarian whining about how those pesky citizens have too much freedoms and some partisan schizophrenic nonsense about all Trump voters being "radicalized". It doesn't have much merit on its own, but it clearly shows the line of thinking of the establishment sources, who are simply unhappy that Facebook is allowing for narratives they don't like to spread.
    Facebook promoting content based on engagement isn't anything new, in fact this was an old trick legacy media was using for generations, where news media had to show something "spicy" to attract attention of the audience. It only became "bad" when people started using social media to communicate thoughts and ideas that establishment doesn't like.

  18. #38

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

    The Guardian fawns over Haugen's "revelations" and continues to try and manufacture a crisis at Facebook:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    The characterization of Haugen as heroic is particularly absurd given that she, unlike so many whistleblowers, took no risk in testifying against Facebook thanks to her widespread institutional support. If anything, her testimony will likely prove to be a significant personal boon.

    Of course, the Guardian cites Schiff as an authoritative voice on the subject of polarization and disinformation:

    “I think we need to narrow the scope of the safe harbour these companies enjoy if they don’t moderate their contents and continue to amplify anger and hate. I think we need to insist on a vehicle for more transparency so we understand the data better.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...en-adam-schiff
    This is the same Schiff who spent the Trump years inciting anxiety and division by lying about alleged "collusion" between Moscow and the Trump campaign before misleading the public w/regard to his contact with the "whistleblower" at the heart of the 2019 Ukraine scandal.
    Last edited by Cope; October 10, 2021 at 01:08 PM.



  19. #39

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

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't think you've actually listened to Haugen's testimony, or read the Washington Post articles written about/with her supplied material. If you have, then you haven't understood it. I think you have an axe to grind with mainstream media, which is fine, but in this case, it is distracting your opinion. Because the very core of this debate is that Facebook does promote different content, not based on it's accuracy or it's political angle or it's source material, or any other editorial concern, but based on it's engagement ranking - how it stimulates interactions and engagement with components of Facebook that generate income for Facebook(E.g. Advertising), and how they encourage others to interact more.

    Facebook is not merely a platform for people to post. by ranking what you see based on engagement potential, it is actively shaping your experience and by it's nature, it is shaping how you feel about issues, it is preventing you from seeing other perspectives on issues. It is censoring what you see based on what it thinks will make you engage more.

    Sure mainstream media are guilty of a whole host of problems, but in this case, they are merely resources that Facebook is using to drive interactions through engagement based ranking of posts. They aren't the causal problem in this scenario.

    Facebook does this by, as already noted a few times, choosing to promote - via it's algorithm - certain types of posts with particular features that it knows will encourage interactions. Media, both mainstream and fringe have all learned this, so they shape their posts to best maximise how they will be picked up by Facebook's algorithms. Facebook's algorithm promotes anything that is likely to generate interactions. Based on their data, that is anything that incites strong emotional responses. This is not how normal interactions between people occur.

    And the thing that clues me in on how little you have understood, or read Haugen's testimony, is because some of her solutions to this problem include either limiting Facebook's use of engagement based post ranking, or removing it altogether so that posts come up in the order that they are posted.
    I went back to listen to Haegan's testimony and I mist admit I was wrong. I completely misremembered her testimony, and found I was reacting not what she said, but what others said

    Her points seems valid, and her analogy to the tobacco companies seems very apt. Facebook knows that their algorithm program helps promote extremist views and negative body imagery issues among girls, yet they are not addressing the problem. Like tobacco companies who claim their filters addressed the health issues of cigarettes, but knew it did not, FB knows their AI programs don't really work for filtering out harmful content.

    It is not just that Facebook allows such content to be posted, but that Facebook algorithms promote such negative content, encourages it in the name of profits. Like the tobacco companies running ads that they knew appealed to young teens.

    I am not sure that FB can be assigned the blame for the conflict in Ethiopia that she gives it, but certainly did not help.

    Allowing extremist views to be posted on the platform is one thing, but allowing the platform to be manipulated to promote those views is something else.

  20. #40
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

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

    Yes Facebook is a mess, there's a lot of dishonesty in the way the platform uses people. Its not clear what Facebook is when you join, it just seems like an info feed rather a data extraction point.

    In one way people being stupid enough to start suckling on a privately regulated teat is their own fault.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •