3 ms·

I've noticed that the politicians who discuss regulating social media the most are often times the same politicians who've had their worldview challenged recent

I've noticed that the politicians who discuss regulating social media the most are often times the same politicians who've had their worldview challenged recently. In the US we have Democrats using Facebook and Twitter as a scapegoat for the rise of Trump. To Democrats, it's not that they're smug and look down on half the country, it isn't that they want to raise taxes to fund programs half the country doesn't want, or that they look down upon gun owners. No, it's the fact that Facebook's algorithms keep people bubbles, and Twitter gave Trump a megaphone that's the problem. To them, if those social media companies were heavily regulated then Trump wouldn't exist. First it was "fake news"; then it the Russians; then it was the affect social media has on society; then it was Cambridge Analytica; and now we're at Silicon Valley as a whole being a problem, with Google's search algorithms distorting democracy and social media companies not allowing "real news" to flourish over fake news. At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" And I say this as someone who is socially liberal. I see this as clear day and I get annoyed by it; I can only imagine how I'd feel if I were a conservative. You see a similar process play it in the UK, except with Brexit. At first it was leave voters being too stupid to know what's good for them, then it was the dishonesty of Farage and Johnson (as if politicians lying were a new phenomena), and now they're on to blaming social media and some shady campaign financing from leave groups. The world order has been challenged in the West and instead of mounting a defense of the establishment, the establishment blames the methods that the dissenters used to organize and punch them in the face. That's what makes the who social media debate frustrating to me. Politicians are obfuscating their true intentions and motives. It's as clear as day. Social media needs to clean up its mess, but the fact that there's no gatekeepers and everyone can have a voice is a good thing. That ability has allowed people in the middle east to topple dictators and shine a light on human rights abuses. Politicans in the UK and the United States should just learn how to govern better.

CM30 8y ago
> At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" This is arguably the key point. And I think the reason that's the case is because well, what were the mainstream politicians and parties offering? Not much. At least, not much that their bases wanted, and not much that'd improve people's standard of living. It was 'more of the same', with a helping of pro corporation laws and tax breaks. And their marketing was especially dire during the EU Referendum and 2016 election. Tons of comments about how wrong or stupid or 'deplorable' the other side was, lots of assumptions about how they'd automatically win. No promises about how the world/population would be better off under their system or how things would improve in general. Will either Trump or Brexit or what not make things better? No, likely not, but the solution isn't to try and lock down communication systems to stop it happening again, it's to take a long look at your party and political platform and start offering things people want rather than what gets you money or power.
- mike_hearn 8y ago
  The marketing was even worse than you say - the core message of the Remain campaign was "we can't leave because our friendly allies who we definitely want to integrate more with in future will punish us by destroying our economy". Cast in personal terms this argument is clearly disastrous, it makes the EU sound like a cult. However, it's easy to understand why they did it. What a lot of people didn't realise back then and still haven't accepted now (but mainstream politicians are very aware) is that they lost the positive argument years ago. Polling showed that the EU as a concept only really appealed to about 30% of the electorate. A clear majority felt the EU was bad, with wanting to leave narrowing to 52:48 only because of the fear of retaliation: https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screenshot-2016-11-27-13-58-441.png https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screensh... They're still at it now with these new wave of stories about stockpiling food and medicine and Ireland closing its airspace, etc. This strategy is unlikely to be more successful than last time. Given this desperation it is maybe not surprising that some of the establishment are desperately casting around for ways to censor social media and return to a world where they and a small cadre of broadcast executives control the discussion.

CM30 8y ago

> At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" This is arguably the key point. And I think the reason that's the case is because well, what were the mainstream politicians and parties offering? Not much. At least, not much that their bases wanted, and not much that'd improve people's standard of living. It was 'more of the same', with a helping of pro corporation laws and tax breaks. And their marketing was especially dire during the EU Referendum and 2016 election. Tons of comments about how wrong or stupid or 'deplorable' the other side was, lots of assumptions about how they'd automatically win. No promises about how the world/population would be better off under their system or how things would improve in general. Will either Trump or Brexit or what not make things better? No, likely not, but the solution isn't to try and lock down communication systems to stop it happening again, it's to take a long look at your party and political platform and start offering things people want rather than what gets you money or power.

mike_hearn 8y ago
The marketing was even worse than you say - the core message of the Remain campaign was "we can't leave because our friendly allies who we definitely want to integrate more with in future will punish us by destroying our economy". Cast in personal terms this argument is clearly disastrous, it makes the EU sound like a cult. However, it's easy to understand why they did it. What a lot of people didn't realise back then and still haven't accepted now (but mainstream politicians are very aware) is that they lost the positive argument years ago. Polling showed that the EU as a concept only really appealed to about 30% of the electorate. A clear majority felt the EU was bad, with wanting to leave narrowing to 52:48 only because of the fear of retaliation: https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screenshot-2016-11-27-13-58-441.png https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screensh... They're still at it now with these new wave of stories about stockpiling food and medicine and Ireland closing its airspace, etc. This strategy is unlikely to be more successful than last time. Given this desperation it is maybe not surprising that some of the establishment are desperately casting around for ways to censor social media and return to a world where they and a small cadre of broadcast executives control the discussion.