3 ms·

> the many incentives that exist for different parties Someone(s) should update the Five Filters models from Manufacturing Consent to account for social medias

> the many incentives that exist for different parties Someone(s) should update the Five Filters models from Manufacturing Consent to account for social medias. Compare the social network media ecosystem to the prior broadcast and print medias. Here's my stab at it: The Five Filters are Owners, Advertisers, Sources, Flak, and War. Owners (social networks) took most of Advertisers' economic power for themselves, flipping that power relationship. With loss of status, Advertisers' power to control dialog and shape opinion largely disappeared. To reduce costs, prior Owners debased Sources by replacing news with infotainment and drama/comedy with reality TV. The current Owners reduced costs even further by making the audience their own Sources. Trolling, conspiracy, karma, gossip, outrage IS the new content. Genius. While social media Owners became the biggest economic winners, Flak became the cultural winners, displacing Advertisers. Social media eliminates provenance (authenticity) by laundering (disintermediation) content. Flak now enjoys impunity that Advertisers could only dream of. For lack of a well defined enemy, War turned us against each other. -- Two aspects of the rise of social media confuse me. Why haven't Advertisers revolted? Owners and Flak continues to steal their lunch money, and they just take it. The battle lines for the free speech haven't been updated for social media. New lines had to be drawn with the advent of broadcast media. (Duh.) No one anticipated the function and impact of algorithmic recommenders. Total game changer. So we should recognize and accept the new reality and update Section 230 accordingly. Of course, Flak benefits most from this willful blindspot, and is best able to shape the dialog, to better defend their spoils. Owners will oppose any change by default, because why not? The status quo is pretty terrific. -- Manufacturing Consent's Five Filters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent#Propaganda_model_of_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent#Propagan...

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
> So we should recognize and accept the new reality and update Section 230 accordingly. The Owners have successfully convinced their subjects that this is a bad idea. That said, we must tread lightly with the precarious Section 230 and any new modification. Edit: Owner's are down voting you fast.
- specialist 5y ago
  No worries. Arguing on HN is batting practice. After reading and listening a lot, I honestly still have no clue if or how Section 230 should be updated. Best I've come up with is restoring provenance (authenticity). Which then triggers the Freedom Speeches™ advocates, who purposefully misconstrue any constraint or accountability of Owners or Flak as an existential threat to Sources. The faux outrage is all so banal, predictable. As if our society has never had this argument before, ad nauseum, and this iteration is something really special.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

> So we should recognize and accept the new reality and update Section 230 accordingly. The Owners have successfully convinced their subjects that this is a bad idea. That said, we must tread lightly with the precarious Section 230 and any new modification. Edit: Owner's are down voting you fast.

specialist 5y ago
No worries. Arguing on HN is batting practice. After reading and listening a lot, I honestly still have no clue if or how Section 230 should be updated. Best I've come up with is restoring provenance (authenticity). Which then triggers the Freedom Speeches™ advocates, who purposefully misconstrue any constraint or accountability of Owners or Flak as an existential threat to Sources. The faux outrage is all so banal, predictable. As if our society has never had this argument before, ad nauseum, and this iteration is something really special.