3 ms·

I'd take it a step futher and borrow an adage to say platforms and media mainly say they are fighting misinformation to convince you that the rest of their cont

I'd take it a step futher and borrow an adage to say platforms and media mainly say they are fighting misinformation to convince you that the rest of their content is meaningful. Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers, and they need for you to believe that your encounters with them are "real," serendipitous, and that you aren't just being managed like an animal in an existential zoo. Sure, there are true believers who think abusing trust and technical power to shape narratives is honest and necessary work, and via Twain, there is no argument that will change their mind so long as they are being paid to believe in it. These would not be the first managers to mistake their own credulity for skill. I'd reject that any of the platforms are seriously combating misinformation, and state it is just another trope in support of the same end, which is the global brandsafing of all public discourse on behalf of their main essential coalition members - the worst, wideley acknowledged, most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world. If you don't like how a platform puts you on a target list and actively wipes out your social capital and isolates you from your relationships and ability to make a living, people are perfectly free to just go and start up their own purges...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kook_throwaway 5y ago
Thank you, this is one of the best posts I've read on here. >on behalf of their main essential coalition members - the worst, wideley acknowledged, most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world. Very few people seem willing say this out loud. These groups are not your friends, and are often the biggest offenders of many of the things they claim they are trying to prevent. 'the coalition' is social engineering on an industrial scale and it's disgusting regardless of the stated or unstated intentions.
acituan 5y ago
I agree with your thesis in general with several nitpicks; > Sure, there are true believers who think abusing trust and technical power to shape narratives is honest and necessary work Narrative warfare exists and is not a single agent game. I am not saying this makes narrative shaping defendable, but in the absence of some meaning-making work opportunist opponents will happily fill in the vacuum. This is the slippery slope that escalates to being a true believer of power (ab)use. In the past, opponent processes of meaning-making was between differing, well-paced journalistic outlets somewhat within consilience distance. Today a) the inter-narrative drift is impossibly larger and b) heavily clustered around partisan dimensions which are themselves pushed away and c) comes out of a 24hr infotainment firehose because finances favor that. We're denial-of-service'd out of thinking for ourselves and the narratives we're given are hopelessly irreconcilable. > most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world There is no such cabal of coordinated evil. In fact, this gnostic belief is part of the narrative that creates ressentiment and nihilism. Emergent foolishness can just be as evil. And it can be countered with emergent, distributed wisdom, not necessarily another billions of dollars worth of a "good" platform. > Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers, Selling your attention to advertisers is a relatively minor harm. We are actually pretty good at suppressing noise and get to the signal we want. But the shaping of your attention and emotions that maximize time on site is harmful in a much more durable way. Not only it directly attacks your noise-suppression and relevance-detection heuristics, the more you stay on site the more you're actively trained to be more foolish, reactive and receptive. This bleeds to the rest of your life. It is like an anti-mindfulness training that stupefies you. The solution is bound to be in the form of a suite of counter-trainings that gives back each individual their agency to realize this is not good for us.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  There is no Evil Incorporated®, but there are certainly moneyed interests in every major industry and countless examples of more or less directed propaganda campaigns from oil to defense contractors. I agree with the solution though, which shouldn't rely on platform moderation whose customers are advertising and PR. The platforms won't have leverage against their own customers here. This isn't nihilism, nihilism would be ignoring the problem. And on angle to tackle the specific problem of parties wanting to clean up the net in their purpose was the insistence on neutrality and laissez faire moderation. I think it still is the best course but requires education like you suggested.
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    There is no Evil Incorporated, nor is there a conspiracy, but when you are a company who has all of them as clients, from energy, chemical, lobbyists, to pharma, defense, and political organizations, it is a who's who of really serious baddies. This is normal, except your business is shaping the attention of children and young people based on the intentions of these organizations. I'm sure the platforms manage their ethics, but this idea that we should trust them with moral authority because they deal with evil more than anyone else should be more suspect. I think it is far more likely that they are compromised by interests than resolute defenders of principle. At the end of the day, social media companies are just euphemistic peddlars of nuanced variations of porn, and a we probably shouldn't be relying on them for judgment on the quality of public discourse. Censorship (to say nothing of the co-ordinated censorship between platforms) is a blunt instrument with a lot of side effects, and people are surely going to start up their own version of something, I'm saying we should think a lot harder about these issues, because we really don't want to be around when people finally get sick of it and start erecting their own platforms.
zeteo 5y ago
Some of the smartest people I know went to work for Facebook or Google. Heck, most people on this site probably would too if offered the chance. Suggesting that thousands of highly skilled, well paid employees who could have their choice of a job anywhere are just "paid to believe in it" is frankly insulting to a lot of people. The fact is we are in the middle of a pandemic and spreading some types of misinformation is directly akin to facilitating the spread of the virus. If you were in a situation where your basic choices were a) use whatever means you have to limit the spread of harmful misinformation or b) do nothing and watch as the thousands of extra dead and suffering pile up, I hope you would have the same basic human decency as these "true believers who abuse technical power" and choose the former.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kook_throwaway 5y ago

Thank you, this is one of the best posts I've read on here. >on behalf of their main essential coalition members - the worst, wideley acknowledged, most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world. Very few people seem willing say this out loud. These groups are not your friends, and are often the biggest offenders of many of the things they claim they are trying to prevent. 'the coalition' is social engineering on an industrial scale and it's disgusting regardless of the stated or unstated intentions.

acituan 5y ago

I agree with your thesis in general with several nitpicks; > Sure, there are true believers who think abusing trust and technical power to shape narratives is honest and necessary work Narrative warfare exists and is not a single agent game. I am not saying this makes narrative shaping defendable, but in the absence of some meaning-making work opportunist opponents will happily fill in the vacuum. This is the slippery slope that escalates to being a true believer of power (ab)use. In the past, opponent processes of meaning-making was between differing, well-paced journalistic outlets somewhat within consilience distance. Today a) the inter-narrative drift is impossibly larger and b) heavily clustered around partisan dimensions which are themselves pushed away and c) comes out of a 24hr infotainment firehose because finances favor that. We're denial-of-service'd out of thinking for ourselves and the narratives we're given are hopelessly irreconcilable. > most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world There is no such cabal of coordinated evil. In fact, this gnostic belief is part of the narrative that creates ressentiment and nihilism. Emergent foolishness can just be as evil. And it can be countered with emergent, distributed wisdom, not necessarily another billions of dollars worth of a "good" platform. > Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers, Selling your attention to advertisers is a relatively minor harm. We are actually pretty good at suppressing noise and get to the signal we want. But the shaping of your attention and emotions that maximize time on site is harmful in a much more durable way. Not only it directly attacks your noise-suppression and relevance-detection heuristics, the more you stay on site the more you're actively trained to be more foolish, reactive and receptive. This bleeds to the rest of your life. It is like an anti-mindfulness training that stupefies you. The solution is bound to be in the form of a suite of counter-trainings that gives back each individual their agency to realize this is not good for us.

raxxorrax 5y ago
There is no Evil Incorporated®, but there are certainly moneyed interests in every major industry and countless examples of more or less directed propaganda campaigns from oil to defense contractors. I agree with the solution though, which shouldn't rely on platform moderation whose customers are advertising and PR. The platforms won't have leverage against their own customers here. This isn't nihilism, nihilism would be ignoring the problem. And on angle to tackle the specific problem of parties wanting to clean up the net in their purpose was the insistence on neutrality and laissez faire moderation. I think it still is the best course but requires education like you suggested.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  There is no Evil Incorporated, nor is there a conspiracy, but when you are a company who has all of them as clients, from energy, chemical, lobbyists, to pharma, defense, and political organizations, it is a who's who of really serious baddies. This is normal, except your business is shaping the attention of children and young people based on the intentions of these organizations. I'm sure the platforms manage their ethics, but this idea that we should trust them with moral authority because they deal with evil more than anyone else should be more suspect. I think it is far more likely that they are compromised by interests than resolute defenders of principle. At the end of the day, social media companies are just euphemistic peddlars of nuanced variations of porn, and a we probably shouldn't be relying on them for judgment on the quality of public discourse. Censorship (to say nothing of the co-ordinated censorship between platforms) is a blunt instrument with a lot of side effects, and people are surely going to start up their own version of something, I'm saying we should think a lot harder about these issues, because we really don't want to be around when people finally get sick of it and start erecting their own platforms.

zeteo 5y ago

Some of the smartest people I know went to work for Facebook or Google. Heck, most people on this site probably would too if offered the chance. Suggesting that thousands of highly skilled, well paid employees who could have their choice of a job anywhere are just "paid to believe in it" is frankly insulting to a lot of people. The fact is we are in the middle of a pandemic and spreading some types of misinformation is directly akin to facilitating the spread of the virus. If you were in a situation where your basic choices were a) use whatever means you have to limit the spread of harmful misinformation or b) do nothing and watch as the thousands of extra dead and suffering pile up, I hope you would have the same basic human decency as these "true believers who abuse technical power" and choose the former.