I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chanc…
This is so right. But are you aware of any ideas what to do about this? It seems like everyone has just accepted that‘s the way it is now.
Favor moderated communities over "free" communities
Push for ad-free social networks (probably not free to users, then)
The other problem is that the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs, so the platforms are built to encourage outrage as it generates lots of engagement, among other addictive behaviors (the infinite "algorithmic" feed for example). Social media was supposed to be a tool that serves people but its current business model encourages it to work against people. There were plenty o…
> the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, though the statement is frequently repeated. Is it possible that divisiveness is an intended effect? We know that governments sow discord to achieve selfish ends. Why wouldn't similarly powerful business interests?
> I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, though the statement is frequently repeated.
Let's assume that you are able to create a social network the scale of Facebook and network effects aren't an issue (let's imagine a magical solution that interoperates with existing social networks in such a way that accounts work on either side and content is visible from both sides) with the caveat that you instantly ban accounts that participate in political flamewars, intentionally spread misinformation/fake news, etc. You're going to end up banning a significant chunk of people that would otherwise make you money if you just turned a blind eye to the problem like current social networks do.
Social medias have been silencing every conservative opinion on their platforms, because most of their employees can't stand different opinions. These people are unmanageable and want to make activism using a platform they don't own. At the same time they look the other way when it comes to progressive comments. If he doesn't like different opinions, intrinsic to democracy, maybe we should ask Mr Wang's parents if they miss China.
This long article doesnt address the most critical point. If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit? This isn't a new dillemma. People working for tabacco companies have always been in the same boat.
> This long article doesnt address the most critical point. > If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit? The article opens with a story of someone who quit.
You're right. He quit. However he seems to be the exception.
The world is a big place, if you take any piece of content it’s bound to offend someone. Should we ban content that promotes the Big Bang theory because it’s offensive to creationists?
Does the Big Bang Theory encourage violence against creationists? I don’t ask that question seriously, just to point out that generalising things isn’t always useful. For example, “hate speech” is a defined term and the Big Bang theory ain’t it.
I don't think "encourages violence" is the standard that's being applied here. For example, on the 14th of June 2017, a political activist who'd been radicalized by Facebook made a list of elected members of Congress, went up to them, and asked them about their party affiliation before opening fire on them. There were zero mainstream calls to for Facebook to crack down on the communities or content that radicalized him, and this incident is almost completely absent from the narrative about the dangers of Facebook. Not only that, respectable mainstream media organisations like the New York Times falsely claimed that actually, the party that had been targetted was the one whose rhetoric was causing members of Congress to be shot, erroneously blaming the shooting of Gabby Giffords on them when in reality it seems to have been inspired by anger at her specifically that had nothing to do with national partisan politics at all.
I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chanc…
This is exactly the point I'm trying to explain to my friends that are outraged that Facebook didn't censor Trump's post. I think Facebook is one of the worst companies out there, but for other reasons.
The issue with Facebook is not about censoring the post that we don't like, it's about removing that polarization that comes with a platform that wants to get you hooked so they can sell you more ads.
Facebook and other social media are making us HATE each other because that's what they make money on. The debate should be around how can you build an ethical social platform that values your time and opinions.
Facebook is not a "social network" in any meaningful sense of that word. It's a largely unmoderated narrowcast platform accessible to anyone willing to put down the money to use it, regardless of motivation, as long as it isn't obviously pornographic.
> nobody actually wanted to foster such toxic behavior I think no one realized you could make disgusting amounts of money by fostering it. There have been plenty of flame wars on BBSes and forums, but the tension between "engagement" and "quality" always favored the latter in small, private communities (HN is a good example). However, when it comes to Facebook and Twitter, the former is always favored (due to market…
"BBSes and forums" Observe flamewars on BBSs and forums tended to drive people away, thus tending to confine them through natural mechanisms. Our current systems encourage and fan them, and by profiting from them, create a system that sustains them indefinitely instead of naturally isolating them to just the people who actively want to participate. As someone who has a low-grade hobby of kind of keeping track of this…
I kinda wonder about just having a no politics policy. Allow user reports... If N users report a post for being political, or it triggers some regex, penalize the post in some way. Facebook doesn't have to be about politics; Instagram wasn't for a long time, but with the onset of the BLM movement, I've seen my timeline filled to the brim with politics, and at one point, people were even saying that no one was even allowed to post non-political content because it shows how privileged you are to be ignoring the movement. I don't use Facebook for the politics... I just want to know what's going on in my friends lives. You can still have engagement without politics.
Social medias have been silencing every conservative opinion on their platforms, because most of their employees can't stand different opinions. These people are unmanageable and want to make activism using a platform they don't own. At the same time they look the other way when it comes to progressive comments. If he doesn't like different opinions, intrinsic to democracy, maybe we should ask Mr Wang's parents if th…
This is nothing new in kind. The founders were fearful of mass democracy too and sought to avoid creating one. For better or for worse, they failed.
Reference? I don't see us as having created a representative democracy to protect democracy from the masses. I like to think we are a representative democracy because the masses are supposed to have better things to do than keep the lights of government on.
One of the authors of the Constitution, James Madison.