Better readability -
Myths about Social Media
71–80 of 157 posts
Re: Myths about Social Media
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prioritizing tools to shield against of hateful content is not in the best interest of social media platforms It's well understood that hateful content is harmful to retention. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 3 long term projects at IG that were premised on this. All major social networks prioritize tools to reduce hate because they know that consuming and sharing of hateful content is bad for their…
I'm willing to concede this, but I find it incredible that this is true and yet users have very little control over how their timeline is filtered.
If you're talking about Facebook or Instagram, users actually have a lot of control! You can snooze or completely remove other users, groups, and pages. You can ask for "less content like this" and FB used ML to show you less of similar things. You can add keyword filters to the comments sections under your posts. You can block users from commenting or from posting in your group. You can even do all of these things with ads as well, including removing ads from certain categories.
There aren't power user controls like custom regex filters, but that's because the vast majority of users would not use them, and it's not worth the UI complexity and risk that things like that add.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#73What is the lens here? If it's Danish lens, then I'm concerned it doesn't fully capture what's happening in other markets. > Myth 1: A lot of misinfo on social media... No, research suggests there is little, shared by few & having small effects. The U.S. anti-vax group is quite vocal and quite large. At times this includes elected officials, but sometimes elected officials simply resist mandates which emboldens vacci…
> The U.S. anti-vax group is quite vocal and quite large. Yes, here [1] is an example of a pro-vax comment, made by a flaired user, removed from r/conservative. The user was probably not notified of the removal, and the comment appears to its author as if it was not removed. To me, that is very misleading. I consider such removals a form of misinformation; other users only see a version of the discussion that is whol…
So a shadow ban? I wonder if upvoters can still see the otherwise now invisible comment
Re: Myths about Social Media
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The U.S. anti-vax group is quite vocal and quite large. Yes, here [1] is an example of a pro-vax comment, made by a flaired user, removed from r/conservative. The user was probably not notified of the removal, and the comment appears to its author as if it was not removed. To me, that is very misleading. I consider such removals a form of misinformation; other users only see a version of the discussion that is whol…
So a shadow ban? I wonder if upvoters can still see the otherwise now invisible comment
Upvoters cannot see removed comments. You can try it here [1] yourself to see the effect.
It's also possible for moderators to add a username to a subreddit's automod config to silently remove all their comments, and that would be a "shadow ban" from that subreddit.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the myth is the misinterpretation of scale. People tend to believe social media is primarily hate and misinformation, that most users are simply addicted to it like dope fiends, and that it's nothing but echo chambers, etc. All of these things are true, but likely to a lesser degree than assumed.
Agree, the negative part is disproportionately impactful. As an analogy, my g/f and I recently went grocery shopping. As we got out she was fuming at how old people completely ignore COVID rules, whilst society is largely making sacrifices for them. I was part of the whole experience, and two people ignored the rules. One did not have a mask, another did have one but ignored social distancing. There were probably som…
[deleted]
Re: Myths about Social Media
#76Hate is the new normal.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#77Is this specific to Denmark or applicable more widely? Where was this research conducted?
Who was analyzed in this research and through what medium? Social Networks are more and more polarized. Facebook is now dominated by the older generation, and more right-leaning. Tik Tok is young, and left-leaning. Who was interviewed for these studies?
I'd also like to add a Myth 4: Misinformation is generated agnostically from political tilt. It's not. Neither is the intellectual humility mentioned in Myth 1. Studies show that some policy opinions are held by their proponents regardless of whether their political party is in charge, or not. Other policy opinions are flip-flopped by their proponents depending on who's in charge (ie. for when their party is doing it; against when someone else is)
Any discussion or battle of misinformation with a tilt to myths and facts needs to be aware of this reality to be effective.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#78For me this is everyone else figuring out why the web 1.0 was so great. If you have your own place you have to make an effort. People might still visit but they will not return if there is nothing interesting going on.
Platforms in stead use a system of guaranteed readership. Effortless publications that look like they belong because they are consistent with the rest of the garbage heap. (Advertisement is the biggest turd. If there are ads there is even incentive to keep the content crappy enough.)
Its like being invited for dinner by a friend vs a soup kitchen. Why is it not the same? Why are the people at the soup kitchen less friendly? -- are you kidding me?
Moderation has to be the most obvious advantage. If you bring the hate you wont be invited for the next dinner.
It feeds back into it self: People who don't run websites just for fun fail to understand or appreciate what it takes which makes their judgement unreasonable. They desire others to live up to standards they themselves do not meet.
A professor publishing on twitter?
> Exposure to hate can help legitimize hate, in part because our views of the other political groups becomes biased.
This was the whole point! Expose one camp to the most stupid argument made by the other camp for ENGAGEMENT!
On your own website you wouldn't just quote the most stupid things you've found on the internet.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#79I think the echo chamber one misses the point (or maybe the analogy of an echo chamber is bad). It's true that people are exposed to other views, but there is still the echo effect of what their bubble thinks of those other views. Two people discussing their differences is not the same as two (or N) bubbles hurling outrage at one another, which I think is closer to most of twitter - the echo chamber still applies wit…
I think that stretches the definition of 'echo chamber'. That's simply what a community is, a group of like-minded people with shared views. There's nothing automatically wrong with this. People can have shared criticisms of others if there is some meaningful difference between the groups that justifies that disagreement. I think people mistake 'hurling outrage' with simply two (or more) groups being fundamentally in…
No post body was provided.
Re: Myths about Social Media
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the myth is the misinterpretation of scale. People tend to believe social media is primarily hate and misinformation, that most users are simply addicted to it like dope fiends, and that it's nothing but echo chambers, etc. All of these things are true, but likely to a lesser degree than assumed.
Agree, the negative part is disproportionately impactful. As an analogy, my g/f and I recently went grocery shopping. As we got out she was fuming at how old people completely ignore COVID rules, whilst society is largely making sacrifices for them. I was part of the whole experience, and two people ignored the rules. One did not have a mask, another did have one but ignored social distancing. There were probably som…
You know what the vast majority of old people are doing? Not going to the store with you. Hello, sampling bias!