3 ms·

I hate how the internet makes everyone think they're smarter than everyone else. Scheming malicious losers write fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stu

by bogwog 6y ago

I hate how the internet makes everyone think they're smarter than everyone else. Scheming malicious losers write fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people, then skeptics come across it and become paranoid and angry, and then they make fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people. But in the end, everyone involved is a stupid naive scheming malicious paranoid loser. Regardless of who is behind these cyber attacks, whether its white supremacists, BLM protestors, anarchists, foreign state actors, or edgy 15 years olds in a Discord server with waifu profile pics, the end goal is the same: to make people angry, and possibly incite more riots. And it's going to succeed. And if you think about it too much, you'll just turn yourself into an angry paranoid wreck. Maybe the internet (or social media) wasn't such a good idea after all? The technology moved faster than our monkey brains could keep up.

save_ferris 6y ago
> The technology moved faster than our monkey brains could keep up. I think it’s important to remember the ways in which the internet has evolved that got us here. It’s not just a question of speed, but of incentives. The internet has long been a tool for huge tech companies to build businesses that can only exist as long as they remain largely unchecked and unregulated, and the stock market has cheered these efforts on. Now, we’re seeing the cost of giving everyone the ability to post whatever they want without having sustainable solutions to combat weaponized speech without compromising legitimate dissenting speech. This mistake largely falls on the market for rewarding this shortsightedness for so long. Social media companies have also known for years now that controversy drives incredible amounts of traffic to their platforms, which in turn drives revenue.
- bargl 6y ago
  >Now, we’re seeing the cost of giving everyone the ability to post whatever they want without having sustainable solutions to combat weaponized speech without compromising legitimate dissenting speech. This mistake largely falls on the market for rewarding this shortsightedness for so long. We've effectively connected and amplified the voice of every village idiot. Before, you knew who the village idiot was and you could ignore them. Now every village idiot gets a loud ass voice that goes to people who don't know them. All they know about the village idiot is they've got this idea that just crazy enough to work. All of which is amplified by clustering like people across villages. So your village has an idiot and mine does. Now they're hanging out coming up with conspiracies and acting foolish. Which creates less diversity. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Etc. are inherently tools against diversity of thought. Google wants to show me the last 10 videos I've watched for ages. Twitter, I don't use so i'm just lumping it in cuz everyone else seems to. Facebook at least shows me posts by people I know but again, people I know. In each of these cases it's up to the user to force diversity of thought into the platform. Our technological world doesn't promote the healthy and hard dialogues needed for people to grow as people. If I want to talk about black issues, I have to find a place where 1) I will get encouraged to have tough conversations (with likes etc). 2) Others will be encouraged to do the same. 3) Conversations can be nuanced enough that people will learn. 4) It will be real conversations with people who you can build a relationship where at least you recognize their name. 5) It needs to also discourage bad behavior such as trolling or abuse. I was going to lead into a conversation about how HN does or doesn't do this for me, but I think that'd detract from my overall idea. We need to figure out a way to encourage hard dialogue while refraining from encouraging trolling online. This seems to be a pretty hard thing to do without some sort of good localized human oversight, but IDK.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  "Weaponized" speech is an Orwellian phrase. You can weaponize weapons, but legitimate speech (outside of clear and present danger, like inciting lawless action or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) should always be responded to with speech.
  - thwarted 6y ago
    It's not the content of the speech itself that is weaponized, it's sheer volume of speech that needs to be responded to that makes it weaponized. And the volume (amount) of speech that must be responded to is so great that even the concept and need to "remain vigilant" against it is a challenge.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    The problem nowadays is that it’s getting harder to separate legitimate speech from automated amplified speech. Those who are able to build networks of bot accounts are able to deeply undermine discourse in dangerous ways, and social media platforms aren’t financially incentivized to deal with it. Twitter could tell us right now how many bots are on the platform, but they never will because it could tank their stock. As long as platforms can be manipulated by automation, this intentionally destructive speech will continue to proliferate.
    - thwarted 6y ago
      This point reveals an angle that is rarely recognized: what needs responding to is not the mass amount of speech that comes from automated bots, for automated bots won't listen to the response. What needs responding to is the people who listen to automated bots. The concept of responding to speech with speech is focused on reason and debate between the speakers themselves. But with automated amplified speech, no debate can exist because, at the surface, there are not multiple human actors. And at a separate layer, those who listen to amplified automated speech can not be reasoned with or debated with, the opinions are not their own and if they were reasonable they wouldn't be listening to the automated speech to begin with.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  Agree > can only exist as long as they remain largely unchecked and unregulated Or they own the regulations (e.g. via regulatory capture) or are large / embedded enough that regulations, while undesirable, serve as a useful barrier to new competitors
gaze 6y ago
I'm picking up some equivocation between BLM protestors and white supremacists...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- santoshalper 6y ago
  Didn't you know the truth is somewhere in the middle?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Don't try undermine what he's actually saying because you think maybe he's implying something you don't like.
throwgeorge 6y ago
>Maybe the internet (or social media) wasn't such a good idea after all? technology and science aren't apolitical. there isn't a single piece of scientific innovation (short of the polio vaccine and other freely distributed medical advances) that hasn't furthered political aims. combustion, electricity, transistors, nuclear power, the internet, etc etc etc. technologists and scientists think they have the luxury of being apolitical but they don't. the sooner we realize that the sooner we'll start making ethically sound decisions in our work and thereby having a meaningful effect on such misuse.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
catsdanxe 6y ago
>The technology moved faster than our monkey brains could keep up. Maybe Ted was right...
marcosdumay 6y ago
That is a flaw of mass media, not of the Internet. When a single channel broadcasts for an entire population, it must only talk about things most of the population is interested on, so the channel becomes single minded. If people are immersed on those channels, they become single minded too, and single minded people are crazy (AFAIK, always). For most of the Internet's time, it was a force against this. It was a peer to peer network with a large diversity of subjects. But on the last few years it has become mass media too, with all its problems. If there wasn't Internet, the stupidity would be on TV, that had already become highly centralized (and thus massive) by the time the Internet popularized.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  I completely disagree with this premise. The internet helped to consolidate print and broadcast media into the very single channel you discuss here. Furthermore, the internet, and more specifically the internet’s advertising model, created perverse incentives to encourage media companies to engage with content that users were more likely to click on. Prior to this model existing, media outlets didn’t have fine-grained metrics on what kinds of content sold and what didn’t, and not having to worry about this allowed them to more freely cover broader aspects of the news. Now, everything is driven by the click and the online ad model. This is further compounded, yet again by the internet, that subscription revenue fell off a cliff and never recovered as people relied more and more on the internet for free news. A major pillar of media income evaporated a people stopped paying for news, which further drove media outlets to rely even more on the perverse advertising model I described above. The flaws of the mass media and the internet cannot be separated because their function and purpose overlap in fundamental ways.

by bogwog 6y ago

save_ferris 6y ago

> The technology moved faster than our monkey brains could keep up. I think it’s important to remember the ways in which the internet has evolved that got us here. It’s not just a question of speed, but of incentives. The internet has long been a tool for huge tech companies to build businesses that can only exist as long as they remain largely unchecked and unregulated, and the stock market has cheered these efforts on. Now, we’re seeing the cost of giving everyone the ability to post whatever they want without having sustainable solutions to combat weaponized speech without compromising legitimate dissenting speech. This mistake largely falls on the market for rewarding this shortsightedness for so long. Social media companies have also known for years now that controversy drives incredible amounts of traffic to their platforms, which in turn drives revenue.

bargl 6y ago
>Now, we’re seeing the cost of giving everyone the ability to post whatever they want without having sustainable solutions to combat weaponized speech without compromising legitimate dissenting speech. This mistake largely falls on the market for rewarding this shortsightedness for so long. We've effectively connected and amplified the voice of every village idiot. Before, you knew who the village idiot was and you could ignore them. Now every village idiot gets a loud ass voice that goes to people who don't know them. All they know about the village idiot is they've got this idea that just crazy enough to work. All of which is amplified by clustering like people across villages. So your village has an idiot and mine does. Now they're hanging out coming up with conspiracies and acting foolish. Which creates less diversity. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Etc. are inherently tools against diversity of thought. Google wants to show me the last 10 videos I've watched for ages. Twitter, I don't use so i'm just lumping it in cuz everyone else seems to. Facebook at least shows me posts by people I know but again, people I know. In each of these cases it's up to the user to force diversity of thought into the platform. Our technological world doesn't promote the healthy and hard dialogues needed for people to grow as people. If I want to talk about black issues, I have to find a place where 1) I will get encouraged to have tough conversations (with likes etc). 2) Others will be encouraged to do the same. 3) Conversations can be nuanced enough that people will learn. 4) It will be real conversations with people who you can build a relationship where at least you recognize their name. 5) It needs to also discourage bad behavior such as trolling or abuse. I was going to lead into a conversation about how HN does or doesn't do this for me, but I think that'd detract from my overall idea. We need to figure out a way to encourage hard dialogue while refraining from encouraging trolling online. This seems to be a pretty hard thing to do without some sort of good localized human oversight, but IDK.
zozbot234 6y ago
"Weaponized" speech is an Orwellian phrase. You can weaponize weapons, but legitimate speech (outside of clear and present danger, like inciting lawless action or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) should always be responded to with speech.
- thwarted 6y ago
  It's not the content of the speech itself that is weaponized, it's sheer volume of speech that needs to be responded to that makes it weaponized. And the volume (amount) of speech that must be responded to is so great that even the concept and need to "remain vigilant" against it is a challenge.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The problem nowadays is that it’s getting harder to separate legitimate speech from automated amplified speech. Those who are able to build networks of bot accounts are able to deeply undermine discourse in dangerous ways, and social media platforms aren’t financially incentivized to deal with it. Twitter could tell us right now how many bots are on the platform, but they never will because it could tank their stock. As long as platforms can be manipulated by automation, this intentionally destructive speech will continue to proliferate.
  - thwarted 6y ago
    This point reveals an angle that is rarely recognized: what needs responding to is not the mass amount of speech that comes from automated bots, for automated bots won't listen to the response. What needs responding to is the people who listen to automated bots. The concept of responding to speech with speech is focused on reason and debate between the speakers themselves. But with automated amplified speech, no debate can exist because, at the surface, there are not multiple human actors. And at a separate layer, those who listen to amplified automated speech can not be reasoned with or debated with, the opinions are not their own and if they were reasonable they wouldn't be listening to the automated speech to begin with.
KineticLensman 6y ago
Agree > can only exist as long as they remain largely unchecked and unregulated Or they own the regulations (e.g. via regulatory capture) or are large / embedded enough that regulations, while undesirable, serve as a useful barrier to new competitors

gaze 6y ago

I'm picking up some equivocation between BLM protestors and white supremacists...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
santoshalper 6y ago
Didn't you know the truth is somewhere in the middle?
koheripbal 6y ago
Don't try undermine what he's actually saying because you think maybe he's implying something you don't like.

throwgeorge 6y ago

>Maybe the internet (or social media) wasn't such a good idea after all? technology and science aren't apolitical. there isn't a single piece of scientific innovation (short of the polio vaccine and other freely distributed medical advances) that hasn't furthered political aims. combustion, electricity, transistors, nuclear power, the internet, etc etc etc. technologists and scientists think they have the luxury of being apolitical but they don't. the sooner we realize that the sooner we'll start making ethically sound decisions in our work and thereby having a meaningful effect on such misuse.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

catsdanxe 6y ago

>The technology moved faster than our monkey brains could keep up. Maybe Ted was right...

marcosdumay 6y ago

That is a flaw of mass media, not of the Internet. When a single channel broadcasts for an entire population, it must only talk about things most of the population is interested on, so the channel becomes single minded. If people are immersed on those channels, they become single minded too, and single minded people are crazy (AFAIK, always). For most of the Internet's time, it was a force against this. It was a peer to peer network with a large diversity of subjects. But on the last few years it has become mass media too, with all its problems. If there wasn't Internet, the stupidity would be on TV, that had already become highly centralized (and thus massive) by the time the Internet popularized.

save_ferris 6y ago
I completely disagree with this premise. The internet helped to consolidate print and broadcast media into the very single channel you discuss here. Furthermore, the internet, and more specifically the internet’s advertising model, created perverse incentives to encourage media companies to engage with content that users were more likely to click on. Prior to this model existing, media outlets didn’t have fine-grained metrics on what kinds of content sold and what didn’t, and not having to worry about this allowed them to more freely cover broader aspects of the news. Now, everything is driven by the click and the online ad model. This is further compounded, yet again by the internet, that subscription revenue fell off a cliff and never recovered as people relied more and more on the internet for free news. A major pillar of media income evaporated a people stopped paying for news, which further drove media outlets to rely even more on the perverse advertising model I described above. The flaws of the mass media and the internet cannot be separated because their function and purpose overlap in fundamental ways.