3 ms·

Power over information is consolidated to a very small number of gatekeepers, and mainly Facebook. I run a modestly large Facebook group. I haven't noticed any

Power over information is consolidated to a very small number of gatekeepers, and mainly Facebook. I run a modestly large Facebook group. I haven't noticed any way that Facebook prevent me from whatever sort of information I want to be. So I can't see Facebook as an absolute filter. But certainly, at scale, Facebook does wind-up being a filter but through the default, predictable laziness of the average person. Remember, Hypothetically, if you had a network of thousands of moderators and millions of people in civil, well moderated groups, you could have a debate in almost social media forum you chose; FB, Reddit, some BBS, email, whatever. The exception would Twitter or any media that doesn't allow moderation. But at a point, if we had actual community, it could trump the media it was on. This is not to say that this is at all likely. Rather, the point when you have passive mass of seething people, yes, sure who is turning the spigots on the hot-button issue content is going to be an "influencer" but this status is by no means cure-able by the elimination of a given media outlet (well, some portion of "#deletefacebook" seem to be weird introverts with a sort of daft "the problem is people who don't know each talking at all" approach and who hope that eliminating platforms can stop this). What countering forces could or should break the deathgrip that Facebook and Google in particular hold over communication and information publication today? I think the hostility these entities face today expresses a situation of them not having a tighter grip (at least a much tighter grip) on the public imagination than The New York Times, CNN, right-wing radio, corporate public relations etc. There are many forces struggle here. In many ways I shudder to think what a Facebook under the control of whatever corporate consensus might appear (and I'm further to the left than the right).

klyrs 6y ago
> I think the hostility these entities face today expresses a situation of them not having a tighter grip (at least a much tighter grip) on the public imagination... The issue isn't a grip on our imaginations, it's the grip on our data (including off-site traffic thanks to ubiquitous trackers) that seems objectionable. And when it's the only way to talk to your grandma, for example, it's maddeningly difficult for a lot of people to quit
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  You have 3-4 different groups talking about "what the problem is" with FB and Google. Some talk about the kind of conversations they facilitate, some talk about how they undermine traditional experts, some talk about how they take data. And for some the answer is monk-like isolation and simplicity, some the answer is imposing state control over these entities, for some the answer is limiting data entities can keep. The thing that's frustrating is the only effect that has legs is the worst one - states directly regulating social media and the views there-in. It's unfortunate others with other complaints attach themselves to a process heading in this direction.
jtbayly 6y ago
> you could have a debate in almost social media forum you chose ... if we had actual community, it could trump the media it was on. Perhaps, but not easily. The medium is still the message, and, to pick on Facebook, its design militates against true discourse. Engaging in a debate is an exercise in fighting the tool. For example, FB is intent on making you accidentally miss part of what your opponent has said. Everything from hiding comments, to forcing you to click "read more" over and over again is designed to facilitate misunderstanding and frustration. If an actual debate in good faith is the goal, it is hard to overcome design problems of this sort. Regarding your rejection of FB as an absolute filter, it remains true that FB decides which posts in your FB group it will show to people, and which ones it won't.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  The medium is still the message, and, to pick on Facebook, its design militates against true discourse. Engaging in a debate is an exercise in fighting the tool. For example, FB is intent on making you accidentally miss part of what your opponent has said. Describing this Facebook's intent requires references. Facebook's algorithm aims for engagement and certain TL;DR; quality. But there are no tools that don't require a person to fight medium. No medium is perfect for discussion and any discourse requires an awareness of medium where it is taking place. Regarding your rejection of FB as an absolute filter, it remains true that FB decides which posts in your FB group it will show to people, and which ones it won't. Only if members stay on their regular Facebook feed. If you have a tight group, people go directly to the group page.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    If they go directly to the page, FB will still apply its filter to the posts in that group. > there are no tools that don't require a person to fight medium. Perhaps, but there are tools that don’t make it practically impossible to find out what your opponent actually tried to say to you. I have been in the situation multiple times of doing everything I can on FB to make sure I read everything that was written in a thread prior to responding but still failed. This is what I mean when I say FB is intent on it. The design makes it impossible, whether that was the aim or not. Edited to add: It’s no surprise that this leads to greater “engagement,” but it is obviously counterproductive to actual debate.

klyrs 6y ago

> I think the hostility these entities face today expresses a situation of them not having a tighter grip (at least a much tighter grip) on the public imagination... The issue isn't a grip on our imaginations, it's the grip on our data (including off-site traffic thanks to ubiquitous trackers) that seems objectionable. And when it's the only way to talk to your grandma, for example, it's maddeningly difficult for a lot of people to quit

joe_the_user 6y ago
You have 3-4 different groups talking about "what the problem is" with FB and Google. Some talk about the kind of conversations they facilitate, some talk about how they undermine traditional experts, some talk about how they take data. And for some the answer is monk-like isolation and simplicity, some the answer is imposing state control over these entities, for some the answer is limiting data entities can keep. The thing that's frustrating is the only effect that has legs is the worst one - states directly regulating social media and the views there-in. It's unfortunate others with other complaints attach themselves to a process heading in this direction.

jtbayly 6y ago

> you could have a debate in almost social media forum you chose ... if we had actual community, it could trump the media it was on. Perhaps, but not easily. The medium is still the message, and, to pick on Facebook, its design militates against true discourse. Engaging in a debate is an exercise in fighting the tool. For example, FB is intent on making you accidentally miss part of what your opponent has said. Everything from hiding comments, to forcing you to click "read more" over and over again is designed to facilitate misunderstanding and frustration. If an actual debate in good faith is the goal, it is hard to overcome design problems of this sort. Regarding your rejection of FB as an absolute filter, it remains true that FB decides which posts in your FB group it will show to people, and which ones it won't.

joe_the_user 6y ago
The medium is still the message, and, to pick on Facebook, its design militates against true discourse. Engaging in a debate is an exercise in fighting the tool. For example, FB is intent on making you accidentally miss part of what your opponent has said. Describing this Facebook's intent requires references. Facebook's algorithm aims for engagement and certain TL;DR; quality. But there are no tools that don't require a person to fight medium. No medium is perfect for discussion and any discourse requires an awareness of medium where it is taking place. Regarding your rejection of FB as an absolute filter, it remains true that FB decides which posts in your FB group it will show to people, and which ones it won't. Only if members stay on their regular Facebook feed. If you have a tight group, people go directly to the group page.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  If they go directly to the page, FB will still apply its filter to the posts in that group. > there are no tools that don't require a person to fight medium. Perhaps, but there are tools that don’t make it practically impossible to find out what your opponent actually tried to say to you. I have been in the situation multiple times of doing everything I can on FB to make sure I read everything that was written in a thread prior to responding but still failed. This is what I mean when I say FB is intent on it. The design makes it impossible, whether that was the aim or not. Edited to add: It’s no surprise that this leads to greater “engagement,” but it is obviously counterproductive to actual debate.