4 ms·

We watched this documentary in the fake news class I taught this past summer. https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542 https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542 Wh

by jdkee 7y ago

We watched this documentary in the fake news class I taught this past summer. https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542 https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542 While some of the assertions in the film are unsubstantiated, the resulting classroom discussion on the role of social media and privacy were immensely constructive.

forgingahead 7y ago
Did your class cover any aspect of how the mainstream media, like cable and broadcast TV news channels and the top printed newspapers in the country, also practice heavy bias in their reporting, and how the members of your class could become aware whenever those biases arose?
- jdkee 7y ago
  Yes, we did. We cover the difference between journalism and its ethics for the social good and the media, which is produced for consumption.
  - anongraddebt 7y ago
    A key problem is the dearth of actual journalism today. The Economist being one of the few exceptions, along with Reuters (not sure how to classify them though).
chillacy 7y ago
I was a bit underwhelmed, while some of the voter suppression stuff was pretty abhorrent, I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. If people's beliefs are so heavily influenced by who we communicate with, what are the chances that we aren't under those same forces, and is there even an objective point of view in any of this?
- knzhou 7y ago
  > I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. Well, if you push in that direction then the whole narrative falls apart. There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective -- why would knowing somebody likes Taylor Swift be better for targeting political ads than knowing where they live and their party affiliation, like in traditional ad targeting? It's just absurd, and nobody ever counters this narrative because nobody has an incentive to. Journalists want people to believe this to get them afraid of Facebook. Facebook wants people to believe it because that makes their ads worth paying for. Doubly so for Cambridge Analytica and the like.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    > social media based personality profiles It's not based on social media likes, it's a literal 5-factor psychology personality survey [1]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-personality-test-cambridge-analytica-data-trump-election-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-personality-test-ca...
  - freeflight 7y ago
    > There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective And that's why microtargeting has become pretty widespread in its use during political campaigning [0], because it's not effective at all. > why would knowing somebody likes Taylor Swift be better for targeting political ads than knowing where they live and their party affiliation Because FB knows all of these things, and not only who likes Taylor Swift. Care to name any other place where data like that exists in such an aggregated format? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-german-far-right-finds-friends-through-facebook https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-germa...
    - knzhou 7y ago
      > Care to name any other place where data like that exists in such an aggregated format? Come on. Both political parties maintain databases of voters containing plenty of personal information. When people canvas door to door they know precisely what kind of people will answer the door. This is a basic aspect of campaigning that was around well before Facebook. 2004 wasn’t the stone age.
knzhou 7y ago
I once took a "media and society" class where I was told that critical thinking meant to take all my facts from the New York Times alone, that the NYT was infallible, and that I shouldn't even try to evaluate facts from "unauthorized sources" because they were all definitely lies anyway. On reflection, I think this kind of class is bad for society. Are you sure you aren't running that kind of class?
- jdkee 7y ago
  Yes. We cover numerous types sources, from traditional newsprint journalism, to online reporting by some crank with a blog. The idea is to develop and apply critical thinking skills while reading/hearing various news/editorials/advertising sources.

by jdkee 7y ago

forgingahead 7y ago

Did your class cover any aspect of how the mainstream media, like cable and broadcast TV news channels and the top printed newspapers in the country, also practice heavy bias in their reporting, and how the members of your class could become aware whenever those biases arose?

jdkee 7y ago
Yes, we did. We cover the difference between journalism and its ethics for the social good and the media, which is produced for consumption.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  A key problem is the dearth of actual journalism today. The Economist being one of the few exceptions, along with Reuters (not sure how to classify them though).

chillacy 7y ago

I was a bit underwhelmed, while some of the voter suppression stuff was pretty abhorrent, I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. If people's beliefs are so heavily influenced by who we communicate with, what are the chances that we aren't under those same forces, and is there even an objective point of view in any of this?

knzhou 7y ago
> I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. Well, if you push in that direction then the whole narrative falls apart. There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective -- why would knowing somebody likes Taylor Swift be better for targeting political ads than knowing where they live and their party affiliation, like in traditional ad targeting? It's just absurd, and nobody ever counters this narrative because nobody has an incentive to. Journalists want people to believe this to get them afraid of Facebook. Facebook wants people to believe it because that makes their ads worth paying for. Doubly so for Cambridge Analytica and the like.
- chillacy 7y ago
  > social media based personality profiles It's not based on social media likes, it's a literal 5-factor psychology personality survey [1]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-personality-test-cambridge-analytica-data-trump-election-2018-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-personality-test-ca...
- freeflight 7y ago
  > There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective And that's why microtargeting has become pretty widespread in its use during political campaigning [0], because it's not effective at all. > why would knowing somebody likes Taylor Swift be better for targeting political ads than knowing where they live and their party affiliation Because FB knows all of these things, and not only who likes Taylor Swift. Care to name any other place where data like that exists in such an aggregated format? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-german-far-right-finds-friends-through-facebook https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-germa...
  - knzhou 7y ago
    > Care to name any other place where data like that exists in such an aggregated format? Come on. Both political parties maintain databases of voters containing plenty of personal information. When people canvas door to door they know precisely what kind of people will answer the door. This is a basic aspect of campaigning that was around well before Facebook. 2004 wasn’t the stone age.

knzhou 7y ago

I once took a "media and society" class where I was told that critical thinking meant to take all my facts from the New York Times alone, that the NYT was infallible, and that I shouldn't even try to evaluate facts from "unauthorized sources" because they were all definitely lies anyway. On reflection, I think this kind of class is bad for society. Are you sure you aren't running that kind of class?

jdkee 7y ago
Yes. We cover numerous types sources, from traditional newsprint journalism, to online reporting by some crank with a blog. The idea is to develop and apply critical thinking skills while reading/hearing various news/editorials/advertising sources.