3 ms·

And social media is actually less dangerous in this regard then past media like radio and books, because it makes it easy to comment in a way that reaches the c

And social media is actually less dangerous in this regard then past media like radio and books, because it makes it easy to comment in a way that reaches the consumers of the original media. You can run a radio channel where you rail against ethnic prejudice, but the listeners of radio rwanda are unlikely to listen to your channel. You can write a book refuting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but the readers of the original are unlikely to read your book. Social media is different. If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post.

pjc50 6y ago
> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. "Just tell people that racism is bad" Somehow this seems to make the problem worse not better, because if you're one of the outsiders you just get added to their mental list of conspirators. And if you've commented under your real name you're at risk of reprisals. Effective debunking is hard. Oh, and algorithmic social media makes this worse - your act of commenting on a post tends to raise its profile and cause it to be shown to more of your followers.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  >> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. > "Just tell people that racism is bad" What do you think "inciting ethnic hatred" means? Telling people that ethnic hatred is good? So that the only possible reply is that actually ethnic hatred is bad? No it involves conspiracy theories about an ethnic group, accusations against them, in short, empirical statements that can be refuted.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    They can be contradicted, but it's very hard to definitively refute them in a way that will convince somebody who wishes to believe it. Even people without a stake in it will often conclude, "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." If anything, they're taken in by how short and empirical those statements are: it makes them seem more true because after all, if it were false I'd see the evidence myself. There is no statement of fact so definitive that it can overcome a vast barrage of inflammatory conspiracy theory. If that's done in front of a crowd looking for a simple solution to their problems, they'll pay no attention to refutation of "short, empirical statements".
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      > "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." Still an improvement compared to "I heard X", which is the default with radio and books.
      - jfengel 6y ago
        I'm not so sure it is, when there are so many well-funded, concerted efforts to deliberately induce ignorance in people. Radio and books have at least some bottleneck where you can at least try to cut off deliberate falsehoods. Obviously that doesn't always work, but social media makes it effectively impossible. Not only do you have official sources of propaganda, you live in a swamp of anecdotes that are impossible to refute or contextualize. The radio says "Group X is bad", and you yourself may never have had any trouble with X, but a flood of "X did [bad-thing] to me" stories on social media can make you think that you've got personal exposure to it. Ultimately, I believe the problem rests with the individuals who are willing to be manipulated. The human organism has a massive security hole that has been very well exploited, and I've got no idea how to patch it. No amount of coherent, cogent argument will change the mind of somebody bent on having a target to hate, and people have gotten very good at insinuating those targets.
        082349872349872 6y ago
        some ideas on changing minds (not by coherent, cogent argument, but by providing attractive alternatives to hate?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24373042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24373042 also, the remedies chapter of: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxylK6fR81rckQxWi1hVFFRUDg/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxylK6fR81rckQxWi1hVFFRUDg... still looking for more in this vein. from HN, the discussions on https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradicalize-jihadis-will-be-used-for-right-wing-american-extremists-next/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradi... suggest attempts to de-hate might not be uniformly well-received.
        amadeuspagel 6y ago
        > I'm not so sure it is, when there are so many well-funded, concerted efforts to deliberately induce ignorance in people. Radio and books have at least some bottleneck where you can at least try to cut off deliberate falsehoods. I don't see how you can believe these things at the same time. If these efforts to induce ignorance are indeed so well-funded and concerted, how can bottlenecks be an obstacle? Indeed why couldn't these well-funded, concerted efforts use those bottlenecks to cut off people disagreeing with them?

pjc50 6y ago

> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. "Just tell people that racism is bad" Somehow this seems to make the problem worse not better, because if you're one of the outsiders you just get added to their mental list of conspirators. And if you've commented under your real name you're at risk of reprisals. Effective debunking is hard. Oh, and algorithmic social media makes this worse - your act of commenting on a post tends to raise its profile and cause it to be shown to more of your followers.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
>> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. > "Just tell people that racism is bad" What do you think "inciting ethnic hatred" means? Telling people that ethnic hatred is good? So that the only possible reply is that actually ethnic hatred is bad? No it involves conspiracy theories about an ethnic group, accusations against them, in short, empirical statements that can be refuted.
- jfengel 6y ago
  They can be contradicted, but it's very hard to definitively refute them in a way that will convince somebody who wishes to believe it. Even people without a stake in it will often conclude, "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." If anything, they're taken in by how short and empirical those statements are: it makes them seem more true because after all, if it were false I'd see the evidence myself. There is no statement of fact so definitive that it can overcome a vast barrage of inflammatory conspiracy theory. If that's done in front of a crowd looking for a simple solution to their problems, they'll pay no attention to refutation of "short, empirical statements".
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    > "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." Still an improvement compared to "I heard X", which is the default with radio and books.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      I'm not so sure it is, when there are so many well-funded, concerted efforts to deliberately induce ignorance in people. Radio and books have at least some bottleneck where you can at least try to cut off deliberate falsehoods. Obviously that doesn't always work, but social media makes it effectively impossible. Not only do you have official sources of propaganda, you live in a swamp of anecdotes that are impossible to refute or contextualize. The radio says "Group X is bad", and you yourself may never have had any trouble with X, but a flood of "X did [bad-thing] to me" stories on social media can make you think that you've got personal exposure to it. Ultimately, I believe the problem rests with the individuals who are willing to be manipulated. The human organism has a massive security hole that has been very well exploited, and I've got no idea how to patch it. No amount of coherent, cogent argument will change the mind of somebody bent on having a target to hate, and people have gotten very good at insinuating those targets.
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        some ideas on changing minds (not by coherent, cogent argument, but by providing attractive alternatives to hate?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24373042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24373042 also, the remedies chapter of: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxylK6fR81rckQxWi1hVFFRUDg/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxylK6fR81rckQxWi1hVFFRUDg... still looking for more in this vein. from HN, the discussions on https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradicalize-jihadis-will-be-used-for-right-wing-american-extremists-next/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradi... suggest attempts to de-hate might not be uniformly well-received.
      - amadeuspagel 6y ago
        > I'm not so sure it is, when there are so many well-funded, concerted efforts to deliberately induce ignorance in people. Radio and books have at least some bottleneck where you can at least try to cut off deliberate falsehoods. I don't see how you can believe these things at the same time. If these efforts to induce ignorance are indeed so well-funded and concerted, how can bottlenecks be an obstacle? Indeed why couldn't these well-funded, concerted efforts use those bottlenecks to cut off people disagreeing with them?