Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#221

Post by ajxs » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #217

ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

> I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. Who thinks this? Are you just assuming that anyone who approves of social media networks removing disinformation also thinks that is a bigger problem than the social media networks being powerful gatekeeper…

The two beliefs are mutually exclusive. If you support social-networks removing what they decide is 'disinformation' by implication you think this is the bigger risk. This is the mechanism by which they become the gatekeepers of information.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#222

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

gralx wrote: post #195

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California at least, skeptical analysis is in the curriculum from sixth grade onwards. I was under the impression it was there in all states, although I could be mistaken.

Now that's interesting. There's a delay between when a curriculum stream is adopted and when its students start participating in civic affairs. My understanding (unconfirmed) is that participation in Twitter and Facebook is dominated by older age groups who may not have learned that material. How long since this curriculum was adopted state-wide in California? And what's it officially called? I couldn't find any info…

It's officially called "expository critique" in the oldest document I'm familiar with (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pd...), but I don't know if it was there before 1997 or not. More recent standards e.g. (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/finalelaccssstanda...) don't appear to use a specific term for it, but they still include things like "Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text" and "identify false statements and fallacious reasoning".

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#223

Post by free_rms » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:42 PM UTC

dunnevens wrote: post #218

ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

My teen years were the second half of the 80s. Like a lot of kids my age, I’d sometimes seek out weird stuff outside of the pre-internet mainstream. One of my favorite books from back then was “High Weirdness by Mail”. Which was a very funny tongue-in-cheek catalog of crackpots, conspiracy theorists, cults, etc. I won’t detail all the weird stuff I got in the mail, but it suffices to say that most of it was roughly o…

So, what, we're gonna decide what's "suitable" for normal people to see?

Half of mainstream society, respectable people with respectable jobs, just spent 4 years engaged in a conspiracy theory about Russians and Cambridge Analytica which has quietly fallen apart into "nevermind, we just biffed the election is all".

But if one had said that in, say, 2017, they'd be accused of being a Russian bot. Bias passes everywhere.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#224

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #221

tshaddox wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. Who thinks this? Are you just assuming that anyone who approves of social media networks removing disinformation also thinks that is a bigger problem than the social media networks being powerful gatekeeper…

The two beliefs are mutually exclusive. If you support social-networks removing what they decide is 'disinformation' by implication you think this is the bigger risk. This is the mechanism by which they become the gatekeepers of information.

Not at all mutually exclusive. Whether Facebook removes disinformation does not affect how much power Facebook has to distribute information.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#225

Post by ajxs » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

dunnevens wrote: post #218

ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

My teen years were the second half of the 80s. Like a lot of kids my age, I’d sometimes seek out weird stuff outside of the pre-internet mainstream. One of my favorite books from back then was “High Weirdness by Mail”. Which was a very funny tongue-in-cheek catalog of crackpots, conspiracy theorists, cults, etc. I won’t detail all the weird stuff I got in the mail, but it suffices to say that most of it was roughly o…

> The mainstream culture was often bland but it was successful at gate keeping this kind of stuff...

This is a side-effect of the legacy media organisations no longer having a monopoly on the dissemination of information. Think for a moment on what kind of disinformation you may have unwittingly taken at face value for fact simply because every single news media outlet reported it.

This is exactly the concern that my original post highlighted. My fear is that if we allow them to become the arbiters of online information, it goes far beyond simply censoring the ridiculous and becomes a highly effective means of pursuing their own political agendas.

> But the situation of widely broadcast misinformation utterly divorced from reality is relatively new...

It's not at all new. Ever heard the conspiracy theory that Menthol cigarettes cause infertility to target certain demographics? I remember this wild theory being widely propagated long before social media even existed, among other ridiculous conspiracy theories. The idea that the moon landing is false is as old as the moon landing itself. This is not a new phenomena.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#226

Post by friendlybus » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

I also grew up in a liberal society and what made liberalism so valuable was that institutions were locked into a narrow and boring path.

It's becoming more clear that general humanity has less and less interesting things to say and is clamouring for power via outrage. I'm all for maintaining the vital ability to sort signal from noise outside of class and cash mechanisms. There's got to be some signal left to find though.

Straight commercial censorship is predictable and fightable. The coming danger is thought control from religious people who think their interpretation of what-not-to-do is more important than your liberalism.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#227

Post by dragontamer » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #220

dragontamer wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The notion that Obama is a Muslim strains credulity, and it's not a widely held belief. Its a held belief in my family. My very mother, my uncles, and more. Whether or not it is "widely held" has little-to-no bearing on the seriousness I take it. Since my mother believes in it, I will take the alternative fact seriously. > What disinformation? The information you don't like, or the information I don't like? Disinfo…

Did you read anything in my post? What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? The Meueller report was unable to prove collusion. What if big-tech suddenly banned any claims to the contrary on the grounds that it constituted 'misinformation'? Would you call that censorship then?

> What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election?

And no one in my family believes that. Myself included (though I wish the Muller report were written with stronger language to clarify itself: its conclusion had extremely weak wording).

I talk about the misinformation that I can see personally and in my social circle. Fortunately, none of my family members are getting sucked into Q or some of the more dangerous stuff... but the misinformation across the spectrum online destroys discussion as a whole. Far more than "censorship" of posts by Twitter or whoever.

After all, I don't do Facebook. I honestly don't care about it: I'm practically "self-censored" from Facebook because I don't use it at all. What I do care about is the misinformation my family is getting from it.

---------

I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant?

I'm blind to it, since I don't read Facebook at all. I can only tell you what has come through my Mother and Sister's mouths in my discussions with them. But as far as I can tell, you're just confirming my point: that there's a huge amount of misinformation here. And I applaud Facebook's announcement that they're fighting against it.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#228

Post by Can_Not » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 12:38 AM UTC

Udik wrote: post #211

dragontamer wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom believes that Obama is a Muslim, and my sister believes Breonna Taylor was a criminal who got what she deserved. The disinformation in our social networks is beyond a breaking point. Its incredibly difficult to have a reasonable discussion when alternative facts exist... I dare say impossible. ----- What is your plan to deal with the disinformation here? While my mother is over the age of 60, I don't believe h…

> My mom believes that Obama is a Muslim, and my sister believes Breonna Taylor was a criminal who got what she deserved. That is an interesting example because while Obama is factually not a Muslim, period, the question about what Breonna Taylor "deserved" is a political one- a matter of opinions. So you're putting in the same bucket objectively fake information and opinions with which you strongly disagree, and cal…

> the question about what Breonna Taylor "deserved" is a political one- a matter of opinions

I don't know anything about her karma or what she deserves, but the allegations that she was a criminal are not based on any information known to the police involved and was mostly invented by people who wanted to defend the police before gathering any facts.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#229

Post by ajxs » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #227

ajxs wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read anything in my post? What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? The Meueller report was unable to prove collusion. What if big-tech suddenly banned any claims to the contrary on the grounds that it constituted 'misinformation'? Would you call that censorship then?

> What about the widely held belief that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential election? And no one in my family believes that. Myself included (though I wish the Muller report were written with stronger language to clarify itself: its conclusion had extremely weak wording). I talk about the misinformation that I can see personally and in my social circle. Fortunately, none of my family member…

> I mean, it seems clear to me that you are a user of Facebook, and you seem to agree with me that misinformation is running rampant?

No, I don't use Facebook. I haven't for a long time. While I agree that there is propagation of misinformation happening on the platform, that's not my main concern. My main concern is that Facebook, and other platforms, will use their framework for 'removing misinformation' as a tool for censorship in the pursuit of their political agendas. My chief contention is that this poses a larger risk to society than the propagation of misinformation in the first place.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#230

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

Propaganda and censorship are attributes of the same underlying aspect: monopoly. Centralised control.

Both problems have the same effective solution: break up the monopolies.

Propaganda is a function of amplification, attention, audience, selective promotion, discovery, stealing the air supply or acquiring of any competion, and coöption of the platform. Propaganda is an inherent property of centralised control.

Gatekeeping and censorship are functions of excludability, audience gating, distraction, negative selection (obfuscation), stealing the air supply or acquiring of any competion, and, again, coöption of the platform. Censorship is an inherent property of centralised control.

Audiences, a public, divided across independent networks, with access to different editorial selection, with access to different input message streams, are far less subject to either propaganda or censorship.

Or of surveillance, whether of the state, capitalist, or non-state-actor varieties, which is also an inherent property of centralised control.

It's importance to realise that the key is not nominal control but actual control, which may be nonobvious or unapparent to many participants. A system with appearances of decentralisation may well be centralised under the surface.