3 ms·

Blaming social media for hate speech is shooting the messenger. The KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Civil War, none of these needed social media and they grew jus

Blaming social media for hate speech is shooting the messenger. The KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Civil War, none of these needed social media and they grew just fine. The problem is and always has been human nature. Trying to solve a social problem technologically is doomed to fail. We know from history that forcing people to think something they don’t want to causes oppression, resentment, and leads to upheaval. We need to invest more in education so that ordinary people can recognize lies, and we need character in our leaders so that they hold bad actors accountable.

peeters 6y ago
I think the difference is that social media acts as a massive amplifier for minority beliefs. In the Civil War, people who lived in the south were already surrounded by other people who lived in the south, so no amplication was needed to fan the flames. But with social media you have these individuals who would normally be surrounded by reasonable people in their social circles, instead being herded together by engagement-optimizing algorithms. Yes, the determined will always find a way to socialize with only like-minded people, but tech companies don't have to optimize for it. They could sacrifice some ad-revenue by optimizing for diverse thought, not echo chambers. And that would be a hell of a lot more aminable to free speech than picking and choosing what opinions belong on their platforms.
MrMan 6y ago
it is hating the gasoline for making the log burn. if you hold a match to a log the match will burnout before the log catches fire. soak the log in gasoline and one match sets it ablaze. that is my attempt at HN "argument by analogy"
esja 6y ago
But technology can make things worse, so it does need review. Give better weapons to warring tribes and watch what happens. Similarly, implement likes and upvotes, and use ML recommenders to push people into echo chambers, and watch what happens.

peeters 6y ago

I think the difference is that social media acts as a massive amplifier for minority beliefs. In the Civil War, people who lived in the south were already surrounded by other people who lived in the south, so no amplication was needed to fan the flames. But with social media you have these individuals who would normally be surrounded by reasonable people in their social circles, instead being herded together by engagement-optimizing algorithms. Yes, the determined will always find a way to socialize with only like-minded people, but tech companies don't have to optimize for it. They could sacrifice some ad-revenue by optimizing for diverse thought, not echo chambers. And that would be a hell of a lot more aminable to free speech than picking and choosing what opinions belong on their platforms.

MrMan 6y ago

it is hating the gasoline for making the log burn. if you hold a match to a log the match will burnout before the log catches fire. soak the log in gasoline and one match sets it ablaze. that is my attempt at HN "argument by analogy"

esja 6y ago

But technology can make things worse, so it does need review. Give better weapons to warring tribes and watch what happens. Similarly, implement likes and upvotes, and use ML recommenders to push people into echo chambers, and watch what happens.