71–79 of 79 posts
I've given up on the idea that political engagement on social media can make society better. It seems to be a one-way ratchet toward political extremism, because it encourages people to immerse themselves in communities that respond with adulation whenever someone sinks deeper into their ideological wing and respond with cold silence whenever someone hesitates or questions the wing's narrative. In case this isn't alr…
Similarly to indignant FB posts, reshares, and likes, petitions do jack squat in the real world. So this seems right up FB's alley.
The general sentiment of the thread is pretty negative. I’d offer the contrary and say that this (provided that it’s moderated with some integrity) feature is one of the great potentially empowering uses of the platform. Bringing people together and connecting them to other likeminded individuals who would otherwise be strangers, I love that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A network with positive effects might be feasible, we've literally never tried. I'd argue that Hacker News and Stack Exchange are two clear examples of relevant social networks with overwhelmingly positive effects (neither is without flaws of course). Github might very reasonably make the list as well. I think the line is functional networks vs general networks. Not all functional networks are net positive, LinkedI…
It's funny, I would not really have counted HN or Reddit as social networks (much less SE or github) even though they clearly have a social aspect. What makes a social network a social network? I think in my mind a social network is a site where the information you can see is a feed either created or curated by a group of people you know. twitter and other asymmetrical networks fit in because you know famous people e…
I'd boil it down to something that offers 2 way communication instead of read-only (I'm not including clicking on a link [GET request] to get to a different page as part of 2 way communication, although technically it is). If it has a commenting system, voting system, or any other way for a user to be able to change/alter the information that is displayed on the site/platform to other users, I'd call that a social network.
News sites used to be more like news papers. You could only read the article. Then they just about all added Disqus/commenting systems, which turned them into more social networks.
A typical weather type app is not a social network. It only shows the weather.
What happens when, say, Iran wants and - legally - requests the identities of everyone that supports the "Democracy in Iran" group?
The Russians proved how easy that is. Putin has been doing this internally for a very long time before messing with the 2016 election. Create a pro-gay group, create an anti-gay group. Foster hate between them. Others join the respective "causes" that they align with. You now know a lot of the pro/con supporters because you're running the group(s).
Here's an 11 minute clip from Adam Curtis' HyperNormalization, which illustrates this tactic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwglZTNhMNE
It's alive and well in the USA too, and things make more sense after watching it. I'd find the whole video and watch it. It's quite fascinating.
Just what we need from a platform known for manipulation of users: For them to enter the field of politics.
> Just what we need from a platform known for manipulation of users: For them to enter the field of politics. From Facebook's perspective, the solution to every problem is more Facebook.
> Community Actions could unite neighbors to request change from their local and national elected officials and government agencies. But it could also provide vocal interest groups a bully pulpit from which to pressure politicians and bureaucrats with their fringe agendas. Or, hot take here, Facebook really doesn't care too much what the petitions are about, but is mostly interested in gathering more data on its user…
So bots and fake accounts now have a direct line to influencing local politics.
The immediate solution to this (assuming the feature stays) seems to be a stricter sign-up / verification process that ties your account closer to your real-world identity before you can use political features like this, to make bots and fake accounts more difficult to create and/or influence politics through these direct lines.
Tinfoil hat:
Fortunately (or unfortunately), that's also a step closer towards (but not at, yet) the verification necessary to start, I don't know, actually voting through Facebook. I wonder if giving bots a direct line to local politics would actually result in people/lawmakers _begging_ more verifiability to Facebook accounts, instead of Facebook trying to implement such a process/feature without the inevitable backlash they'd no doubt get if they said "you can now link your social security number to Facebook!". Being verified as a real human on Facebook ultimately helps Facebook get closer to a potential goal of giving petitions (or votes) on Facebook more weight.
What happens when, say, Iran wants and - legally - requests the identities of everyone that supports the "Democracy in Iran" group?
I'd wager that Iranians have a good idea of what might happen in such scenarios, since the 2009 protests against Ahmedinejad's re-election were partially fueled by Twitter, which authorities clamped down on afterwards. This was a couple of years before smartphones were ubiquitous. Chances are both protestors and the authorities would act much faster now. I'm more concerned about political operatives right here at hom…
Can you explain how this guy is a scammer? It looks like everyone who donated before the Gofundme plan switched from "donate it to the government" to "pay to build it ourselves" is having their money automatically refunded to them unless they explicitly opt in to the new approach, and donations still keep rolling in from people opting in to this new we'll-just-build-it-ourselves approach. Where's the scam?
It feels like no matter what Facebook does, its brand will impede the efforts of any new product they build. TBH, if I were Snapchat, I'd see this as a huge opportunity, since I'd doubt Instagram would get into the political space. Another option for Facebook would be to have something similar to Google X, where projects can eventually spin out to separate companies and own their brand.
Snap has its own brand to think about, it wouldn't bother trying to enter this arena. People don't talk politics on Snap, mainly because they skew younger and because it's photo-based, not text-based.