4 ms·

Do you think that the various communication platforms that existed during the fast spread of, for example, 9/11 truther conspiracies were actively promoting the

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.
- konjin 6y ago
  >That they will be emboldened is a minor tertiary effect compared to the massive primary damage of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories like the Earth orbiting the sun. No, a society that is based on keeping people ignorant is a society that's not worth being called one. It's a thought police state that makes citizens into children who believe whatever the powers on high tell them to believe.
  - intended 6y ago
    This is the old guard idea, I too was a proponent, then I had to deal with figuring out what it meant to moderate content online and this idea just ends. The market place of ideas is flawed in practice, as much as it may be a great metaphor in discussion. In practice there are too many weaknesses, asymmetries, and lopsidedness of time and obsession for conversations online to naturally support a market place of rational ideas. If you want an emotion and superstition filled market place carrying only the most addictive, neuro invasive ideas, then going with the old guard way is a good way of achieving it. Unless you have a solution for the problem of content, then this idea is only a first draft, and not applicable in its unalloyed form.

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.

konjin 6y ago
>That they will be emboldened is a minor tertiary effect compared to the massive primary damage of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories like the Earth orbiting the sun. No, a society that is based on keeping people ignorant is a society that's not worth being called one. It's a thought police state that makes citizens into children who believe whatever the powers on high tell them to believe.
- intended 6y ago
  This is the old guard idea, I too was a proponent, then I had to deal with figuring out what it meant to moderate content online and this idea just ends. The market place of ideas is flawed in practice, as much as it may be a great metaphor in discussion. In practice there are too many weaknesses, asymmetries, and lopsidedness of time and obsession for conversations online to naturally support a market place of rational ideas. If you want an emotion and superstition filled market place carrying only the most addictive, neuro invasive ideas, then going with the old guard way is a good way of achieving it. Unless you have a solution for the problem of content, then this idea is only a first draft, and not applicable in its unalloyed form.