4 ms·
This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline and journalists somehow think it is worth
by thethethethe 5y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline and journalists somehow think it is worthy of writing an article about. This scientist isn't bringing any interesting, new ideas to the table, they are just repeating the same talking points pushed by mainstream "liberal" politicians.
> My sense is that social media in particular — as well as a broader range of internet technologies, including algorithmically driven search and click-based advertising — have changed the way that people get information and form opinions about the world. And they seem to have done so in a manner that makes people particularly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.
This is such an unbelievably shallow take. Much of the "truth" mainstream liberals have been pushing in the past year has turned out to be false. In the past, before the internet and social media, the media lied to the public all the time. It was probably easier because regular people didn't have a good way to spread primary information quickly. The media got most of their information from government press conferences and, if the government didn't like what an organization was saying, the government would stop inviting those journalists to those press conferences. There's a whole book about it, it's called Manufacturing Consent. That type of information control is no longer possible now that everyone can livestream from their phones to millions of people and the establishment is mad about it. Now they are trying to wrestle back control of information by writing think pieces about the dangers of "algorithms" and threatening tech giants with anti-trust action.
Its ironic because I feel like these people are the reason social media is a threat to society. They want to use it to manipulate the public like they always have and are willing to go to great lengths to do so.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline If academics can't comment cross discipline, no one else can comment at all.
- thethethethe 5y agoI never said that they cant, it's more that people are writing articles about their opinions when they are bringing nothing new to the table. Why doesn't vox write articles about a grocery store clerk or trucker's opinion on social media and society? Why does some biologist somehow know more about this stuff than other people who aren't sociologists? This is why conservatives think academics are snooty and elitist
- anigbrowl 5y agoI am absolutely interested in the opinions of biologists and ecologists on this topic because they are in the business of studying complex systems, competing populations etc.
- thethethethe 5y agoI'd be interested too if they wrote a paper about it instead of repeating mainstream talking points in a Vox article
- cratermoon 5y agoGood news! Bergstrom wrote a paper, titled "Stewardship of global collective behavior"[1], see also https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1408262388533456904 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1408262388533456904 1 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118
- thethethethe 5y agoThanks. I read it this morning, as I am interested, and my opinion hasn't really changed to be honest. It appears to be a reaction to covid response/the capitol riot and they have identified the dissemination of information online as the problem and some form of "stewardship" is the solution. I disagree with this assessment as I believe the actual problem is people's material conditions and information flow online is just a conduit, not a cause. The whole thing strikes me as good-intentioned authoritarianism
- anigbrowl 5y agoIf you had read the article you'd have noticed it's citing a paper publisher in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
- thethethethe 5y agoI didn't notice, thanks for pointing this out
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoI didn’t know that being concerned about the impact of social media was strictly a liberal position.
- thethethethe 5y agoIm not saying that it is, that is just the perspective that I believe this article is being written from. American conservatives are concerned about censorship, American liberals are concerned about "misinformation and disinformation". This article is firmly on the diss/misinformation side of the debate
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoI feel certain you could find plenty of people who self identify as liberals and are concerned about free speech issues, just as you can find folks who self identify as conservatives who are concerned about the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Dividing people into groups and setting them against each other like this isn’t helping.
- thethethethe 5y agoYeah it's a spectrum and there will be many exceptions but I still think it is useful categorize political groups by their political beliefs in a discussion
- cratermoon 5y ago> Much of the "truth" mainstream liberals have been pushing in the past year has turned out to be false For example?
- grumblenum 5y agoI like the irony of a story about the danger of social media here on HN. You know. Social media.
- Fricken 5y agoWe don't need to bring anything new to the table, because nobody read their Marshall McLuhan, who made a career warning us about the effects of electronic media through the 60s and 70s. He's still the only guy worth anything in the field of media theory: https://youtu.be/8EwkTrmAY8c https://youtu.be/8EwkTrmAY8c