4 ms·

Thanks for responding honestly. There's some more information out there now regarding the original story: It looks like there are twelve individuals who have

by jka 5y ago

Thanks for responding honestly. There's some more information out there now regarding the original story: It looks like there are twelve individuals who have been responsible for large amounts of the disinformation that is a concern, and they're the ones whose content is being removed (I believe they still retain their user accounts). Here's an article including a report that the White House has cited: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-ccdh-report https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinfor... The report[1] is quite readable; here are two quotes from the executive summary: "Analysis of a sample of anti-vaccine content that was shared or posted on Facebook and Twitter a total of 812,000 times between 1 February and 16 March 2021 shows that 65 percent of anti-vaccine content is attributable to the Disinformation Dozen." "Despite repeatedly violating Facebook, Instagram and Twitter’s terms of service agreements, nine of the Disinformation Dozen remain on all three platforms, while just three have been comprehensively removed from just one platform" > Since gun violence is a "public health issue", surly the same reasoning would apply. That is an insightful comment. My opinion is that guns and people with guns kill people, so this could warrant further exploration. > Where's the boundaries of what constitutes a social media platform? Does that include payment networks like Venmo? Do you see how easy this can cascade, both in terms of content and in terms of the in-scope platforms? > I don't understand social media to be the proximate cause of vaccine skepticism Yep, I think you're right; it's individuals and their behaviour (especially folks who can attract, charm and influence a large audience, regardless of social setting) who are closer to the cause, not necessarily the platforms themselves. But that said: the platforms are well aware of these kind of people, and have been for years. That they don't do anything about them, I expect, is down to the fact that those people are vital for the growth and engagement of their platforms. They know the root causes and I am fairly certain that that knowledge will be well documented (or, if they are more careful, known and discussed without being written down) within their company growth strategies. [1] - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21011322/disinfo-dozen.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21011322/disinfo-doze...

remarkEon 5y ago
>attributable to the Disinformation Dozen I appreciate the back and forth, but there's something extremely creepy about the government(s?) branding private citizens with a nom de guerre as if they're an organization with enemy-of-the-state status. I don't know that I was clear enough when I said I "don't understand social media to be the proximate cause" of vaccine skepticism. I do not think it's 12 people who manage facebook groups with <1M shares (over a 6 week period!) of their anti-vaccine content. Relative to the volume of posts that go out on these platforms, that is a laughably small amount of reach. It's especially small when you compare it to the reach of the people who dole out vaccine guidance and information, who themselves say one thing about its efficacy and then act in a manner contrary to those same pronouncements. These things get noticed (for the record, got both shots as soon as I could but that should not be relevant), and then feed into the anti-vaccine content itself. Or, and perhaps especially, they say things in one time period for political expediency[1] and then act surprised when some people actually followed the advice. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-says-she-wouldnt-trust-a-vaccine-trump-recommended/ar-BB19O9k4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-s... ........ This is a very strange situation to me. When someone makes a claim about social media and it's negative effects on society, there's usually a good-sized cohort who jump in to say "prove it" with data. I'm not saying that here, necessarily, and I do hate social media for other reasons - but it is a little odd that we are attempting to attribute the cause of missing vaccination goals to literally 12 people with a facebook account, when there's dozens (no pun intended) of other confounding variables, and then justifying a pretty significant crossing of the Rubicon in allowing a more heavy-handed approach for letting the executive directly engage with these companies on what is and isn't allowed to be said.

by jka 5y ago

remarkEon 5y ago

>attributable to the Disinformation Dozen I appreciate the back and forth, but there's something extremely creepy about the government(s?) branding private citizens with a nom de guerre as if they're an organization with enemy-of-the-state status. I don't know that I was clear enough when I said I "don't understand social media to be the proximate cause" of vaccine skepticism. I do not think it's 12 people who manage facebook groups with <1M shares (over a 6 week period!) of their anti-vaccine content. Relative to the volume of posts that go out on these platforms, that is a laughably small amount of reach. It's especially small when you compare it to the reach of the people who dole out vaccine guidance and information, who themselves say one thing about its efficacy and then act in a manner contrary to those same pronouncements. These things get noticed (for the record, got both shots as soon as I could but that should not be relevant), and then feed into the anti-vaccine content itself. Or, and perhaps especially, they say things in one time period for political expediency[1] and then act surprised when some people actually followed the advice. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-says-she-wouldnt-trust-a-vaccine-trump-recommended/ar-BB19O9k4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-s... ........ This is a very strange situation to me. When someone makes a claim about social media and it's negative effects on society, there's usually a good-sized cohort who jump in to say "prove it" with data. I'm not saying that here, necessarily, and I do hate social media for other reasons - but it is a little odd that we are attempting to attribute the cause of missing vaccination goals to literally 12 people with a facebook account, when there's dozens (no pun intended) of other confounding variables, and then justifying a pretty significant crossing of the Rubicon in allowing a more heavy-handed approach for letting the executive directly engage with these companies on what is and isn't allowed to be said.