12 ms·
The closing arguments of this documentary, where the author brings the timeframe to the present, that talk about the reinforcement of content across groups in s
by sarreph 10y ago
The closing arguments of this documentary, where the author brings the timeframe to the present, that talk about the reinforcement of content across groups in social networks, are incredibly poignant and relevant to the 'fake news' effect that currently sits at the forefront of the media's attention.
It's scary how, as social networks' power gains more influence and accuracy, the lens through which we view content on the web will be narrowed and focussed. So much so, that coupled with the above 'fake news', is responsible for members of the public 'only seeing what they would want to see' - and not questioning the credibility of the source material.
We, as technologists, must work hard to strive towards an objective web. I think that fake news is just the beginning of a veil of blurriness that will flow over internet content.
It therefore strikes me as surprising that Facebook has started a 'flagging' system for fake content[0] — when it relies on the above positive feedback loops of users with shared interests.
[0] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38827101/how-facebook-is-starting-to-tackle-fake-news-in-your-news-feed http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38827101/how-facebook-...
- cyberpunk 10y agoWhen everyone has such free access to content which shares and affirms their views, then even without publishers/facebook/whoever pushing targeted content this effect sort of happens regardless of if it's an algorithm pushing content or people simply choosing what to read/not read -- doesn't it? Objective/Non-Biased content is great and essential, but I fear we're in the minority as people who consume content from both 'sides' of any given issue. That makes me think if people naturally flow towards content which affirms their views/biases, how much blame can we put on sites for displaying 'relevant' content to such a users if they simply ignore content which goes against their views anyway? Can you blame facebook that a hardcore trump supporter doesn't click on an article about how beneficial obamacare is simply because an algorithm knew they wouldn't have clicked on it anyway. for not showing it? We're all going into little silos, I'm not really sure how to fix that.. Perhaps this is a natural evolution.. If it is, it seems we're being outnumbered by isolationists lately, though..
- geodel 10y agoFWIW I had to unfollow more than few people on twitter in last few months. These folks were getting so bitter and filthy because liberal-progressive ideas were not resonating with popular politics across the world. Before that they would have something funny, interesting to say but lately they were all consumed with 'alternate facts', 'post truths' and so on. I have come to conclusion all this logical sophistication is fine cover when events were happening the way these people liked else the world is going to hell.
- cyberpunk 10y agoYep, people bitching or being super partisan are good grounds for dropping them from your circle(s) -- what I've not worked out yet is: was everyone so polarised already as you suggest (and simply had no reason to behave in this way as, if it's as you say they are only being vocal now that their views no longer match where global events seem to be taking us)? -- or is something going on which is making us all more militant in our views? Reading only news which matches your views over a longer period seems to be making us all more aggressive/silo'd in our views.. It's pretty worrying, I'm not sure I can even have a reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with me on any political topic which would end in a productive outcome anymore -- is it just me or does it seem that as a whole we're becoming more dismissive of others views and just shouting over each other, avoiding any challenges to the views we hold personally and then retreating back into our strongholds of those who agree with us? edit: mef
- geodel 10y agoI think they were always polarized but most of the time they had something interesting to say. What I was unaware before they would have such bad meltdown because of events across the world. I would think in the past people would get angry, say something and move on to other stuff. I am just no longer interested in erudites who display such shallow understanding of human nature and world events but nonetheless whine whole day, whole year about how world is going to hell. Nowadays I stick to tech, philosophy, Netflix etc. Though on netflix I notice how simplistic the social/political views of characters are even in shows with fantastic production values.
- rolodato 10y agoI haven't put much thought into this idea, but I think social media degenerates into bubbles is because its form of communication (asynchronous broadcast to close social circles) has never really been available massively until very recently. It's a form of communication that has no real-world analog, especially impersonal actions such as liking a post. I doubt people will ever understand how to use social media properly, since there's no incentive or mechanisms to self-correct - "sharing" is much harder when you actually have to look at other people's reactions face to face. Sure, on social media you could get in a flame war with someone who shares fake news or has a different viewpoint than you, but it's extremely unlikely that it will have any effect. For now the conclusion I've reached is that social media should be considered harmful, so I've deleted my Facebook account, and encourage everyone else to do the same. There are more than enough substitutes available for humans to communicate with each other.
- CoolGuySteve 10y agoWe've had something similar for millennia, but back then fake news was called gossip or rumor. The same phenomenon that causes these fake articles to go viral is the same thing that makes rumors and gossip travel so quickly through social circles. I think it comes from a need for self-preservation. Like 'ya that's probably not true, but I better pay attention just in case'. The neat thing about social media is that it formalizes social circles such that they can become measured and analyzed. We might actually be able to get ahead of things like racist theories or fascist propaganda, but the technology is still in its adolescence.
- mpweiher 10y agoWhen I was at the BBC, I always resisted moves towards "personalized" news, which of course was something the technology made possible and could be the USP of web news delivery. My argument was that I go to the BBC of all places to get The News, not My News.
- arethuza 10y agoI actually rather like reading sites where I strongly disagree with the views typically expressed there (e.g. order-order.com) as I'd rather know what people think even if I don't agree with it.
- milesrout 10y agoI don't understand why everyone is going around talking about 'fake news' and 'alternative facts' and these other stupid terms. They're called lies and misinformation and propaganda. Call them what they are.
- srean 10y agoIndeed and most news is mostly fake/manufactured anyway. Distinctions lie in degree and intent only.
- milesrout 10y ago'Most news is mostly fake'? What?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 10y agoThat campaign is working.
- seppin 10y agoExactly, propaganda is from the last century. Why try to convince when you can discourage and confuse?
- srean 10y agoI seem to have forgotten the place where they discovered the much feared Saddam's WMDs that we went to an expensive war for. Surely you can help.
- thedonkeycometh 10y agohmmm... Misinterpreted Satire (Colbert Report, et al) has come under the shadow of being "fake" where it certainly isn't. But if someone believes a mock story as true, is that fake? This seems an impossible result of irony based humour that simply can't be squared.
- sjg007 10y agoEducation is the bastion of critical and objective thinking. The real solution is too teach our youth to be said thinkers of independent minds.