4 ms·

Facebook's userbase is a mirror of human society if you want to fix Facebook fix society first.

hairofadog 6y ago
One step toward fixing society might be to place limits on platforms that profit from propagating divisive, misleading, and hateful content.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I disagree with the use of a vague phrase like 'hateful content' in a context like limiting platforms that support societal discourse. That term has more clear meaning to me when it is used to describe content that explicitly suggests violence (as in physical violence). But when it comes to 'placing limits' on platforms (AKA censoring), it is often used in expansive and arbitrary ways. For instance, Reddit recently banned a subreddit called "Gender Critical", whose premise was disagreement with progressive gender ideology, and it had over 60K members. While I did not follow this subreddit, I personally feel that's a fine discussion to have. After all, gender identity is a controversial topic that is far from settled, and it is still very new in its current incarnation (meaning the ideology surrounding it in progressive America as opposed to historical views or views in other geographies). Society is still very divided on this topic (https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-partisan-and-gender-divides-remain/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-p...), and that debate needs to happen and will continue to happen for years. But Reddit instead chose to ban this subreddit outright, with no warning, under the guide of removing 'hateful content'. I feel that is inappropriate, and yet censorship of this form is being normalized on all the major big tech platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube). Instead of limiting platforms in a way that is content-specific, how about just limiting platforms in more neutral ways? Platforms beyond some size (maybe based on number of users) should be held to standards of neutrality that are grounded in our laws, or split up on anti-trust grounds. It's not good for us to have duopolies (Visa/Mastercard) or oligopolies (big tech) that have degrees of reach/power/influence that are comparable to governments but operate without Constitutional constraints (freedom of speech in particular).
uoaei 6y ago
It's a mirror of the part of human society who think their opinions are worth broadcasting. This induces a selection bias toward radical, unabashed folks.
tw04 6y ago
That's ridiculous on its face and I'd be shocked if you actually believe it. The things people will say to each other on facebook NEVER happen in real life. If nothing else, facebook has made society WORSE because public behavior has gotten WORSE over time and it absolutely STARTED on sites like twitter and facebook. If you want to fix society, force more in-person interactions and limit online interactions. We've literally got an entire generation of kids who can barely function in society because they grew up spending 90% of their time interacting with their peers over instant messaging.
dumbfoundded 6y ago
The problem is with how facebook amplifies messages. By showing you the posts you're most likely to engage with, Facebook encourages polarization. In normal society, if you hold a hateful, minority opinion like deeply racist beliefs, you're more likely to be presented the majority opinion. Facebook allows you to disappear into a world where you only are exposed to people that agree with you.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I agree that Facebook encourages you into echo chambers. I think that's even more true of Twitter. Reddit is also like that. In my experience YouTube is better in this regard than the others, but perhaps also problematic. The users of these platforms don't make this easy, however. As an example, if you try to cross the "party lines" and engage on a post in a Facebook group you may not be aligned with, you will be met with ridicule and vitriol, rather than neutral intellectual discussion. A flood of reactions will occur. Memes/gifs will be used. People will use phrases like "OK Boomer" or call you a "Karen" or accuse you of being a "Communist" or "White supremacist" or whatever else. It's not pleasant. The other, bigger risk, is by engaging outside the echo chamber you also need to expose yourself to actions outside of Facebook. First, your social circle may observe your comments or what you like and that may have social consequences in a world where no one is allowed to harbor differing opinions. Worse, people do doxx others, try to shame them in 'real life', get them fired, and so on. This is a particularly common practice on the left side of the American political spectrum (see 'cancel culture', https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/opinion/cancel-culture-682272 https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/opinion/cancel-culture-682272). There is little psychological safety even on anonymous platforms like Reddit, so I think it would be much harder for anything but echo chambers to form on a platform that requires de-anonymization like Facebook.
alexashka 6y ago
> Facebook's userbase is a mirror of human society Facebook's userbase is not a mirror, it literally is human society. > if you want to fix Facebook fix society first If facebook is one of the many negative influences upon society, it'd make sense to fix it, along with many other issues. Now in terms of prioritizing which problems ought to take priority - I'd not put facebook on the top of my list.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
Nope. Facebook is full of idle, bored minds in search of stimulation. They used to get that by watching TV. People who are actively engaged in life don't spend a lot of time on facebook.
CodeWriter23 6y ago
> Facebook's userbase is a mirror of human society if you want to fix Facebook fix society first. Perhaps an accurate assessment of the userbase. But FB functions as an amplifier for all things human, good and bad.
maxdo 6y ago
The root of the problem is older generation without antidot to internet experience. Something younger people developed when internet wasn't that powerful. My older uncle few years ago discovered internet and immediately become a "comments warrior" on facebook. Right now he's not that active. Facebook data issues leads to Trump election, trump election leads to rising hate, rising hate and polarization leads to liberal media also radicalized to degree that during BLM protest it's ok to burn down popo's in the car. People decided to go above the law thinking it's ok because they believe in something. Because they saw Trump is going above the law... Because facebook and cambridge analytica were able to act illegally also. Everything in this world is connected especially when information flux become so fast. In the very end we're still social creatures, and we act by examples. The problem also is that Social Media led us to a rise of Opinions and eclipse of real News media. Go to any news media website. It's full of opinions. Those website understand power of social media also try to get their piece of pie. Opinionated content is created with one intent - become shared on social media. This is such a deep problem which probably started by Facebok, but it's far from been stoped by them. [Opinion -> reaction -> benefit] supply chain is a multi billion industry right now. With so many 3rd parties on every step. In the very end there are only two directions. Regulate it in a way you label content. Or the natural way. Trump uses this power to get into white house. Their opponents use it to fight back. I really doubt that dems or republicans have such a strong good intents call to stop using such a heavy weapon. I guess later on society will find an antidot in a natural way.

One step toward fixing society might be to place limits on platforms that profit from propagating divisive, misleading, and hateful content.

throwawaysea 6y ago
I disagree with the use of a vague phrase like 'hateful content' in a context like limiting platforms that support societal discourse. That term has more clear meaning to me when it is used to describe content that explicitly suggests violence (as in physical violence). But when it comes to 'placing limits' on platforms (AKA censoring), it is often used in expansive and arbitrary ways. For instance, Reddit recently banned a subreddit called "Gender Critical", whose premise was disagreement with progressive gender ideology, and it had over 60K members. While I did not follow this subreddit, I personally feel that's a fine discussion to have. After all, gender identity is a controversial topic that is far from settled, and it is still very new in its current incarnation (meaning the ideology surrounding it in progressive America as opposed to historical views or views in other geographies). Society is still very divided on this topic (https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-partisan-and-gender-divides-remain/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-p...), and that debate needs to happen and will continue to happen for years. But Reddit instead chose to ban this subreddit outright, with no warning, under the guide of removing 'hateful content'. I feel that is inappropriate, and yet censorship of this form is being normalized on all the major big tech platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube). Instead of limiting platforms in a way that is content-specific, how about just limiting platforms in more neutral ways? Platforms beyond some size (maybe based on number of users) should be held to standards of neutrality that are grounded in our laws, or split up on anti-trust grounds. It's not good for us to have duopolies (Visa/Mastercard) or oligopolies (big tech) that have degrees of reach/power/influence that are comparable to governments but operate without Constitutional constraints (freedom of speech in particular).

uoaei 6y ago

It's a mirror of the part of human society who think their opinions are worth broadcasting. This induces a selection bias toward radical, unabashed folks.

tw04 6y ago

That's ridiculous on its face and I'd be shocked if you actually believe it. The things people will say to each other on facebook NEVER happen in real life. If nothing else, facebook has made society WORSE because public behavior has gotten WORSE over time and it absolutely STARTED on sites like twitter and facebook. If you want to fix society, force more in-person interactions and limit online interactions. We've literally got an entire generation of kids who can barely function in society because they grew up spending 90% of their time interacting with their peers over instant messaging.

dumbfoundded 6y ago

The problem is with how facebook amplifies messages. By showing you the posts you're most likely to engage with, Facebook encourages polarization. In normal society, if you hold a hateful, minority opinion like deeply racist beliefs, you're more likely to be presented the majority opinion. Facebook allows you to disappear into a world where you only are exposed to people that agree with you.

throwawaysea 6y ago
I agree that Facebook encourages you into echo chambers. I think that's even more true of Twitter. Reddit is also like that. In my experience YouTube is better in this regard than the others, but perhaps also problematic. The users of these platforms don't make this easy, however. As an example, if you try to cross the "party lines" and engage on a post in a Facebook group you may not be aligned with, you will be met with ridicule and vitriol, rather than neutral intellectual discussion. A flood of reactions will occur. Memes/gifs will be used. People will use phrases like "OK Boomer" or call you a "Karen" or accuse you of being a "Communist" or "White supremacist" or whatever else. It's not pleasant. The other, bigger risk, is by engaging outside the echo chamber you also need to expose yourself to actions outside of Facebook. First, your social circle may observe your comments or what you like and that may have social consequences in a world where no one is allowed to harbor differing opinions. Worse, people do doxx others, try to shame them in 'real life', get them fired, and so on. This is a particularly common practice on the left side of the American political spectrum (see 'cancel culture', https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/opinion/cancel-culture-682272 https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/opinion/cancel-culture-682272). There is little psychological safety even on anonymous platforms like Reddit, so I think it would be much harder for anything but echo chambers to form on a platform that requires de-anonymization like Facebook.

alexashka 6y ago

> Facebook's userbase is a mirror of human society Facebook's userbase is not a mirror, it literally is human society. > if you want to fix Facebook fix society first If facebook is one of the many negative influences upon society, it'd make sense to fix it, along with many other issues. Now in terms of prioritizing which problems ought to take priority - I'd not put facebook on the top of my list.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

Nope. Facebook is full of idle, bored minds in search of stimulation. They used to get that by watching TV. People who are actively engaged in life don't spend a lot of time on facebook.

CodeWriter23 6y ago

> Facebook's userbase is a mirror of human society if you want to fix Facebook fix society first. Perhaps an accurate assessment of the userbase. But FB functions as an amplifier for all things human, good and bad.

maxdo 6y ago

The root of the problem is older generation without antidot to internet experience. Something younger people developed when internet wasn't that powerful. My older uncle few years ago discovered internet and immediately become a "comments warrior" on facebook. Right now he's not that active. Facebook data issues leads to Trump election, trump election leads to rising hate, rising hate and polarization leads to liberal media also radicalized to degree that during BLM protest it's ok to burn down popo's in the car. People decided to go above the law thinking it's ok because they believe in something. Because they saw Trump is going above the law... Because facebook and cambridge analytica were able to act illegally also. Everything in this world is connected especially when information flux become so fast. In the very end we're still social creatures, and we act by examples. The problem also is that Social Media led us to a rise of Opinions and eclipse of real News media. Go to any news media website. It's full of opinions. Those website understand power of social media also try to get their piece of pie. Opinionated content is created with one intent - become shared on social media. This is such a deep problem which probably started by Facebok, but it's far from been stoped by them. [Opinion -> reaction -> benefit] supply chain is a multi billion industry right now. With so many 3rd parties on every step. In the very end there are only two directions. Regulate it in a way you label content. Or the natural way. Trump uses this power to get into white house. Their opponents use it to fight back. I really doubt that dems or republicans have such a strong good intents call to stop using such a heavy weapon. I guess later on society will find an antidot in a natural way.