7 ms·

Flash back, four years. "But @bjt2n3904, misinformation is bring spread, that is causing 'real harm' (TM)!" Some justification. Real harm is being done now, an

Flash back, four years. "But @bjt2n3904, misinformation is bring spread, that is causing 'real harm' (TM)!" Some justification. Real harm is being done now, and it isn't doesn't need social media to survive. You know, I spoke out against online platforms taking responsibility for what it's users wrote back then. But I wish I had the forethought to say this: How do you think conspiracy theorists, who believe their messages are being suppressed to hide the truth, will react when Facebook steps in and fulfills their prophecy? How do you think people who don't live in the tech bubble will react when they share an opinion on politics, and it gets marked as "Actually this is untrue" by Facebook, and buried? How do you think people, who already believe everything they read on the internet, will react when they see Facebook flag something as "untrue"? Certainly, it won't reinforce their biases about how <political opponent's supporters> are all misinformed people with the wool pulled over their eyes, and can be dismissed off hand. Surprising to no one, these attempts at correcting "misinformation" are having the opposite effect. Who would have thought that using technology to solve an obviously human problem wouldn't have worked? Edit: "Ackshually, @bjt2n3904, Facebook isn't under any obligation to follow the 1st Amendment, there's this great XKCD comic that explains this, hold on..." This is what we mean when we say "freedom of speech". It isn't just a good thing for the government, it's good for society, too.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Do I take it from your post that you've never changed your position or accepted correction? Or is that only something you believe is true of everyone else? Or is this something you're leveling at Facebook, I'd certainly not swallow their opinion on the truth of something; but assuming they were measured and fact based then I'd take it as indicative.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  ..."accepted correction"? What is this, some perverse elementary school? I've noticed that whenever my friends talk about certain matters, it sounds like they've turned their brains off. They read some book by a self proclaimed expert, and just accept it on face value. And then they talk about how excited they are to be "learning" and "receiving instruction". If that's what you mean by "accepting correction", it's far closer to "accepting indoctrination". We're all children at school again, we have no capability to reason, and must be taught with rote memorization.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You crafted a strawman and then avoided answering the question.
    - bjt2n3904 6y ago
      I absolutely did, based on personal experiences, and assumptions (which I tried to highlight!) But I'm not trying to make a logical argument, I'm trying to make a rational one. My assumption could be wrong, this could be an ESOL situation, and just a strange way of phrasing what was actually intended, and I'm happy to revisit if my assumptions were wrong. But no, my opinions have not changed. If anything, they've been reenforced.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Accepted correction meaning 'realised you were wrong and changed your behaviours/beliefs based on information/instruction you've received'. You make it sound like you believe you're infallible and the only people who change their minds are the weak willed lead astray by Facebook nonsense.
raxxorrax 6y ago
That is one part of it, another part is believing the current political state is because of Russians, too much free speech and lacking internet regulation. That is not less bonkers than quite some conspiracy theories I read about. edit: The wikipedia article on free speech is still pretty good.
- konjin 6y ago
  Reds under the beds. You'd think that McCarthy 2.0 would be a Republican ploy.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >You'd think that McCarthy 2.0 would be a Republican ploy. It is. Where do you think the narrative that all mainstream and social media, BLM, Antifa, academia, the CDC, the WHO, the UN and the Democratic Party are all controlled by the same sinister neo-marxist agenda comes from? That "leftists" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians? I mean, we're even past the point on the fascism timeline where "leftists" are being tossed into unmarked vans and targeted by armed vigilantes, and most people have swallowed the red scare pill hard enough that they just cheer it on.
    - konjin 6y ago
      >That "leftists" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians? I was going to look for the video of the guy being chased by a mob and being called a murderer for defending himself. But then I found this gem on the front page of reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/iki45f/really_weird_isnt_it/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/iki45f/rea... > According to the police report, a student pulled up a girl's dress inside of a classroom at Central High School. The victim then grabbed a pair of scissors. She tried multiple times to stab the student before she connected. https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-scissors-after-pulling-students-dress-up-at-memphis-school-police-say/743287735/ https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-s... So 100k people think that multiple stabbings and chasing someone is a tempered response to "sexual assault", but shooting at someone while being chased by a mob isn't. Yes, the "left" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians. And you have to be an idiot or racist not to see it.
yawn 6y ago
I think suppression has played a role, but not as great as you're making it out to be. We didn't have the platforms taking action on the conspiracies initially and the audience for them grew like crazy. The ideas grew organically and through recommendation systems. We now have people in office that believe this nonsense and are making decisions. How do you combat that? They were voted in.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We've always had people in office who believed nonsense. It's not caused by online platforms and won't be solved by regulating them; ultimately, it's a cost of living in a society with a free exchange of views.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > We didn't have the platforms taking action on the conspiracies initially and the audience for them grew like crazy. I beg to differ. There has been a decade since Facebook has ever not taken action on some content. The mainstream platforms are not free and impartial communication channels. No single piece of content there gets popular without the platform explicit promotion, and nothing that the platform doesn't want people to see does ever get widespread. The conspiracy theories spread like crazy because Facebook and Youtube actively promoted them.
  - Diederich 6y ago
    Do you think that the various communication platforms that existed during the fast spread of, for example, 9/11 truther conspiracies were actively promoting them? More generally, I'm talking about the various conspiracies that spread like wildfire on line 10-15 years ago. Note that I'm not directly disagreeing with you, but seeking your thoughts on the early spread of online disinformation. My own (rather soft) opinion is that in an alternate universe where all of the online platforms somehow were born and grew while not injecting any 'tweaks' or 'promotions', there'd still be a tremendous amount of bullshit, similar to what we see today, though quite possibly to a smaller level. The platforms definitely have played a direct role, but mostly I think it's people who are doing the heavy lifting. Our species has never had access to these kinds of communication tools, and I believe we are neurologically and psychologically ill-equipped to use them well.
metalliqaz 6y ago
Honestly I don't care what conspiracy theorists, science illiterates, and racists think. Let them believe the world is against their points of view. It should be! I want to make sure the ignoramuses don't infect others.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  I hear what you're saying. It is incredibly difficult and frustrating to hold a discussion with these types of people. But look at the life of Daryl Davis. Instead of socially isolating "those people", he reached out to them. By some counts, he's helped over 200 people leave the KKK. I believe his methods have been far more effective than socially ostracizing people.
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    Not possible on facebook.
    - bjt2n3904 6y ago
      Not possible, or not easy? Davis' methods require time and work. Granted, his is largely based in meatspace, and I think offline communication is far more effective... but if I didn't think there was some merit to online communication, I wouldn't be trying here. Would you?
      - ideals 6y ago
        I don't think it's not possible, but I don't believe it can be as effective as in person. Online you have the option to click block/mute/ignore and move on. So if you are trying to convince someone, a specific person to change their point of view, it will be much harder to reach them. However thinking about this, I'm surprised there aren't any activist groups who patrol around online and focus on individuals to try and persuade them to change. Broad messages are much less effective than 1:1 conversations. However that also borders on or crosses the line of harassment, depending on view point.
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pfraze 6y ago
Going to reshare a comment I made 3 days ago Authenticity is dependent on the rules of social-media. You believe the information is authentic if you believe the rules of the game are being followed. These controversies are related to breakdowns in either the rules or in the quality of outcome that the rules are giving us. "Russian bots" are a rules issue, a state actor manipulating the 1-person-1-voice assumption of the system. Individual misinformation by conspiracy theorists, credulous or otherwise, are an outcome issue. They feed into each other and are difficult to disentangle. I would argue the censorship debate is an indicator of game-rule collapse in social media. The platforms are reaching for top down control because they can't cook up a better way to reduce fraud and misinformation. As you say, this method reduces the overall authenticity of the platforms and counteracts the intent of the censorship, and thus you get game-rule collapse. If somebody's playing a basketball game and one team is dominating the other, you don't solve it by having the refs take points away from one of the teams. You adjust the rules of the game to keep it competitive.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  I never played EVE Online, but a friend of mine told me a fascinating story. When players exploited a "loophole" in the rules, the game didn't change the rules. They introduced new tools. Mining is an inherently risky operation, because mining ships are poorly armored, and generally defenseless. One risk is that someone can destroy your ship, and steal your hard worked for cargo. However, attacking someone in a civilized system would brand the attacker as a pirate, and NPC police would instantly warp in to execute justice. Even if they were able to escape, it would be difficult to return. The pirates got clever, though. What if we were to load up a ship with explosive material, fly next to a mining ship, and detonate? The mining vessel would still be destroyed, but since it's an "accident", it won't summon the police. A partner in crime can scoop up the debris, and we can share the profits. Now, EVE admins could have simply said, this is cheating, and you can report players who do this to our administration. But EVE has a famously hands-off approach to their game, to the extent that when a clan decided to declare war on a high traffic area, the administrators thanked them for the heads up, and promised to allocate additional server resources to handle the load. Instead, EVE created a new class of ship that would prevent warping within a certain range of your vessel. This would create a buffer zone between you and hostile pirates, giving you equal footing. I may have some of the details wrong, but hopefully you can see the point I'm illustrating. One strategy is to say, "Trying to circumvent the rules of the platform will result in a ban." However, this requires a moderation team. Furthermore, such decisions are subjective, and even the moderators can be gamed. And finally, the spammers have an asymmetric advantage that Facebook will simply never be able to beat. Posting something is easy. Identifying things to take down is hard, and requires ten moderators to every one spammer. Facebook should take a lesson from EVE Online. Instead of setting up censorship rules they can neither enforce or maintain, they should invest their energy into introducing game mechanics that accomplish the goal for them. So in effect, yes -- I definitely agree!

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Do I take it from your post that you've never changed your position or accepted correction? Or is that only something you believe is true of everyone else? Or is this something you're leveling at Facebook, I'd certainly not swallow their opinion on the truth of something; but assuming they were measured and fact based then I'd take it as indicative.

bjt2n3904 6y ago
..."accepted correction"? What is this, some perverse elementary school? I've noticed that whenever my friends talk about certain matters, it sounds like they've turned their brains off. They read some book by a self proclaimed expert, and just accept it on face value. And then they talk about how excited they are to be "learning" and "receiving instruction". If that's what you mean by "accepting correction", it's far closer to "accepting indoctrination". We're all children at school again, we have no capability to reason, and must be taught with rote memorization.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You crafted a strawman and then avoided answering the question.
  - bjt2n3904 6y ago
    I absolutely did, based on personal experiences, and assumptions (which I tried to highlight!) But I'm not trying to make a logical argument, I'm trying to make a rational one. My assumption could be wrong, this could be an ESOL situation, and just a strange way of phrasing what was actually intended, and I'm happy to revisit if my assumptions were wrong. But no, my opinions have not changed. If anything, they've been reenforced.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Accepted correction meaning 'realised you were wrong and changed your behaviours/beliefs based on information/instruction you've received'. You make it sound like you believe you're infallible and the only people who change their minds are the weak willed lead astray by Facebook nonsense.

raxxorrax 6y ago

That is one part of it, another part is believing the current political state is because of Russians, too much free speech and lacking internet regulation. That is not less bonkers than quite some conspiracy theories I read about. edit: The wikipedia article on free speech is still pretty good.

konjin 6y ago
Reds under the beds. You'd think that McCarthy 2.0 would be a Republican ploy.
- krapp 6y ago
  >You'd think that McCarthy 2.0 would be a Republican ploy. It is. Where do you think the narrative that all mainstream and social media, BLM, Antifa, academia, the CDC, the WHO, the UN and the Democratic Party are all controlled by the same sinister neo-marxist agenda comes from? That "leftists" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians? I mean, we're even past the point on the fascism timeline where "leftists" are being tossed into unmarked vans and targeted by armed vigilantes, and most people have swallowed the red scare pill hard enough that they just cheer it on.
  - konjin 6y ago
    >That "leftists" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians? I was going to look for the video of the guy being chased by a mob and being called a murderer for defending himself. But then I found this gem on the front page of reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/iki45f/really_weird_isnt_it/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/iki45f/rea... > According to the police report, a student pulled up a girl's dress inside of a classroom at Central High School. The victim then grabbed a pair of scissors. She tried multiple times to stab the student before she connected. https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-scissors-after-pulling-students-dress-up-at-memphis-school-police-say/743287735/ https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-s... So 100k people think that multiple stabbings and chasing someone is a tempered response to "sexual assault", but shooting at someone while being chased by a mob isn't. Yes, the "left" are engaged in wholesale political suppression and outright violence against white males, conservatives and christians. And you have to be an idiot or racist not to see it.

yawn 6y ago

I think suppression has played a role, but not as great as you're making it out to be. We didn't have the platforms taking action on the conspiracies initially and the audience for them grew like crazy. The ideas grew organically and through recommendation systems. We now have people in office that believe this nonsense and are making decisions. How do you combat that? They were voted in.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
We've always had people in office who believed nonsense. It's not caused by online platforms and won't be solved by regulating them; ultimately, it's a cost of living in a society with a free exchange of views.
marcosdumay 6y ago
> We didn't have the platforms taking action on the conspiracies initially and the audience for them grew like crazy. I beg to differ. There has been a decade since Facebook has ever not taken action on some content. The mainstream platforms are not free and impartial communication channels. No single piece of content there gets popular without the platform explicit promotion, and nothing that the platform doesn't want people to see does ever get widespread. The conspiracy theories spread like crazy because Facebook and Youtube actively promoted them.
- Diederich 6y ago
  Do you think that the various communication platforms that existed during the fast spread of, for example, 9/11 truther conspiracies were actively promoting them? More generally, I'm talking about the various conspiracies that spread like wildfire on line 10-15 years ago. Note that I'm not directly disagreeing with you, but seeking your thoughts on the early spread of online disinformation. My own (rather soft) opinion is that in an alternate universe where all of the online platforms somehow were born and grew while not injecting any 'tweaks' or 'promotions', there'd still be a tremendous amount of bullshit, similar to what we see today, though quite possibly to a smaller level. The platforms definitely have played a direct role, but mostly I think it's people who are doing the heavy lifting. Our species has never had access to these kinds of communication tools, and I believe we are neurologically and psychologically ill-equipped to use them well.

metalliqaz 6y ago

Honestly I don't care what conspiracy theorists, science illiterates, and racists think. Let them believe the world is against their points of view. It should be! I want to make sure the ignoramuses don't infect others.

bjt2n3904 6y ago
I hear what you're saying. It is incredibly difficult and frustrating to hold a discussion with these types of people. But look at the life of Daryl Davis. Instead of socially isolating "those people", he reached out to them. By some counts, he's helped over 200 people leave the KKK. I believe his methods have been far more effective than socially ostracizing people.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  Not possible on facebook.
  - bjt2n3904 6y ago
    Not possible, or not easy? Davis' methods require time and work. Granted, his is largely based in meatspace, and I think offline communication is far more effective... but if I didn't think there was some merit to online communication, I wouldn't be trying here. Would you?
    - ideals 6y ago
      I don't think it's not possible, but I don't believe it can be as effective as in person. Online you have the option to click block/mute/ignore and move on. So if you are trying to convince someone, a specific person to change their point of view, it will be much harder to reach them. However thinking about this, I'm surprised there aren't any activist groups who patrol around online and focus on individuals to try and persuade them to change. Broad messages are much less effective than 1:1 conversations. However that also borders on or crosses the line of harassment, depending on view point.
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pfraze 6y ago

Going to reshare a comment I made 3 days ago Authenticity is dependent on the rules of social-media. You believe the information is authentic if you believe the rules of the game are being followed. These controversies are related to breakdowns in either the rules or in the quality of outcome that the rules are giving us. "Russian bots" are a rules issue, a state actor manipulating the 1-person-1-voice assumption of the system. Individual misinformation by conspiracy theorists, credulous or otherwise, are an outcome issue. They feed into each other and are difficult to disentangle. I would argue the censorship debate is an indicator of game-rule collapse in social media. The platforms are reaching for top down control because they can't cook up a better way to reduce fraud and misinformation. As you say, this method reduces the overall authenticity of the platforms and counteracts the intent of the censorship, and thus you get game-rule collapse. If somebody's playing a basketball game and one team is dominating the other, you don't solve it by having the refs take points away from one of the teams. You adjust the rules of the game to keep it competitive.

bjt2n3904 6y ago
I never played EVE Online, but a friend of mine told me a fascinating story. When players exploited a "loophole" in the rules, the game didn't change the rules. They introduced new tools. Mining is an inherently risky operation, because mining ships are poorly armored, and generally defenseless. One risk is that someone can destroy your ship, and steal your hard worked for cargo. However, attacking someone in a civilized system would brand the attacker as a pirate, and NPC police would instantly warp in to execute justice. Even if they were able to escape, it would be difficult to return. The pirates got clever, though. What if we were to load up a ship with explosive material, fly next to a mining ship, and detonate? The mining vessel would still be destroyed, but since it's an "accident", it won't summon the police. A partner in crime can scoop up the debris, and we can share the profits. Now, EVE admins could have simply said, this is cheating, and you can report players who do this to our administration. But EVE has a famously hands-off approach to their game, to the extent that when a clan decided to declare war on a high traffic area, the administrators thanked them for the heads up, and promised to allocate additional server resources to handle the load. Instead, EVE created a new class of ship that would prevent warping within a certain range of your vessel. This would create a buffer zone between you and hostile pirates, giving you equal footing. I may have some of the details wrong, but hopefully you can see the point I'm illustrating. One strategy is to say, "Trying to circumvent the rules of the platform will result in a ban." However, this requires a moderation team. Furthermore, such decisions are subjective, and even the moderators can be gamed. And finally, the spammers have an asymmetric advantage that Facebook will simply never be able to beat. Posting something is easy. Identifying things to take down is hard, and requires ten moderators to every one spammer. Facebook should take a lesson from EVE Online. Instead of setting up censorship rules they can neither enforce or maintain, they should invest their energy into introducing game mechanics that accomplish the goal for them. So in effect, yes -- I definitely agree!