5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
adnzzzzZ 6y ago
Maybe people wouldn't so easily believe in alternative narratives if people in power didn't also lie all the time? No one believes in the media anymore for a reason. People don't believe in scientists anymore for a reason. People don't believe in most government officials anymore for a reason. You can find many examples of continued and relentless lies from all these classes of people over the years and decades. Is it really a surprise that people will stop listening to them?
- gjulianm 6y ago
  Social media posts lie all the time, way more than politicians. Why do people believe those?
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    That depends on the post. For instance, I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie, and that I'm likely being manipulated by social media. But I believe what I believe through a series of reasonable and logical arguments from my perspective. So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me. I would guess that it's the same for everyone else. By trying to prevent this lie from being spread you are rejecting the fact that I reached this conclusion in a valid manner because you don't agree with it.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      > I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie That's an opinion, not a lie. A lie would be saying "pigs grow on trees", "in a monarchy the king is chosen in an election every four years" or "the earth is flat", to put some examples. > So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me. What is it then, people believe lies because it makes sense to them or because other people lie?
      - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        >What is it then, people believe lies because it makes sense to them or because other people lie? Because reality is not so clear cut as "pigs grow on trees". No one is claiming anything as ludicrous as pigs grow on trees in our political debates. Disagreeing with most of the narrative on climate change is not the same as saying pigs grow on trees, for instance.
lldbg 6y ago
Maybe you are the one who has been constantly exposed to lies, and doubt everything that is true? The only way you can have a free exchange of ideas is if people are allowed to disagree, and yes this includes basic "facts" of reality. You think speech should be censured, removed, and controlled? Okay, your speech first.
- gjulianm 6y ago
  Where did I say that I wanted speech censored and controlled and people not allowing to disagree? I'm saying that I disagree with social media incentivizing the spread of lies and controversy. I'm not discussing what is a lie and what is not, I am just saying that by the nature of social media the content that gets more visibility is the content that generates more engagement, not necessarily the content that is more true or has more consensus. In other words, do I think you should be able to say that "the earth is flat"? Yes. Do I think that social media should give more visibility to content that says "the earth is flat" than to content that says "well it is not flat" just because the first generates more engagement? No. It's not the speech that's harmful, is the selective amplification that social media does.
  - lldbg 6y ago
    You are not discussing what a lie is, and what is not, but someone will have to, if measures against the "selective amplification" of lies were to be implemented. That is a fact.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      > You are not discussing what a lie is That's precisely the point I'm making, nobody needs to decide what is a lie or what is not. Social media amplifies lies not by knowing what is a lie, but because of their nature. Lies generate more controversy and more discussion, true facts generate agreement but not a lot of discussion and engagement. Reduce the importance of "engagement metrics" in the algorithms that show you content, make them as straightforward as possible (chronological order for example), reduce or eliminate suggestions of "content you might like" and only show content you explicitly subscribed to. At no point anyone needs to say "this is a lie/truth", you just need to change incentives.

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.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago

Maybe people wouldn't so easily believe in alternative narratives if people in power didn't also lie all the time? No one believes in the media anymore for a reason. People don't believe in scientists anymore for a reason. People don't believe in most government officials anymore for a reason. You can find many examples of continued and relentless lies from all these classes of people over the years and decades. Is it really a surprise that people will stop listening to them?

gjulianm 6y ago
Social media posts lie all the time, way more than politicians. Why do people believe those?
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  That depends on the post. For instance, I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie, and that I'm likely being manipulated by social media. But I believe what I believe through a series of reasonable and logical arguments from my perspective. So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me. I would guess that it's the same for everyone else. By trying to prevent this lie from being spread you are rejecting the fact that I reached this conclusion in a valid manner because you don't agree with it.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    > I believe that democracy is a mistake and we should be ruled by an authoritarian king. You probably believe this to be a lie That's an opinion, not a lie. A lie would be saying "pigs grow on trees", "in a monarchy the king is chosen in an election every four years" or "the earth is flat", to put some examples. > So why do I believe it? Because it makes sense to me. What is it then, people believe lies because it makes sense to them or because other people lie?
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      >What is it then, people believe lies because it makes sense to them or because other people lie? Because reality is not so clear cut as "pigs grow on trees". No one is claiming anything as ludicrous as pigs grow on trees in our political debates. Disagreeing with most of the narrative on climate change is not the same as saying pigs grow on trees, for instance.

lldbg 6y ago

Maybe you are the one who has been constantly exposed to lies, and doubt everything that is true? The only way you can have a free exchange of ideas is if people are allowed to disagree, and yes this includes basic "facts" of reality. You think speech should be censured, removed, and controlled? Okay, your speech first.

gjulianm 6y ago
Where did I say that I wanted speech censored and controlled and people not allowing to disagree? I'm saying that I disagree with social media incentivizing the spread of lies and controversy. I'm not discussing what is a lie and what is not, I am just saying that by the nature of social media the content that gets more visibility is the content that generates more engagement, not necessarily the content that is more true or has more consensus. In other words, do I think you should be able to say that "the earth is flat"? Yes. Do I think that social media should give more visibility to content that says "the earth is flat" than to content that says "well it is not flat" just because the first generates more engagement? No. It's not the speech that's harmful, is the selective amplification that social media does.
- lldbg 6y ago
  You are not discussing what a lie is, and what is not, but someone will have to, if measures against the "selective amplification" of lies were to be implemented. That is a fact.
  - gjulianm 6y ago
    > You are not discussing what a lie is That's precisely the point I'm making, nobody needs to decide what is a lie or what is not. Social media amplifies lies not by knowing what is a lie, but because of their nature. Lies generate more controversy and more discussion, true facts generate agreement but not a lot of discussion and engagement. Reduce the importance of "engagement metrics" in the algorithms that show you content, make them as straightforward as possible (chronological order for example), reduce or eliminate suggestions of "content you might like" and only show content you explicitly subscribed to. At no point anyone needs to say "this is a lie/truth", you just need to change incentives.