6 ms·

The problem isn't an awkward exchange of ideas. The problem is industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every sin

by cptaj 6y ago

The problem isn't an awkward exchange of ideas. The problem is industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine, grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. Its a DDOS attack on that very same free exchange of ideas you mention.

bondarchuk 6y ago
>industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". >grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a different opinion than you, and (gasp!) you might even be unable to change their mind, but that's just how it is.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  You seem amusingly unaware of how various organisations of questionable intent have farmed microtargeting to influence elections and referendums. If this was "people saying things I don't like" it would be absolutely fine. People say things I don't like on HN all the time, and I either ignore them or debate with them - which is how it should be. But that's not what this is about. This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act. But perhaps you think lying to people on an industrial scale is ok?
  - bondarchuk 6y ago
    >But perhaps you think lying to people on an industrial scale is ok? Nobody seemed to have this much of a problem with propaganda back when the common man did not have access to it.
    - josephg 6y ago
      The common man? Some of the problem is youtube promoting a 'common man' Alex Jones 15bn times because he drives youtube's advertising revenue. And some of the problem is russia running active disinformation campaigns and organising competing protesters to fight in the streets. If this happened in the 70's, you bet people would have had a problem with it.
      - jpttsn 6y ago
        You bet this happened in the 70's.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      Propaganda is bad, but I very much prefer easily identifiable propaganda that the absolute circus show we have now, mainly because the former is easier to counter.
  - tyu2 6y ago
    > This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act. It doesn't control how people act, but for the rest this is exactly what mass media was always doing, influencing beliefs and opinions of the masses, never able to criticize powerful and wealthy where it truly mattered. Facebook only made this space a bit more diverse, actually letting some criticism in, weakening mass media influence. But it's ridiculous to think this affected "democracy", the US isn't even considered to be a democracy outside of the US, but more like a capitalist-ruled police country.
- onethought 6y ago
  I think this over simplifies it. People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. Why isn’t subliminal advertising considered free speech or free exchange of Ideas?
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming from both traditional and alternative media.
    - onethought 6y ago
      I may be in various ways. But that isn’t a counter argument for stopping people being manipulated. Is your point: you could be exposed to misinformation as well so we shouldn’t stop misinformation? (If it is. That is absurd)
      - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?
        onethought 6y ago
        There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        >Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change. You probably disagree with me, which makes my "bar for misinformation" different than yours. And I'm guessing that we won't be able to bridge that gap through reason and logic.
- gjulianm 6y ago
  > This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy, and social media will reward that controversy and show that lie to even more people. A truth usually requires more research, and given that more people agree with it it will create less controversy, less engagement and the platforms will not reward that content. That's how you end up with what you have now: people living in completely different realities because the things that spread the most are lies. You can't have a free exchange of ideas if people don't agree in basic facts of reality. We really can't ignore the damage that social media is doing to society by dismissing the concerns as "well it's just that people have different opinions". It's not about the opinions, it's about the type of content that gets rewarded now.
  - bondarchuk 6y ago
    >That's how you end up with what you have now: people living in completely different realities because the things that spread the most are lies. If we would put restrictions on social media and let the big media companies decide what is "consensus reality" like they are so vehemently arguing for, then everybody would also be living in a fake reality, the only difference is that it would be the same for everyone, which might obscure the fakeness for a while. I agree it's a difficult subject but I genuinely think the current situation is at least a little bit better.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      Restrictions on social media doesn't mean that it is big media companies the one that decide, necessarily. I think it would actually give more power to the people to decide what is the consensus reality, but this time organically: instead of giving importance to ideas that generate engagement, give importance to ideas that people agree with. If those ideas come from an independent group that manages to grow via people agreeing with it instead of generating controversy for the sake of it, so be it. Of course it will be difficult and not straightforward, and there will be challenges to control big media, but at least we align the incentives in the good direction. The current situation is awful: chaos and a push towards polarization, because that's what generates engagement.
- maxlamb 6y ago
  I think OP is referring to things like coordinated propagation of articles/post about how Trump won this election, and that the election was rigged. Democracy depends on most citizens believing the election process is fair and free so if some organization is spending tens of millions of dollars and using psychographics to convince people otherwise, they are by definition trying to destroy the concept of democracy.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    Democracy also depends on elections not being rigged. There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims. There's obviously also plenty of false stuff, but that doesn't mean that all of it is false.
    - croon 6y ago
      > There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims. If you have any, you should spread it everywhere. I haven't seen any at all. I have debunked a ton of crap though I've seen on facebook.
    - maxlamb 6y ago
      I haven’t see any credible evidence. Neither has the Justice Department. I wonder if it’s possible that a president who has a history of lying dozens of times a day is lying again...
- dxdm 6y ago
  > This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". No it's not, unless you also think somebody aiming a high pressure fire hose at you is just a fancy way of moisturizing your face. There are differences in quality and quantity that you're just glossing over by claiming that some generalization applies.
mikewarot 6y ago
Facebook does not allow free exchange of ideas, you have to pay to make sure your followers actually see everything you post, unlike the open web.
AzzieElbab 6y ago
How is that different from the newspapers and cable news?
- humanrebar 6y ago
  They are not public forums. You me and three other self-appointed bicycle fanatics are not having a lively discussion about cycling shoes in the New York Times, subject to oversight from the New York Times.
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    I see your point, but the post i replied to blamed social networks for ‘ddos of misinformation’. I am seeing the same in mainstream media. The only difference is - they think they can hold on to the mic forever.

by cptaj 6y ago

bondarchuk 6y ago

>industrial-scale disinformation campaigns manipulating public opinion and discrediting every single thing you can imagine This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". >grinding the free exchange of ideas to a halt at every turn. How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. Sure, some of your peers might have a different opinion than you, and (gasp!) you might even be unable to change their mind, but that's just how it is.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
You seem amusingly unaware of how various organisations of questionable intent have farmed microtargeting to influence elections and referendums. If this was "people saying things I don't like" it would be absolutely fine. People say things I don't like on HN all the time, and I either ignore them or debate with them - which is how it should be. But that's not what this is about. This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act. But perhaps you think lying to people on an industrial scale is ok?
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  >But perhaps you think lying to people on an industrial scale is ok? Nobody seemed to have this much of a problem with propaganda back when the common man did not have access to it.
  - josephg 6y ago
    The common man? Some of the problem is youtube promoting a 'common man' Alex Jones 15bn times because he drives youtube's advertising revenue. And some of the problem is russia running active disinformation campaigns and organising competing protesters to fight in the streets. If this happened in the 70's, you bet people would have had a problem with it.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      You bet this happened in the 70's.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    Propaganda is bad, but I very much prefer easily identifiable propaganda that the absolute circus show we have now, mainly because the former is easier to counter.
- tyu2 6y ago
  > This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act. It doesn't control how people act, but for the rest this is exactly what mass media was always doing, influencing beliefs and opinions of the masses, never able to criticize powerful and wealthy where it truly mattered. Facebook only made this space a bit more diverse, actually letting some criticism in, weakening mass media influence. But it's ridiculous to think this affected "democracy", the US isn't even considered to be a democracy outside of the US, but more like a capitalist-ruled police country.
onethought 6y ago
I think this over simplifies it. People are being (unknowingly) manipulated and the sheer quantity of misinformation is being mistaken for evidence of truth. Why isn’t subliminal advertising considered free speech or free exchange of Ideas?
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  If people are unknowingly being manipulated how do you know you aren't being manipulated also? There are plenty of examples of manipulative and fake news coming from both traditional and alternative media.
  - onethought 6y ago
    I may be in various ways. But that isn’t a counter argument for stopping people being manipulated. Is your point: you could be exposed to misinformation as well so we shouldn’t stop misinformation? (If it is. That is absurd)
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?
      - onethought 6y ago
        There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        >Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change. You probably disagree with me, which makes my "bar for misinformation" different than yours. And I'm guessing that we won't be able to bridge that gap through reason and logic.
gjulianm 6y ago
> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like" Not just "I don't like", but things that "aren't true". There's a difference, and it's important. > How so? Like GP said, you can just not use facebook and freely exchange ideas with your peers through other channels. The how is that the constant exposure to lies makes people doubt everything. A lie is easy to fabricate, will create controversy, and social media will reward that controversy and show that lie to even more people. A truth usually requires more research, and given that more people agree with it it will create less controversy, less engagement and the platforms will not reward that content. That's how you end up with what you have now: people living in completely different realities because the things that spread the most are lies. You can't have a free exchange of ideas if people don't agree in basic facts of reality. We really can't ignore the damage that social media is doing to society by dismissing the concerns as "well it's just that people have different opinions". It's not about the opinions, it's about the type of content that gets rewarded now.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  >That's how you end up with what you have now: people living in completely different realities because the things that spread the most are lies. If we would put restrictions on social media and let the big media companies decide what is "consensus reality" like they are so vehemently arguing for, then everybody would also be living in a fake reality, the only difference is that it would be the same for everyone, which might obscure the fakeness for a while. I agree it's a difficult subject but I genuinely think the current situation is at least a little bit better.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    Restrictions on social media doesn't mean that it is big media companies the one that decide, necessarily. I think it would actually give more power to the people to decide what is the consensus reality, but this time organically: instead of giving importance to ideas that generate engagement, give importance to ideas that people agree with. If those ideas come from an independent group that manages to grow via people agreeing with it instead of generating controversy for the sake of it, so be it. Of course it will be difficult and not straightforward, and there will be challenges to control big media, but at least we align the incentives in the good direction. The current situation is awful: chaos and a push towards polarization, because that's what generates engagement.
maxlamb 6y ago
I think OP is referring to things like coordinated propagation of articles/post about how Trump won this election, and that the election was rigged. Democracy depends on most citizens believing the election process is fair and free so if some organization is spending tens of millions of dollars and using psychographics to convince people otherwise, they are by definition trying to destroy the concept of democracy.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  Democracy also depends on elections not being rigged. There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims. There's obviously also plenty of false stuff, but that doesn't mean that all of it is false.
  - croon 6y ago
    > There's plenty of credible evidence that things were off this election if you bothered to look into the claims. If you have any, you should spread it everywhere. I haven't seen any at all. I have debunked a ton of crap though I've seen on facebook.
  - maxlamb 6y ago
    I haven’t see any credible evidence. Neither has the Justice Department. I wonder if it’s possible that a president who has a history of lying dozens of times a day is lying again...
dxdm 6y ago
> This is just a fancy way of saying "people saying things I don't like". No it's not, unless you also think somebody aiming a high pressure fire hose at you is just a fancy way of moisturizing your face. There are differences in quality and quantity that you're just glossing over by claiming that some generalization applies.

mikewarot 6y ago

Facebook does not allow free exchange of ideas, you have to pay to make sure your followers actually see everything you post, unlike the open web.

AzzieElbab 6y ago

How is that different from the newspapers and cable news?

humanrebar 6y ago
They are not public forums. You me and three other self-appointed bicycle fanatics are not having a lively discussion about cycling shoes in the New York Times, subject to oversight from the New York Times.
- AzzieElbab 6y ago
  I see your point, but the post i replied to blamed social networks for ‘ddos of misinformation’. I am seeing the same in mainstream media. The only difference is - they think they can hold on to the mic forever.