4 ms·

Couldn't you make that same argument about news or TV organizations? Tremendous power to sway elections and public opinion, run by a few who aren't afraid to us

by kosei 9y ago

Couldn't you make that same argument about news or TV organizations? Tremendous power to sway elections and public opinion, run by a few who aren't afraid to use that power for their own devices?

m52go 9y ago
Facebook is 1 entity, and even though mass media has consolidated quite a bit, it's still not all controlled by just 1 entity. Also, advertisers in mass media can't algorithmically target consumers with specific ideological messages. Mass media is still largely run by advertisers targeting relatively vague customer profiles with product branding messages. You're right that there's a similarity, but I think the magnitude of Facebook's power is vastly different.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown. Well, I actually know I'm not [1]. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force. On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. With TV, news sites, etc, you have one "Fox News", slowly turning all conservative people paranoid, and it only goes one way, or one "CNN" banking on excessive coverage of things blown out of proportion, etc. Hell, John Stewart, when he went to Crossfire caused the show's cancellation was talking about how CNN was making politics a sports show, with two teams, strong feelings, and black-or-white loyalty. TV had been polarizing politics for years before social media even existed. This is, again not just me speaking. Polarization is increasing the most amongst those who use the internet the least. The internet gave us a grassroots independent movement (wether you agree or disagree with him, it's impressive where Sanders got to without Super PACs) [3]. Similar people to non-heavy social media users gave us Donald Trump (old, no-college education, etc) [4][5]. Not saying online advertising didn't sway anyone, but to think "Facebook/Twitter/social media elected Trump" sounds more like just an emotional response than a facts-based conclusion. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analytica-facebook-data-trump-campaign-psychographic-microtargeting https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt... [2]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/s... [3]: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-president-internet https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-presiden... [4]: http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec... [5]: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/
  - m52go 9y ago
    Impressive reply. I find this topic fascinating, and you've given me a lot to think about. Yes, TV is terrible, but also keep in mind that social media's role in the world has changed dramatically too--often it straight-up drives TV coverage when used effectively, as Trump does (like it or not). In the 2016 election, it seemed like CNN and Fox were often rushing to cover (and spin) Trump's latest tweet (as they still do), so-and-so's latest Facebook note, etc. reactively instead of proactively crafting their own coverage. > On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. Yeah but the echo chamber effect on the internet might be even stronger because it's 2-way. It's been shown that being exposed to opposing political opinions on Twitter actually strengthens peoples' original political opinions (recent academic study...can't find link now, but it's on my other machine, and will update this post this evening). From [2]: > Remember, it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House. Women, minorities, and others supported Trump way more than expected (in historical terms compared with recent elections, and certainly way more than mass media had us believe), so I'm not sure where the author is coming from here. Also the data cited in the article only goes to 2012, and a LOT has changed since then, so I'd be careful to relate these conclusions to events after 2016.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > "Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown." > "Well, I actually know I'm not. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force." I think there's a couple of different things going on here that should be considered independently: (a) two-way communication between people (e.g., conversations) (b) one-way broadcast information (traditional media) (c) one-way targeted/narrow-cast information (e.g., algorithmic news feeds, advertising) There's grey in between these. For example, you can write letters to the editor, or call in to radio stations. I agree that it's great that the internet has allowed people to communicate with each other more easily with those who are not in their immediate physical community. And I agree that there are other areas of concern as well: traditional media isn't immune, and with the increase in the number of channels, the line between (b) and (c) becomes increasingly blurry. For myself, a primary concern with algorithmic news feeds and targeted advertising is that it's less transparent. With broadcast TV and advertising, you've got a lot of people of diverse backgrounds watching. If something is being apparently misrepresented (in programming in general, not just news or advertising), it's likely that someone will be able to call them out on it. We have watchdog groups, fact checkers, and federal agencies to help keep people honest. These are human institutions so they're not perfect, but they do exist. The First Amendment helps protect things from getting too homogenized. The balance swings back and forth, and is more or less perfect depending on who you are. But there are mechanisms in place whose purpose is to try to keep things fair. These mechanisms aren't in place for algorithmic news feeds and targeted advertising. Different people can be shown different ads or articles, with varying levels of truth, and not know what the other has seen. If I say I saw an news article about such and such, and you don't believe I did, we don't have a common place we can point to and see what I saw (unless I'm recording everything I do online). I can see something I think is fair and plays into my worldview, that if you saw it, you would say that's not fair. But you don't have the opportunity to, and I don't have the pushback to be informed where I might be wrong. This is the same dynamic that you describe with people watching only channels that speak to them, but on a more narrow, personalized scale. With broadcast media we have the opportunity to show each other what we saw. On a community scale, you could think of this as people talking behind each other's backs. So, long story short, I think we're right to be focussed on both. I know I'm concerned about both, particularly the polarization aspects. If you're interested in reading more about how the internet aspects are different and why they may be something we should be increasingly worried about even if we haven't seen strong effects of it yet (I think there were a lot of factors that went into the 2016 US Presidential election result, and some of the most definitely stronger than targeted advertising and algorithmic news feeds), I encourage you to take a look at some of the work Zeynep Tufecki[0] has done. [1][2] She's been looking at it for quite a while. Again, this isn't to dissuade you from thinking traditional media isn't something we need to worry about: I agree it definitely is. This targeting behavior is something new, and we also (hopefully) still have the opportunity to figure out mechanisms that will help make them a net positive benefit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_Tufekci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_Tufekci [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/beware-the-big-data-campaign.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/beware-the-big-da... [2]: https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...
411mrc 9y ago
Facebook is but one example of the neutering of the once powerful media. Long ago in the US, there were three tv networks, one or two local newspapers and that's it. A guy named Walter Cronkite single handedly swung public opinion against the war in Vietnam. No one holds that single power today.

by kosei 9y ago

Couldn't you make that same argument about news or TV organizations? Tremendous power to sway elections and public opinion, run by a few who aren't afraid to use that power for their own devices?

m52go 9y ago

Facebook is 1 entity, and even though mass media has consolidated quite a bit, it's still not all controlled by just 1 entity. Also, advertisers in mass media can't algorithmically target consumers with specific ideological messages. Mass media is still largely run by advertisers targeting relatively vague customer profiles with product branding messages. You're right that there's a similarity, but I think the magnitude of Facebook's power is vastly different.

aylmao 9y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown. Well, I actually know I'm not [1]. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force. On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. With TV, news sites, etc, you have one "Fox News", slowly turning all conservative people paranoid, and it only goes one way, or one "CNN" banking on excessive coverage of things blown out of proportion, etc. Hell, John Stewart, when he went to Crossfire caused the show's cancellation was talking about how CNN was making politics a sports show, with two teams, strong feelings, and black-or-white loyalty. TV had been polarizing politics for years before social media even existed. This is, again not just me speaking. Polarization is increasing the most amongst those who use the internet the least. The internet gave us a grassroots independent movement (wether you agree or disagree with him, it's impressive where Sanders got to without Super PACs) [3]. Similar people to non-heavy social media users gave us Donald Trump (old, no-college education, etc) [4][5]. Not saying online advertising didn't sway anyone, but to think "Facebook/Twitter/social media elected Trump" sounds more like just an emotional response than a facts-based conclusion. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analytica-facebook-data-trump-campaign-psychographic-microtargeting https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt... [2]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/s... [3]: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-president-internet https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-presiden... [4]: http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec... [5]: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/
- m52go 9y ago
  Impressive reply. I find this topic fascinating, and you've given me a lot to think about. Yes, TV is terrible, but also keep in mind that social media's role in the world has changed dramatically too--often it straight-up drives TV coverage when used effectively, as Trump does (like it or not). In the 2016 election, it seemed like CNN and Fox were often rushing to cover (and spin) Trump's latest tweet (as they still do), so-and-so's latest Facebook note, etc. reactively instead of proactively crafting their own coverage. > On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. Yeah but the echo chamber effect on the internet might be even stronger because it's 2-way. It's been shown that being exposed to opposing political opinions on Twitter actually strengthens peoples' original political opinions (recent academic study...can't find link now, but it's on my other machine, and will update this post this evening). From [2]: > Remember, it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House. Women, minorities, and others supported Trump way more than expected (in historical terms compared with recent elections, and certainly way more than mass media had us believe), so I'm not sure where the author is coming from here. Also the data cited in the article only goes to 2012, and a LOT has changed since then, so I'd be careful to relate these conclusions to events after 2016.
- grzm 9y ago
  > "Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown." > "Well, I actually know I'm not. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force." I think there's a couple of different things going on here that should be considered independently: (a) two-way communication between people (e.g., conversations) (b) one-way broadcast information (traditional media) (c) one-way targeted/narrow-cast information (e.g., algorithmic news feeds, advertising) There's grey in between these. For example, you can write letters to the editor, or call in to radio stations. I agree that it's great that the internet has allowed people to communicate with each other more easily with those who are not in their immediate physical community. And I agree that there are other areas of concern as well: traditional media isn't immune, and with the increase in the number of channels, the line between (b) and (c) becomes increasingly blurry. For myself, a primary concern with algorithmic news feeds and targeted advertising is that it's less transparent. With broadcast TV and advertising, you've got a lot of people of diverse backgrounds watching. If something is being apparently misrepresented (in programming in general, not just news or advertising), it's likely that someone will be able to call them out on it. We have watchdog groups, fact checkers, and federal agencies to help keep people honest. These are human institutions so they're not perfect, but they do exist. The First Amendment helps protect things from getting too homogenized. The balance swings back and forth, and is more or less perfect depending on who you are. But there are mechanisms in place whose purpose is to try to keep things fair. These mechanisms aren't in place for algorithmic news feeds and targeted advertising. Different people can be shown different ads or articles, with varying levels of truth, and not know what the other has seen. If I say I saw an news article about such and such, and you don't believe I did, we don't have a common place we can point to and see what I saw (unless I'm recording everything I do online). I can see something I think is fair and plays into my worldview, that if you saw it, you would say that's not fair. But you don't have the opportunity to, and I don't have the pushback to be informed where I might be wrong. This is the same dynamic that you describe with people watching only channels that speak to them, but on a more narrow, personalized scale. With broadcast media we have the opportunity to show each other what we saw. On a community scale, you could think of this as people talking behind each other's backs. So, long story short, I think we're right to be focussed on both. I know I'm concerned about both, particularly the polarization aspects. If you're interested in reading more about how the internet aspects are different and why they may be something we should be increasingly worried about even if we haven't seen strong effects of it yet (I think there were a lot of factors that went into the 2016 US Presidential election result, and some of the most definitely stronger than targeted advertising and algorithmic news feeds), I encourage you to take a look at some of the work Zeynep Tufecki[0] has done. [1][2] She's been looking at it for quite a while. Again, this isn't to dissuade you from thinking traditional media isn't something we need to worry about: I agree it definitely is. This targeting behavior is something new, and we also (hopefully) still have the opportunity to figure out mechanisms that will help make them a net positive benefit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_Tufekci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_Tufekci [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/beware-the-big-data-campaign.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/beware-the-big-da... [2]: https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...

411mrc 9y ago

Facebook is but one example of the neutering of the once powerful media. Long ago in the US, there were three tv networks, one or two local newspapers and that's it. A guy named Walter Cronkite single handedly swung public opinion against the war in Vietnam. No one holds that single power today.