6 ms·

"The problem isn't tech, it's people" This sounds remarkably like an argument I've heard before, but there will always be destructive people and people seeking

"The problem isn't tech, it's people" This sounds remarkably like an argument I've heard before, but there will always be destructive people and people seeking to profit from events like this. In this case certain features created by tech companies perpetuate and amplify the destructiveness of those people, and that's a problem tech needs to solve quickly. Education could definitely help people filter information better, and in turn tech companies can leverage that curation to deliver better products. The short term fix? Perhaps Google should just disable their tweet carousel (at least during certain events) until it works reliably and doesn't contribute to misinformation on this scale.

beaner 9y ago
I would say that certain technologies perpetuate and amplify the voice of people, but not necessarily their destructiveness. Correct information is equally perpetuated and amplified. The ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected. For this reason I am not convinced there's an actual problem.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  I think the problem here is that Google's tweet results actually have been shown to display a fairly high ratio of incorrect information at some particularly critical times. I don't know why you'd say "the ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected" - clearly the number of people exposed to incorrect information would be lower if Google did not show those tweets? That's not surprising since they're essentially scraping Twitter. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have a voice, but perhaps leave it to Twitter to rank tweets until Google's SNR ratio is better. Twitter just have a lot more signals to rank their users' tweets by (and for instance better assess whether tweets are being promoted by a botnet/voting ring).
  - beaner 9y ago
    Does Google not also display counter claims from tweets in its results? If it can't discern fact from fake, it's hard to see how it wouldn't.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Do you remember the bad old days of website SEO, way back at the dawn of time? Back then someone could have just asserted that "good" sites will obviously appear as often as "bad" ones in results, if the search engine is unable to tell them apart. But of course that presumes either the "bad" sites aren't doing anything to game the search rankings, or that the "good" sites are just as effective at gaming the rankings, and we know for a fact that neither of these was the case. It took serious effort on the part of search engines to weed out the "bad" results, promote the "good" ones and close off the most effective ways to game the system. We are going through that all over again now. Social media -- and yes, this includes important parts of Google search now, since they've decided to include social-media platforms prominently in results -- can be gamed the same way SERPs got gamed. And instead of just being gamed by people who want to sell you things (as in the bad old days of SEO), now they're also being gamed by political entities for the express purpose of swaying the course of nations. These platforms wield enormous influence; it's not out of the question that, say, Twitter could literally be in a position to prevent or allow a major war. But the people who own and run these platforms are absolutely convinced of their own brilliance, and absolutely convinced that they could only be beaten by someone who has better tech skills than they do, when they're currently being played like a fiddle by people who have old-fashioned media and PR skills.
    - makomk 9y ago
      One of the fundamental social problems with Twitter is that counterclaims and retractions don't generally go viral in the same way that bullshit does. It's probably not one that you'll hear journalists talking about much, because it would make their own screw-ups look a lot more harmful and destructive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
it sounds sort of like guns don't kill people, people do. doesn't it.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  Does that make it false ?
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    It certainly makes it suspect by being so clearly related to a phrase created to distract and confuse. (Guns kill people, many people, in accidents.)
    - talmand 9y ago
      I don't find it distracting or confusing. It's a rather simple statement. If you are worried over accidental deaths then we should consider discussing what we're going to do about the car accident problem before gun accidents.
      - PeachPlum 9y ago
        If you are concerned about death then obesity kills 100x more people than guns. And abortion kills 2x as many as obesity.
      - SiempreViernes 9y ago
        I mean, I understand this is your interpretation, but I feel that you exemplifying how the statement completely derails a discussion just proves my point.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  Unfortunately not a brilliant analogy until guns start algorithmically deciding who to shoot at.

beaner 9y ago

I would say that certain technologies perpetuate and amplify the voice of people, but not necessarily their destructiveness. Correct information is equally perpetuated and amplified. The ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected. For this reason I am not convinced there's an actual problem.

runesoerensen 9y ago
I think the problem here is that Google's tweet results actually have been shown to display a fairly high ratio of incorrect information at some particularly critical times. I don't know why you'd say "the ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected" - clearly the number of people exposed to incorrect information would be lower if Google did not show those tweets? That's not surprising since they're essentially scraping Twitter. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have a voice, but perhaps leave it to Twitter to rank tweets until Google's SNR ratio is better. Twitter just have a lot more signals to rank their users' tweets by (and for instance better assess whether tweets are being promoted by a botnet/voting ring).
- beaner 9y ago
  Does Google not also display counter claims from tweets in its results? If it can't discern fact from fake, it's hard to see how it wouldn't.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Do you remember the bad old days of website SEO, way back at the dawn of time? Back then someone could have just asserted that "good" sites will obviously appear as often as "bad" ones in results, if the search engine is unable to tell them apart. But of course that presumes either the "bad" sites aren't doing anything to game the search rankings, or that the "good" sites are just as effective at gaming the rankings, and we know for a fact that neither of these was the case. It took serious effort on the part of search engines to weed out the "bad" results, promote the "good" ones and close off the most effective ways to game the system. We are going through that all over again now. Social media -- and yes, this includes important parts of Google search now, since they've decided to include social-media platforms prominently in results -- can be gamed the same way SERPs got gamed. And instead of just being gamed by people who want to sell you things (as in the bad old days of SEO), now they're also being gamed by political entities for the express purpose of swaying the course of nations. These platforms wield enormous influence; it's not out of the question that, say, Twitter could literally be in a position to prevent or allow a major war. But the people who own and run these platforms are absolutely convinced of their own brilliance, and absolutely convinced that they could only be beaten by someone who has better tech skills than they do, when they're currently being played like a fiddle by people who have old-fashioned media and PR skills.
  - makomk 9y ago
    One of the fundamental social problems with Twitter is that counterclaims and retractions don't generally go viral in the same way that bullshit does. It's probably not one that you'll hear journalists talking about much, because it would make their own screw-ups look a lot more harmful and destructive.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bryanrasmussen 9y ago

it sounds sort of like guns don't kill people, people do. doesn't it.

PeachPlum 9y ago
Does that make it false ?
- SiempreViernes 9y ago
  It certainly makes it suspect by being so clearly related to a phrase created to distract and confuse. (Guns kill people, many people, in accidents.)
  - talmand 9y ago
    I don't find it distracting or confusing. It's a rather simple statement. If you are worried over accidental deaths then we should consider discussing what we're going to do about the car accident problem before gun accidents.
    - PeachPlum 9y ago
      If you are concerned about death then obesity kills 100x more people than guns. And abortion kills 2x as many as obesity.
    - SiempreViernes 9y ago
      I mean, I understand this is your interpretation, but I feel that you exemplifying how the statement completely derails a discussion just proves my point.
SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
Unfortunately not a brilliant analogy until guns start algorithmically deciding who to shoot at.