9 ms·

Social media has become a direct threat to democracy

69 points by imartin2k 9y ago

blfr 9y ago
Washington Posts understandably longs for the days when large media outlets had a virtual monopoly on information but they're gone and not likely to make a comeback. I don't know why they cheer Facebook/Twitter/whoever to take their place but I certainly hope this effort fails. Having Mark Zuckerberg decide who and what can be read on the Internet or even decide the elections is an outcome much worse than ISIS videos or Russian ads in my news feed.
- TyLoo 9y ago
  Everything has a cost, the cost of free speech is the possibility of hateful and destructive propaganda. This cost is in my opinion trivial compare to the alternatives. We saw what the cost of speech and information restriction have done to civilizations in history. The ability to speak freely and having access to information is not just one virtue like justice or compassion. It is the way by which we create our value. We should take really seriously any attempt by anyone to restrict it.
  - Khaine 9y ago
    Its funny you say that. All freedom's come at a cost. In America, there is a large contingent who don't like the cost of the second amendment. Who is to say the cost of the first amendment is worth it, or the second? As an Australian, I don't have either a first amendment right to free speech, or a second amendment right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. I do think that we, in the Western world are slowly giving away our freedoms, bit by bit in the name of safety. I do worry that our future is more black mirror than Star Trek. And I for one do not know how to right this ship, how to bring balance. For people to recognise that with freedom comes responsibility. That you must hold the individual to account for actions, and not let the collective suffer.
    - malloryerik 9y ago
      The Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Not unregistered Glocks with silencers under your mattress or in your glovebox.
  - mynameishere 9y ago
    Hateful and destructive propaganda is also the cost of unfree speech.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > the cost of free speech is the possibility of hateful and destructive propaganda The worst case outcome of this is potentially genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Yes, speech and communication restriction is also potentially a part of this kind of society wide disaster. But that doesn't mean a society can tolerate an unlimited amount of hate speech safely forever. Ideally the destructive propagandists could be persuaded to shut up or people persuaded to ignore them, and I think if we want to continue with both free speech and not collapse into violence a lot more work needs to be done on this.
    - kijin 9y ago
      In Whitney v. California, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said that only the solution to destructive speech is more speech, not less. This idea has been at the core of American jurisprudence for a long time, but few people seem to grasp the full implication of the solution that Brandeis proposed. It's not simply that we should allow destructive propaganda, period. It's not just wishful thinking that better education would help people see through the bullshit. In the same judgment Brandeis also wrote that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty." He was asking US what WE have done to counter the bad speech that's all around us. How much time, money and energy have we devoted to the cause of exposing the haters for the hypocrites they are and demolishing their arguments to the point that not a stone is left upon another, using every non-violent action available to us, before we all ran to Uncle Sam and asked him to spank those bad boys on our behalf? So you're right, a lot more work needs to be done. But not by the government. It's only because the rest of us have been so careless that destructive propaganda is having a field day rummaging through our democracy. The people who have a duty to produce better speech includes everyone from the CEOs of big social media companies to every last user who saw something bad but went "eh, I don't have time for this." The cost of giving up free speech is unconscionable, but the cost of maintaining it isn't trivial, either.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Except freedom of Speech and of Information were always believed to be the heart of a healthy democracy, that decisions and policy were best set out by an informed and educated electorate. Not only is our electorate not very well educated, but if anything, we've seen that the wide availability of literally all human knowledge, which should lead to the best ideas if information = good decisions, has galvanized all parties involved to their own ideas and utterly ruined the concept of compromise. Even the most minor concessions to the other side (whichever other side it might be) is interpreted as weakness, so no politicians compromise, so nothing gets done because no given party ever controls the entire Government. Heck, in the USA, the GOP currently controls the executive and legislative branches and still can do nothing due to their own internal fragmentation. I'm not sure if the solution is less information, less free speech, that feels wrong to me. But at the same time it's clear what we're doing now is not even remotely working. It's breaking the entire system.
    - amigoingtodie 9y ago
      It is like they need more than what is effectively a two-party system.
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
        A lot of people say that but I'm not even sure that would do a whole lot to change things. I feel like the two parties already have huge gaps between different sub-groups, more parties would just be those same groups still arguing over the same shit. It would just be more visible I guess.
        amigoingtodie 9y ago
        They do have huge gaps among the subgroups. I couldn't tell you what the official position of either major party is, besides outlawing bumpstocks, while the country is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. The visibility would allow the voter to make a less opaque choice, and bring accountability upon the elected official.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    The worse case is that hateful and destructive propaganda wins out and we end up with mob rule. Just because we're somewhat, so far, kind of resisting the propaganda amongst enough people to prevent major harm, doesn't mean that will continue indefinitely. I'm not saying free speech isn't the answer. I don't have the answer. But the risks are greater than you say.
- TorKlingberg 9y ago
  This is just an ad hominem argument, and becoming tired. Every time an opinion is published in a newspaper, the first comment is along the lines of "old media trying to protect themselves". Where else would things like this be published and reach an audience?
  - blfr 9y ago
    I don't know about every other time but my comment explicitly states that they lost their influence and there's nothing to protect any more. What's weird is they are now hoping someone else will take over. Especially weird since Facebook will happily take over old media's advertisers base and then charge them for access to their own audience at the other end. It's already happening.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    It's not an ad hominem argument. That would be saying "the argument is wrong because it's made by the Washington Post". I think the assertion here is more subtle: newspapers are really the only outlets attacking social media and claiming it brainwashes people. This isn't something that ever comes up in other discussions or forums as far as I can tell. Certainly I discuss politics with my own friends and Facebook or Twitter are not at the top of their lists of concerns. In contrast, much of the traditional press publishes hysterical clickbaity screeds like "6 ways social media has become a direct threat to democracy" almost every day. They're obsessed with the topic. But we've seen this all before. It used to be that Google News was the bogeyman. It is reasonable to point out journalists talk about this issue far greater issue than other classes of people, and that maybe this issue - if it exists at all - is really not as dramatic as they make it out to be.
    - samastur 9y ago
      They aren't. I, as many other people I read, have been arguing about SM threat for years, but unlike newspapers I like most people have a very very limited reach. Just because our reach is too short for you to notice it does not mean we don't exist.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  The funny thing is that MSM pomposity and righteousness seems to have an inverse relationship with their influence, at least in my observation.
grecy 9y ago
Given that unlimited campaign contributions are a legal way to buy an election, it's clear democracy in the US faces much bigger threats than people talking to each other on the Internet. I'm traveling through West Africa, I see the impact of unlimited money going into politics daily. It's not good.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  well you don't need social media for it, you can solicit donations under the limit for disclosure or limited disclosure via the web and rake in millions from anyone over seas. unlimited campaign contributions actually would benefit the US democracy because two parties have a stranglehold on seats. all their attempts to regulate campaign donations are nothing more than methods to prevent a third party (or more) from getting a foothold. there is little any third party can do when the established parties control the narrative if not the press but spend money to get notice. how best to keep them from that by simply selling "protection of your democratic rights by limiting campaign donations from overseas" Pretty sure they can market it well enough anyone would buy in. don't assume unlimited money in elections is bad, what is bad is that precluding it is the first step in preventing additional parties to gain a foothold. if we want to regulate campaign funds we should limit only the two largest parties and unlimited all others.
- cdoxsey 9y ago
  Money doesn't decide elections, voters do. The campaign that spends more money doesn't always win. In fact there's good reason to think that most money spent on a campaign is largely wasted: > The most exciting and visible part of politics is the political campaign. Politicians and their team of strategists, pollsters, and surrogates wage battle for the votes of the public. Slogans are trumpeted. Gaffes are made. Tactics are deployed. > And it probably does not matter all that much. > At least not as much as the political environment matters. Presidential elections can be forecast with incredible accuracy well before the campaign really begins. In fact, if all you know is the state of the economy, you know pretty well how the incumbent party will do. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF
egeozcan 9y ago
It is very easy for us humans to identify troll accounts. Why is it so hard for Twitter to take some precautions? I know the complexity can increase exponentially (relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/ ) but at least some basic measures like monitoring ip addresses and cross retweeting/liking could help filter out most of the basic troll accounts. HN does it AFAIK, why can't Twitter? Edit: From the downvotes, I think there is a misunderstanding. When I say troll-accounts, I mean automated or semi-automated accounts that are created for the sole purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere for people in the other camp. I don't call the people I disagree with as "trolls".
grabcocque 9y ago
Social media, especially Facebook, tries very hard to ensure that we never encounter a thought or opinion we consider surprising, or in any way contrary to our biases and prejudices. Essentially we're all locked in ever shrinking echo chambers, reinforcing our sense of moral correctness by ensuring we never encounter any challenge to our beliefs no matter how tiny and harmless. That CANNOT be healthy.
- throw2016 9y ago
  That only holds if facebook is the only website on the Internet. There is a whole Internet out there and then the real world.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    You seem to ignore the tactics facebook is known to deploy to ensure usres maximise time spent on their platform.
- pjc50 9y ago
  I see it the other way round on Twitter; it's hard to go a day without seeing something offensive or annoying, even if it's just somebody retweeting the latest Trump outrage to complain about it. If you step on a controversial subject and/or present as a woman you can get aggro in your mentions up to and including death threats. I see contrary opinions all the time. What I rarely see is well thought out contrary opinions presented as the conclusion of reasoning from a set of reasonable looking premises.
  - belorn 9y ago
    Echo chambers allow two form of messages. Messages to agree with, and messages to raise outrage (carrot and stick). Well thought out contrary opinions belongs to neither so the echo chambers blocks that from view.
Spearchucker 9y ago
The world has a way of righting itself. If Facebook commands influence equal to lobbyists, then so be it. If that turns out to be good, then awesome. If not, then at some point a change will be made to the environment that allowed Facebook to become. My hope is that it doesn't take another war for people to figure things out.
mycoborea 9y ago
Why do I get the feeling that the proposed response by those claiming to care about "democracy" will be further censorship and/or re-centralization?
- wiz21c 9y ago
  I read this title like you. Danger for democracy + the fact one will not ask everybody to stop facebook indirectly implies more control over the people...
- skocznymroczny 9y ago
  It's not censorship, it's "fact-checking" done by "independent" NGOs
  - whamlastxmas 9y ago
    Or more accurately, only allowing certain sites to be linked on Facebook. If a poster on voat is to be believed, Facebook already disables accounts that link to certain topics.
DoubleGlazing 9y ago
The thing I have noticed about my friends on facebook is how their opinions have got stronger or more extreme. My ultra catholic relatives have become more extreme in their views. The opinions of my left and right leaning friends have become more extreme. The outgoing party animal types seem to want to post more and more about how much they party. The people who sometimes feel down post more and more about how awful it is and how much help they need. I know it is all down to how facebook has us all figured out and shows us stuff that only reinforces previously held beliefs and opinions. The problem is that is seems to have also created a strange desire among many reasonable people to unwittingly troll others. For example people who used to rarely talk about politics will post provocative things that seem designed to elicit negative responses. I have Catholic in-law relatives that have I met only only once at my wedding posting on my timeline demanding I promise to not vote to repeal the 8th in the forthcoming Irish abortion referendum. My polite refusal to give an answer only angers them, yet somehow I am at fault. Those who only see stuff about what they already believed will only believe in it stronger. And what do you do when you really believe in something? You try to spread your belief, which social media makes it easy to do. But of course in doing so you will potentially anger or annoy other who might have listened to your message if it wasn't so in-your-face. The problem is that this spills over in to the real world. Religious people may avoid interacting with someone because they said something trivial on facebook they didn't like. Come election time people will be less willing to switch political parties because someone who supports a different party said something rude. Even without the political meddling, targeted advertising and profiling, social media lacks the context and nuance of the real world. Something that in itself only serves to negatively reinforce opinions.
- Malice 9y ago
  Based on your comments, I've realized that I do the thing you're talking about. I'm going to change my behaviour as a result. Thanks for posting this.
- autokad 9y ago
  it use to be that talking about politics at work was considered bad form, and now people think its practically their duty to do so. people are 'in-your-face' with politics these days, and while I dislike it, I can hardly blame them. holywood stars, musicians, and now athletes use their elevated status to get their word above all others (even if their fan base dont want to receive it), and being silent allows what ever they wanted passed.
ThomPete 9y ago
I know it's popular to bash social media for everything that's wrong in politics but there is an important omission from all these articles that are completely ignored but actually renders most of the claims and especially the claim about the threat to democracy completely false. 1. Echo Chamber Echo Chambers are nothing new in fact we used to live in much bigger echo chambers than we do today. Your choice of newspaper or tv-channels, i.e. one-way channels are actually the real echo chambers. 2 Spread of fake or misleading information (AKA Fake News) This is another one that is greatly misunderstood. Most misleading information is not done for political reasons but for clicks. They are extraordinary headlines made to get people to click. It's spam more than anything made to squeeze some advertising dollars out of you not actually change your mind on something. The idea that spreading fake or misleading information somehow is a product of social media is simply incorrect. And compared to how things used to be with people mostly getting their information from their one newspaper or tv-channel today every claim is scrutinized by everyone. Nothing gets to stand unchallenged very long. 3. Conflation of popularity with legitimacy The argument about population is a household stable in most marketing and advertising. There is literally nothing new under the sun there. However, when it comes to being a threat to democracy this makes no sense and looks to me like a completely made up claim. 4. Political manipulation Once again nothing new here political manipulation is an old an trusted tool for winning elections. 5. Manipulation, micro-targeting and behavior change Yet Hillary won the popular vote. So in other words, not a very effective tool. We are way better off than the days when cigarette industry would put out their own manipulative material or suppress materials. I see no evidence it's being effective neither a threat to democracy. 6. Intolerance, exclusion and hate speech Hillary ran large parts of the campaign on identity politics, she won the popular vote. Hate speech and intolerance is a problem but it has nothing to do with social media and isn't a threat to democracy any more than political correctness is. Now some will say. "Well, the problem is the scale with which this can be done." But here is the thing though. You will not be able to put out a lie for very long until it actually becomes debunked. You will not be able to put out a claim until someone has another perspective on that claim. There are hordes of people all waiting for someone to be wrong on the internet and share with the rest of the world. In other words, social networks are self-correcting which makes them a tool to be used by everyone and as a net benefit to democracy, not just those who used to have access to the one way channels like tv, radio and newspapers. Last but not least. This looks more like a piece of informercial than an actual serious analysis of threats to democracy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sitoseb 9y ago
Democracy is built on premise that people allowed to vote can form their own opinions in an objective way. Obviously that's not true. People can be influenced in many ways, especially those with lower IQ. The most popular way is to include them in some kind of collective which is supposed to have the same opinion on unrelated things (like black should automatically vote for black president or gays should vote for all LGBTQ advocates) Democracy isn't actually a real concept that makes any sense but it's a collective delusion which works just like any other social norm (e.g. progressive taxes) - it makes people think they are in charge and have a whip against those in power or with money. It's only about one party losing influencing position and another gaining because there's a threat to status quo.
cjCamel 9y ago
Deleting the word "social" from this article would make it more accurate. The UK Daily Mail and many many other media companies have been guilty of the same 6 things for years. Terribly lazy opinion piece. We need to be aware that the traditional news media will be extremely effective at discrediting the entire tech industry to save their own skin.
stefanwlb 9y ago
That's cute, you think you actually had democracy to begin with.
- mvdwoord 9y ago
  Unfortunately I have to agree with your sentiment.
RickJWagner 9y ago
On the contrary, social media is breaking the media monopoly on crowd influence. Everything the author wrote has truth to it, but this is outweighed by the democratization of public audience. Power to the people!
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  Have you met the people?
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  When the media writes about social media, what they mean is Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. None of these serve to democratize access to the general public given all those filters anymore than "letters to the editor". Power to the people to express themselves? Give everybody the means to operate a self-hosted blog (that is, they and _only_ they are responsible for what is said and how).
- thatcat 9y ago
  >breaking the media monopoly Is more competition for imposing a narrative on the lives of others really what we need? It seems to inhibit individual users critical thoughts which would undermine democratic efficacy.
jackschultz 9y ago
The first in the list is about echo chambers. How was life not an echo chamber with not phones? I'm guessing people in a town would all agree with each other because they couldn't get any opinions on the opposite sides. In a city, this could be the case as well, where people would gather and trash people with the opposite views. For the rest, I'm sure I'd be able to come up with convincing examples of why that was an issue in the past. It's incredibly difficult to understand what society and politics from the past. History books aren't able to get us fully emerged in what life was like then. I guess I'm saying that there have always been threats to democracy, but it's shifted more towards social media these days.
- mantas 9y ago
  Pre-social-media, you'd talk more to neighbours or random strangers in a bar. They'd be more likely to have different opinions and you'd be exposed to different ideas as well as people behind them. Meanwhile today people are less exposed to different opinions and even when they're, they're even less exposed to people behind them. Which is no less important than the ideas themselves.
  - jackschultz 9y ago
    How can you claim that people's neighbors had different opinions than the people themselves? How can you say that about strangers at a bar? People then could be the same as people now who don't want to talk about politics and would rather call people with different opinions trash. Who's to say that people these days are less exposed? That's incredibly difficult to research. And I can just claim that people see different opinions all the time, and are able to look up which well known people agree on each side? This whole thing is all claims and not proof. So many people never respecting the opposite side's opinions, but that could easily be because of how humans evolved and not because of culture and tech.
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      I have to say whenever I am out and about speaking to people I meet I find they generally have a very different view to what you get in the MSM, to the point that I wonder what kind of world the MSM inhabits - certainly seems like a different one to the rest of humanity. This is just one person's view.
fuscy 9y ago
The article is right that this can be thought to be new to the social media environment but it is a well known phenomena of which the USA has plenty of experience both in countering and administering and I believe that the effects are now seen due to government complacency. Let's call it propaganda - everyone did it in the past and everyone still does it today. Both Russia and China have a pretty much inaccessible social media while both also have a very powerful propaganda machine on Facebook or Twitter with hired posters, paid marketing - an entire propaganda system ranging from psychologists to artists. Unfortunately the government will at some point have to step up their game from TV, radio and newspapers and get with the times - either by making western social media more inaccessible or by pumping those dollars in Facebook pro-democracy ads. Also I noticed that Western governments play right into some of these carefully laid traps like immigration, sexuality or religion policies.
calvinbhai 9y ago
Says the guy who is big into conventional media, which in many countries has been caught peddling lies, misinformation and half truths, by the social media. Is social media a direct threat to democracy? I dont think so. It certainly is a threat to conventional media peddling propaganda and narrative based on the highest bidder.
echaozh 9y ago
Why is influencing people in the democracy a bad thing? It's at least better than only having to influence the people in the congress, right?

69 points by imartin2k 9y ago

blfr 9y ago

Washington Posts understandably longs for the days when large media outlets had a virtual monopoly on information but they're gone and not likely to make a comeback. I don't know why they cheer Facebook/Twitter/whoever to take their place but I certainly hope this effort fails. Having Mark Zuckerberg decide who and what can be read on the Internet or even decide the elections is an outcome much worse than ISIS videos or Russian ads in my news feed.

TyLoo 9y ago
Everything has a cost, the cost of free speech is the possibility of hateful and destructive propaganda. This cost is in my opinion trivial compare to the alternatives. We saw what the cost of speech and information restriction have done to civilizations in history. The ability to speak freely and having access to information is not just one virtue like justice or compassion. It is the way by which we create our value. We should take really seriously any attempt by anyone to restrict it.
- Khaine 9y ago
  Its funny you say that. All freedom's come at a cost. In America, there is a large contingent who don't like the cost of the second amendment. Who is to say the cost of the first amendment is worth it, or the second? As an Australian, I don't have either a first amendment right to free speech, or a second amendment right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. I do think that we, in the Western world are slowly giving away our freedoms, bit by bit in the name of safety. I do worry that our future is more black mirror than Star Trek. And I for one do not know how to right this ship, how to bring balance. For people to recognise that with freedom comes responsibility. That you must hold the individual to account for actions, and not let the collective suffer.
  - malloryerik 9y ago
    The Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Not unregistered Glocks with silencers under your mattress or in your glovebox.
- mynameishere 9y ago
  Hateful and destructive propaganda is also the cost of unfree speech.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > the cost of free speech is the possibility of hateful and destructive propaganda The worst case outcome of this is potentially genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Yes, speech and communication restriction is also potentially a part of this kind of society wide disaster. But that doesn't mean a society can tolerate an unlimited amount of hate speech safely forever. Ideally the destructive propagandists could be persuaded to shut up or people persuaded to ignore them, and I think if we want to continue with both free speech and not collapse into violence a lot more work needs to be done on this.
  - kijin 9y ago
    In Whitney v. California, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said that only the solution to destructive speech is more speech, not less. This idea has been at the core of American jurisprudence for a long time, but few people seem to grasp the full implication of the solution that Brandeis proposed. It's not simply that we should allow destructive propaganda, period. It's not just wishful thinking that better education would help people see through the bullshit. In the same judgment Brandeis also wrote that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty." He was asking US what WE have done to counter the bad speech that's all around us. How much time, money and energy have we devoted to the cause of exposing the haters for the hypocrites they are and demolishing their arguments to the point that not a stone is left upon another, using every non-violent action available to us, before we all ran to Uncle Sam and asked him to spank those bad boys on our behalf? So you're right, a lot more work needs to be done. But not by the government. It's only because the rest of us have been so careless that destructive propaganda is having a field day rummaging through our democracy. The people who have a duty to produce better speech includes everyone from the CEOs of big social media companies to every last user who saw something bad but went "eh, I don't have time for this." The cost of giving up free speech is unconscionable, but the cost of maintaining it isn't trivial, either.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Except freedom of Speech and of Information were always believed to be the heart of a healthy democracy, that decisions and policy were best set out by an informed and educated electorate. Not only is our electorate not very well educated, but if anything, we've seen that the wide availability of literally all human knowledge, which should lead to the best ideas if information = good decisions, has galvanized all parties involved to their own ideas and utterly ruined the concept of compromise. Even the most minor concessions to the other side (whichever other side it might be) is interpreted as weakness, so no politicians compromise, so nothing gets done because no given party ever controls the entire Government. Heck, in the USA, the GOP currently controls the executive and legislative branches and still can do nothing due to their own internal fragmentation. I'm not sure if the solution is less information, less free speech, that feels wrong to me. But at the same time it's clear what we're doing now is not even remotely working. It's breaking the entire system.
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    It is like they need more than what is effectively a two-party system.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      A lot of people say that but I'm not even sure that would do a whole lot to change things. I feel like the two parties already have huge gaps between different sub-groups, more parties would just be those same groups still arguing over the same shit. It would just be more visible I guess.
      - amigoingtodie 9y ago
        They do have huge gaps among the subgroups. I couldn't tell you what the official position of either major party is, besides outlawing bumpstocks, while the country is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. The visibility would allow the voter to make a less opaque choice, and bring accountability upon the elected official.
- liberte82 9y ago
  The worse case is that hateful and destructive propaganda wins out and we end up with mob rule. Just because we're somewhat, so far, kind of resisting the propaganda amongst enough people to prevent major harm, doesn't mean that will continue indefinitely. I'm not saying free speech isn't the answer. I don't have the answer. But the risks are greater than you say.
TorKlingberg 9y ago
This is just an ad hominem argument, and becoming tired. Every time an opinion is published in a newspaper, the first comment is along the lines of "old media trying to protect themselves". Where else would things like this be published and reach an audience?
- blfr 9y ago
  I don't know about every other time but my comment explicitly states that they lost their influence and there's nothing to protect any more. What's weird is they are now hoping someone else will take over. Especially weird since Facebook will happily take over old media's advertisers base and then charge them for access to their own audience at the other end. It's already happening.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It's not an ad hominem argument. That would be saying "the argument is wrong because it's made by the Washington Post". I think the assertion here is more subtle: newspapers are really the only outlets attacking social media and claiming it brainwashes people. This isn't something that ever comes up in other discussions or forums as far as I can tell. Certainly I discuss politics with my own friends and Facebook or Twitter are not at the top of their lists of concerns. In contrast, much of the traditional press publishes hysterical clickbaity screeds like "6 ways social media has become a direct threat to democracy" almost every day. They're obsessed with the topic. But we've seen this all before. It used to be that Google News was the bogeyman. It is reasonable to point out journalists talk about this issue far greater issue than other classes of people, and that maybe this issue - if it exists at all - is really not as dramatic as they make it out to be.
  - samastur 9y ago
    They aren't. I, as many other people I read, have been arguing about SM threat for years, but unlike newspapers I like most people have a very very limited reach. Just because our reach is too short for you to notice it does not mean we don't exist.
Boothroid 9y ago
The funny thing is that MSM pomposity and righteousness seems to have an inverse relationship with their influence, at least in my observation.

grecy 9y ago

Given that unlimited campaign contributions are a legal way to buy an election, it's clear democracy in the US faces much bigger threats than people talking to each other on the Internet. I'm traveling through West Africa, I see the impact of unlimited money going into politics daily. It's not good.

Shivetya 9y ago
well you don't need social media for it, you can solicit donations under the limit for disclosure or limited disclosure via the web and rake in millions from anyone over seas. unlimited campaign contributions actually would benefit the US democracy because two parties have a stranglehold on seats. all their attempts to regulate campaign donations are nothing more than methods to prevent a third party (or more) from getting a foothold. there is little any third party can do when the established parties control the narrative if not the press but spend money to get notice. how best to keep them from that by simply selling "protection of your democratic rights by limiting campaign donations from overseas" Pretty sure they can market it well enough anyone would buy in. don't assume unlimited money in elections is bad, what is bad is that precluding it is the first step in preventing additional parties to gain a foothold. if we want to regulate campaign funds we should limit only the two largest parties and unlimited all others.
cdoxsey 9y ago
Money doesn't decide elections, voters do. The campaign that spends more money doesn't always win. In fact there's good reason to think that most money spent on a campaign is largely wasted: > The most exciting and visible part of politics is the political campaign. Politicians and their team of strategists, pollsters, and surrogates wage battle for the votes of the public. Slogans are trumpeted. Gaffes are made. Tactics are deployed. > And it probably does not matter all that much. > At least not as much as the political environment matters. Presidential elections can be forecast with incredible accuracy well before the campaign really begins. In fact, if all you know is the state of the economy, you know pretty well how the incumbent party will do. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF

egeozcan 9y ago

It is very easy for us humans to identify troll accounts. Why is it so hard for Twitter to take some precautions? I know the complexity can increase exponentially (relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/ ) but at least some basic measures like monitoring ip addresses and cross retweeting/liking could help filter out most of the basic troll accounts. HN does it AFAIK, why can't Twitter? Edit: From the downvotes, I think there is a misunderstanding. When I say troll-accounts, I mean automated or semi-automated accounts that are created for the sole purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere for people in the other camp. I don't call the people I disagree with as "trolls".

grabcocque 9y ago

Social media, especially Facebook, tries very hard to ensure that we never encounter a thought or opinion we consider surprising, or in any way contrary to our biases and prejudices. Essentially we're all locked in ever shrinking echo chambers, reinforcing our sense of moral correctness by ensuring we never encounter any challenge to our beliefs no matter how tiny and harmless. That CANNOT be healthy.

throw2016 9y ago
That only holds if facebook is the only website on the Internet. There is a whole Internet out there and then the real world.
- zdkl 9y ago
  You seem to ignore the tactics facebook is known to deploy to ensure usres maximise time spent on their platform.
pjc50 9y ago
I see it the other way round on Twitter; it's hard to go a day without seeing something offensive or annoying, even if it's just somebody retweeting the latest Trump outrage to complain about it. If you step on a controversial subject and/or present as a woman you can get aggro in your mentions up to and including death threats. I see contrary opinions all the time. What I rarely see is well thought out contrary opinions presented as the conclusion of reasoning from a set of reasonable looking premises.
- belorn 9y ago
  Echo chambers allow two form of messages. Messages to agree with, and messages to raise outrage (carrot and stick). Well thought out contrary opinions belongs to neither so the echo chambers blocks that from view.

Spearchucker 9y ago

The world has a way of righting itself. If Facebook commands influence equal to lobbyists, then so be it. If that turns out to be good, then awesome. If not, then at some point a change will be made to the environment that allowed Facebook to become. My hope is that it doesn't take another war for people to figure things out.

mycoborea 9y ago

Why do I get the feeling that the proposed response by those claiming to care about "democracy" will be further censorship and/or re-centralization?

wiz21c 9y ago
I read this title like you. Danger for democracy + the fact one will not ask everybody to stop facebook indirectly implies more control over the people...
skocznymroczny 9y ago
It's not censorship, it's "fact-checking" done by "independent" NGOs
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  Or more accurately, only allowing certain sites to be linked on Facebook. If a poster on voat is to be believed, Facebook already disables accounts that link to certain topics.

DoubleGlazing 9y ago

The thing I have noticed about my friends on facebook is how their opinions have got stronger or more extreme. My ultra catholic relatives have become more extreme in their views. The opinions of my left and right leaning friends have become more extreme. The outgoing party animal types seem to want to post more and more about how much they party. The people who sometimes feel down post more and more about how awful it is and how much help they need. I know it is all down to how facebook has us all figured out and shows us stuff that only reinforces previously held beliefs and opinions. The problem is that is seems to have also created a strange desire among many reasonable people to unwittingly troll others. For example people who used to rarely talk about politics will post provocative things that seem designed to elicit negative responses. I have Catholic in-law relatives that have I met only only once at my wedding posting on my timeline demanding I promise to not vote to repeal the 8th in the forthcoming Irish abortion referendum. My polite refusal to give an answer only angers them, yet somehow I am at fault. Those who only see stuff about what they already believed will only believe in it stronger. And what do you do when you really believe in something? You try to spread your belief, which social media makes it easy to do. But of course in doing so you will potentially anger or annoy other who might have listened to your message if it wasn't so in-your-face. The problem is that this spills over in to the real world. Religious people may avoid interacting with someone because they said something trivial on facebook they didn't like. Come election time people will be less willing to switch political parties because someone who supports a different party said something rude. Even without the political meddling, targeted advertising and profiling, social media lacks the context and nuance of the real world. Something that in itself only serves to negatively reinforce opinions.

Malice 9y ago
Based on your comments, I've realized that I do the thing you're talking about. I'm going to change my behaviour as a result. Thanks for posting this.
autokad 9y ago
it use to be that talking about politics at work was considered bad form, and now people think its practically their duty to do so. people are 'in-your-face' with politics these days, and while I dislike it, I can hardly blame them. holywood stars, musicians, and now athletes use their elevated status to get their word above all others (even if their fan base dont want to receive it), and being silent allows what ever they wanted passed.

ThomPete 9y ago

I know it's popular to bash social media for everything that's wrong in politics but there is an important omission from all these articles that are completely ignored but actually renders most of the claims and especially the claim about the threat to democracy completely false. 1. Echo Chamber Echo Chambers are nothing new in fact we used to live in much bigger echo chambers than we do today. Your choice of newspaper or tv-channels, i.e. one-way channels are actually the real echo chambers. 2 Spread of fake or misleading information (AKA Fake News) This is another one that is greatly misunderstood. Most misleading information is not done for political reasons but for clicks. They are extraordinary headlines made to get people to click. It's spam more than anything made to squeeze some advertising dollars out of you not actually change your mind on something. The idea that spreading fake or misleading information somehow is a product of social media is simply incorrect. And compared to how things used to be with people mostly getting their information from their one newspaper or tv-channel today every claim is scrutinized by everyone. Nothing gets to stand unchallenged very long. 3. Conflation of popularity with legitimacy The argument about population is a household stable in most marketing and advertising. There is literally nothing new under the sun there. However, when it comes to being a threat to democracy this makes no sense and looks to me like a completely made up claim. 4. Political manipulation Once again nothing new here political manipulation is an old an trusted tool for winning elections. 5. Manipulation, micro-targeting and behavior change Yet Hillary won the popular vote. So in other words, not a very effective tool. We are way better off than the days when cigarette industry would put out their own manipulative material or suppress materials. I see no evidence it's being effective neither a threat to democracy. 6. Intolerance, exclusion and hate speech Hillary ran large parts of the campaign on identity politics, she won the popular vote. Hate speech and intolerance is a problem but it has nothing to do with social media and isn't a threat to democracy any more than political correctness is. Now some will say. "Well, the problem is the scale with which this can be done." But here is the thing though. You will not be able to put out a lie for very long until it actually becomes debunked. You will not be able to put out a claim until someone has another perspective on that claim. There are hordes of people all waiting for someone to be wrong on the internet and share with the rest of the world. In other words, social networks are self-correcting which makes them a tool to be used by everyone and as a net benefit to democracy, not just those who used to have access to the one way channels like tv, radio and newspapers. Last but not least. This looks more like a piece of informercial than an actual serious analysis of threats to democracy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sitoseb 9y ago

Democracy is built on premise that people allowed to vote can form their own opinions in an objective way. Obviously that's not true. People can be influenced in many ways, especially those with lower IQ. The most popular way is to include them in some kind of collective which is supposed to have the same opinion on unrelated things (like black should automatically vote for black president or gays should vote for all LGBTQ advocates) Democracy isn't actually a real concept that makes any sense but it's a collective delusion which works just like any other social norm (e.g. progressive taxes) - it makes people think they are in charge and have a whip against those in power or with money. It's only about one party losing influencing position and another gaining because there's a threat to status quo.

cjCamel 9y ago

Deleting the word "social" from this article would make it more accurate. The UK Daily Mail and many many other media companies have been guilty of the same 6 things for years. Terribly lazy opinion piece. We need to be aware that the traditional news media will be extremely effective at discrediting the entire tech industry to save their own skin.

stefanwlb 9y ago

That's cute, you think you actually had democracy to begin with.

mvdwoord 9y ago
Unfortunately I have to agree with your sentiment.

RickJWagner 9y ago

On the contrary, social media is breaking the media monopoly on crowd influence. Everything the author wrote has truth to it, but this is outweighed by the democratization of public audience. Power to the people!

IIAOPSW 9y ago
Have you met the people?
pgeorgi 9y ago
When the media writes about social media, what they mean is Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. None of these serve to democratize access to the general public given all those filters anymore than "letters to the editor". Power to the people to express themselves? Give everybody the means to operate a self-hosted blog (that is, they and _only_ they are responsible for what is said and how).
thatcat 9y ago
>breaking the media monopoly Is more competition for imposing a narrative on the lives of others really what we need? It seems to inhibit individual users critical thoughts which would undermine democratic efficacy.

jackschultz 9y ago

The first in the list is about echo chambers. How was life not an echo chamber with not phones? I'm guessing people in a town would all agree with each other because they couldn't get any opinions on the opposite sides. In a city, this could be the case as well, where people would gather and trash people with the opposite views. For the rest, I'm sure I'd be able to come up with convincing examples of why that was an issue in the past. It's incredibly difficult to understand what society and politics from the past. History books aren't able to get us fully emerged in what life was like then. I guess I'm saying that there have always been threats to democracy, but it's shifted more towards social media these days.

mantas 9y ago
Pre-social-media, you'd talk more to neighbours or random strangers in a bar. They'd be more likely to have different opinions and you'd be exposed to different ideas as well as people behind them. Meanwhile today people are less exposed to different opinions and even when they're, they're even less exposed to people behind them. Which is no less important than the ideas themselves.
- jackschultz 9y ago
  How can you claim that people's neighbors had different opinions than the people themselves? How can you say that about strangers at a bar? People then could be the same as people now who don't want to talk about politics and would rather call people with different opinions trash. Who's to say that people these days are less exposed? That's incredibly difficult to research. And I can just claim that people see different opinions all the time, and are able to look up which well known people agree on each side? This whole thing is all claims and not proof. So many people never respecting the opposite side's opinions, but that could easily be because of how humans evolved and not because of culture and tech.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    I have to say whenever I am out and about speaking to people I meet I find they generally have a very different view to what you get in the MSM, to the point that I wonder what kind of world the MSM inhabits - certainly seems like a different one to the rest of humanity. This is just one person's view.

fuscy 9y ago

The article is right that this can be thought to be new to the social media environment but it is a well known phenomena of which the USA has plenty of experience both in countering and administering and I believe that the effects are now seen due to government complacency. Let's call it propaganda - everyone did it in the past and everyone still does it today. Both Russia and China have a pretty much inaccessible social media while both also have a very powerful propaganda machine on Facebook or Twitter with hired posters, paid marketing - an entire propaganda system ranging from psychologists to artists. Unfortunately the government will at some point have to step up their game from TV, radio and newspapers and get with the times - either by making western social media more inaccessible or by pumping those dollars in Facebook pro-democracy ads. Also I noticed that Western governments play right into some of these carefully laid traps like immigration, sexuality or religion policies.

calvinbhai 9y ago

Says the guy who is big into conventional media, which in many countries has been caught peddling lies, misinformation and half truths, by the social media. Is social media a direct threat to democracy? I dont think so. It certainly is a threat to conventional media peddling propaganda and narrative based on the highest bidder.

echaozh 9y ago

Why is influencing people in the democracy a bad thing? It's at least better than only having to influence the people in the congress, right?