6 ms·

Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity incentives" is the kind of thing

Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity incentives" is the kind of thing a "PBS" tries to solve. E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This sabotages content producers with – in this case – educational intentions, as the platform will make producers compete for attention. Also, I believe what's been missing in the discussion is how "empowering anyone to push content" is not in itself a value, and that it's in fact possible to add negative value, at a global scale, at very little cost. This discussion won't happen as it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement, and engagement comes from pure controversy.

babesh 5y ago
The corollary to not empowering anyone to push content is disempowering some from pushing content. That is incredibly bad because gives some the power to limit the voices of others. History shows that this power is abused and that the abuse of this power is worse than disinformation. If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. Instead, its real intended effect is to consolidate greater and greater powers of censorship in those who seek that power.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving it out to everyone on Twitter. You can't post an ISIS sponsored beheading video on a mainstream site (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) without the moderators noticing and censoring it in short order.
  - babesh 5y ago
    The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent. Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISIS that that would befall them. Also, if you haven’t noticed, ISIS is about to retake Afghanistan. Getting rid of that video did nothing. https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-230108412.html https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-2...
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_... In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms. They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow their cause. Its an information war, the same as any other.
      - babesh 5y ago
        Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        Censorship is a tool. The goal was to prevent Daesh / ISIS from recruiting Americans into dying for their cause in Syria / Iraq. The number of US citizens flying out to die in a forsaken war on ISIS's side are miniscule to none. Believe it or not, American citizens were doing this back when the surge was happening. We successfully disrupted their information campaign and their recruitment. And ISIS / ISIL / Daesh is now fighting for relevance (albeit unsuccessfully, mainly on GETTR).
- cyanwave 5y ago
  Well said.
- namlem 5y ago
  Centralized censorship is dangerous and should be avoided. However, a distributed system of gatekeepers (e.g. newspaper editors prior to the creation of the internet) has its benefits. Competition limits the power of censorship, but the censors still have enough power to keep certain ideas out of the mainstream. This has its downsides too, no doubt. Some of the ideas being suppressed were good ones, but there were benefits as well. As with all things, there are trade offs.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Newspapers today don't have the integrity to do that. They all suck the nipples of Facebook for ad money, many of their writers are preoccupied with pre-fed ideas. This is overall a terrible idea.
toss1 5y ago
>>Large content platforms don't curate content >>it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement Agree with of what you said, but I have a quibble with the opening line The large platforms DO curate content, FAR MORE THAN any news org. Your last line quoted above points out exactly how - they actively curate every shred of content anyone posts, optimizing for 'engagement'. The fact that truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for) is roughly inversely correlated with engagement (which often follows the basest impulses) is irrelevant to the sociopaths who run those large platforms. This is exactly why a set of news orgs NOT beholden to the clickbait economy - a 'PBS for the Internet' - could be really helpful.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't think so. It may not be a value to you, but it remains a subjective valuation.

babesh 5y ago

The corollary to not empowering anyone to push content is disempowering some from pushing content. That is incredibly bad because gives some the power to limit the voices of others. History shows that this power is abused and that the abuse of this power is worse than disinformation. If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. Instead, its real intended effect is to consolidate greater and greater powers of censorship in those who seek that power.

dragontamer 5y ago
> If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving it out to everyone on Twitter. You can't post an ISIS sponsored beheading video on a mainstream site (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) without the moderators noticing and censoring it in short order.
- babesh 5y ago
  The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent. Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISIS that that would befall them. Also, if you haven’t noticed, ISIS is about to retake Afghanistan. Getting rid of that video did nothing. https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-230108412.html https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-2...
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_... In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms. They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow their cause. Its an information war, the same as any other.
    - babesh 5y ago
      Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        Censorship is a tool. The goal was to prevent Daesh / ISIS from recruiting Americans into dying for their cause in Syria / Iraq. The number of US citizens flying out to die in a forsaken war on ISIS's side are miniscule to none. Believe it or not, American citizens were doing this back when the surge was happening. We successfully disrupted their information campaign and their recruitment. And ISIS / ISIL / Daesh is now fighting for relevance (albeit unsuccessfully, mainly on GETTR).
cyanwave 5y ago
Well said.
namlem 5y ago
Centralized censorship is dangerous and should be avoided. However, a distributed system of gatekeepers (e.g. newspaper editors prior to the creation of the internet) has its benefits. Competition limits the power of censorship, but the censors still have enough power to keep certain ideas out of the mainstream. This has its downsides too, no doubt. Some of the ideas being suppressed were good ones, but there were benefits as well. As with all things, there are trade offs.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Newspapers today don't have the integrity to do that. They all suck the nipples of Facebook for ad money, many of their writers are preoccupied with pre-fed ideas. This is overall a terrible idea.

toss1 5y ago

>>Large content platforms don't curate content >>it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement Agree with of what you said, but I have a quibble with the opening line The large platforms DO curate content, FAR MORE THAN any news org. Your last line quoted above points out exactly how - they actively curate every shred of content anyone posts, optimizing for 'engagement'. The fact that truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for) is roughly inversely correlated with engagement (which often follows the basest impulses) is irrelevant to the sociopaths who run those large platforms. This is exactly why a set of news orgs NOT beholden to the clickbait economy - a 'PBS for the Internet' - could be really helpful.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I don't think so. It may not be a value to you, but it remains a subjective valuation.