5 ms·
>It was the intervention of Twitter and 4chan. The author has lost the plot. >It's pretty apparent that the reason Trump won wasn't Russian intervention (note
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>It was the intervention of Twitter and 4chan.
The author has lost the plot.
>It's pretty apparent that the reason Trump won wasn't Russian intervention (note the extremely Second Wave nature of the explanation: nations playing at geopolitics).
Ah yes, a nation pouring an immense amount of resources into propaganda targeting a specific subsection of american society and having close contact with the currently elected administration definitely wasn't the reason they got elected.
Let's Correct the Record (don't spritz all over your keyboard HN):
Russia abused Twitter/Facebook. But Twitter and Facebook aren't _the_ reason he got elected though. Facebook and the like are useful tools because you can post anything and have it reach a large, "odd"/targeted audience. But without that audience, without that sounding board, the information is nothing. Facebook and Twitter, and all the other social media platforms have significant design flaws with their raison d'etre: the spread of information across some social graph.
Assuming that the social graph is comprised of rational actors is a question that keeps getting begged in these discussions. There is no evidence for this being the case and all the evidence against that assumption. So we should correct for it. Just like the existing media platforms do (well, with the exception of one notable media giant who loves abusing that fact who's had a hand in creating the absurd situation we find ourselves in today).
We need to fix the problems we know about. That's all. It wouldn't hurt to remember why the media is structured the way it currently is (or was). In any system that gets re-implemented, there is always a duplication of efforts and lessons learned. These New Media systems will be no different.
The U.S. had a useful law for dealing with the problems of "today." And it's sad to say we've basically created problems where there never needed to be. Time to re implement the Fairness Doctrine -- across the board.
>But the core of the "brain-force economy" is politically retarded - it has a low political IQ and has not achieved political self-consciousness. The old smokestack barons and trade union leaders who dominated during the second wave are still running rings around you guys in Washington."
It's not so much as a new wave, but a new class of citizens who desperately need to become actively engaged in the political process. And understanding that the systems they're creating has lead to new power structures and information conduits, and with power comes responsibility. A responsibility to ensure the consumers of their platform are not unduly influenced by incorrect, false, and misleading information (Facebook tried doing this but was lambasted by the right, can't imagine why). A responsibility to support good governance and to support policies that provide a continued foundation for a functioning, healthy, productive, peaceful society.
The situation we're in isn't a technological problem. It's a social one.
- gatola_j 8y ago+1
- froasty 8y ago>Ah yes, a nation pouring an immense amount of resources into propaganda targeting a specific subsection of american society and having close contact with the currently elected administration definitely wasn't the reason they got elected. Here are a few questions for you: Why did Russian ad-buys during the 2016 campaign fund both extremist sides of the political spectrum? For an example, why did they try to simultaneously organize pro- and anti-gay rallies in Kansas?^1 And just who is Vladislav Surkov?^2 >The U.S. had a useful law for dealing with the problems of "today." And it's sad to say we've basically created problems where there never needed to be. Time to re implement the Fairness Doctrine -- across the board. Okay, now where is the threshhold to qualify for consideration in the Fairness Doctrine, particular in a society with manifold subcultures? Is it party members? Is it adherents? Is it hashtags? Who gets to be on the Fairness Board? How are violations handled? Who gets to determine what speech is acceptable (because clearly revolutionary parties exist)? When is a platform accountable? Are foreign platforms accountable? Are personal servers broadcasting or narrowcasting? >It's not so much as a new wave, but a new class of citizens who desperately need to become actively engaged in the political process. And understanding that the systems they're creating has lead to new power structures and information conduits, and with power comes responsibility. A responsibility to ensure the consumers of their platform are not unduly influenced by incorrect, false, and misleading information (Facebook tried doing this but was lambasted by the right, can't imagine why). A responsibility to support good governance and to support policies that provide a continued foundation for a functioning, healthy, productive, peaceful society. In so many words, you're advocating for fixed fortifications in an age of Blitzkrieg.^3 Or to paraphrase Toffler, instead of automobiles, we need to just make stronger and faster horses. >The situation we're in isn't a technological problem. It's a social one. The notion that it's a monocausal issue of social policy has been addressed thoroughly for decades by luminaries such as Marhsall McLuhan and Jacques Ellul. The Medium is the Message. For a more up to date take, I strongly recommend that you read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death. --- [1] https://www.advocate.com/media/2017/11/03/why-did-russia-promote-kansas-rally-against-westboro-baptist-church https://www.advocate.com/media/2017/11/03/why-did-russia-pro... [2] https://youtu.be/Y5ubluwNkqg?t=126 https://youtu.be/Y5ubluwNkqg?t=126 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Definition