5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    No, 15 years ago the online platforms were based on things like number of links and user reactions. It's recently that they moved into whatever glues people best into the screen. They didn't measure the latter one well enough by then. The one problem is that what glues people better into the screen is stuff that makes enough people angry, so they look and discuss, and enough people confident on something they think is a non-mainstream opinnion, so they share it. That's an almost perfect filter for conspiracy theories.
    - intended 6y ago
      Crummy human behavior online has been a thing since before those algorithms. The theft of a gun in the first game online, eternal september, the behavior of people on game forums, 4chan - none of that was impacted by algorithms. Emotions have been used to manipulate people since time immemorial. The platforms and their ideals were were simply naive. I held them too, so I include myself in that group. The internet by its very existence was going to help spread conspiracy theories. The algorithms were also simply a natural evolutionary force.
      - marcosdumay 6y ago
        There is a world of difference between humans being humans and a superhuman intelligence with total control of the discourse manipulating it into the most agitating possibility. It may be that the internet would always finish this way. Nobody really knows, but the evidence we have hints into a much milder and more varied destination.
        jacobush 6y ago
        The Matrix feels more and more prophetic, I never thought I’d live long enough to see that. It’s not that we are human batteries, but we are human Ad Batteries.
  - intended 6y ago
    It is definitely the species that is doing the heavy lifting. I saw what happened on a subreddit with a lassiez faire approach to moderating. It started out with nice ideals, and as the political discussion began, it went to places no one should see. Moderation was required, censorship was required. Reddit is volunteer based, you can see what happens when you let people to their own devices. That experiment has been run ad infinitum at this point. Secondly - the platforms don't want to be moderating content. They would ideally have Zero negative or law breaking content exist. That would mean that there is never a need for an additional cost center, with ever increasing fractal complexity on legal, human resources, policy and political fronts. The top comment in this submission discussed the cost to conspiracy theoriests, if they were officially banned. That is more than an acceptable price to pay, since the alternative is the widespread infection of more people to the virus. In analogy terms - we have never had such a connected market place of ideas. Thoughts can be created and distributed at scale, in a way our species was never prepared to consider or defend against. If viral ideas, which are designed to slip past cracks in our mental defenses, are left alone - they will proliferate. That they will be emboldened is a minor tertiary effect compared to the massive primary damage of conspiracy theories.
- yawn 6y ago
  The promotion part is exactly what I was saying with the "recommendation systems". I was saying the platforms didn't take action initially AGAINST the conspiracy stuff.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Failing to take action against something implies that your behavior is neutral. If your content discovery depends on a recommendation system, you always have an active take into your content selection. You can never be neutral. But yes, technically they failed to take action too.

by yawn 6y ago

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.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  No, 15 years ago the online platforms were based on things like number of links and user reactions. It's recently that they moved into whatever glues people best into the screen. They didn't measure the latter one well enough by then. The one problem is that what glues people better into the screen is stuff that makes enough people angry, so they look and discuss, and enough people confident on something they think is a non-mainstream opinnion, so they share it. That's an almost perfect filter for conspiracy theories.
  - intended 6y ago
    Crummy human behavior online has been a thing since before those algorithms. The theft of a gun in the first game online, eternal september, the behavior of people on game forums, 4chan - none of that was impacted by algorithms. Emotions have been used to manipulate people since time immemorial. The platforms and their ideals were were simply naive. I held them too, so I include myself in that group. The internet by its very existence was going to help spread conspiracy theories. The algorithms were also simply a natural evolutionary force.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      There is a world of difference between humans being humans and a superhuman intelligence with total control of the discourse manipulating it into the most agitating possibility. It may be that the internet would always finish this way. Nobody really knows, but the evidence we have hints into a much milder and more varied destination.
      - jacobush 6y ago
        The Matrix feels more and more prophetic, I never thought I’d live long enough to see that. It’s not that we are human batteries, but we are human Ad Batteries.
- intended 6y ago
  It is definitely the species that is doing the heavy lifting. I saw what happened on a subreddit with a lassiez faire approach to moderating. It started out with nice ideals, and as the political discussion began, it went to places no one should see. Moderation was required, censorship was required. Reddit is volunteer based, you can see what happens when you let people to their own devices. That experiment has been run ad infinitum at this point. Secondly - the platforms don't want to be moderating content. They would ideally have Zero negative or law breaking content exist. That would mean that there is never a need for an additional cost center, with ever increasing fractal complexity on legal, human resources, policy and political fronts. The top comment in this submission discussed the cost to conspiracy theoriests, if they were officially banned. That is more than an acceptable price to pay, since the alternative is the widespread infection of more people to the virus. In analogy terms - we have never had such a connected market place of ideas. Thoughts can be created and distributed at scale, in a way our species was never prepared to consider or defend against. If viral ideas, which are designed to slip past cracks in our mental defenses, are left alone - they will proliferate. That they will be emboldened is a minor tertiary effect compared to the massive primary damage of conspiracy theories.
yawn 6y ago
The promotion part is exactly what I was saying with the "recommendation systems". I was saying the platforms didn't take action initially AGAINST the conspiracy stuff.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Failing to take action against something implies that your behavior is neutral. If your content discovery depends on a recommendation system, you always have an active take into your content selection. You can never be neutral. But yes, technically they failed to take action too.