4 ms·

I think that's a false dichotomy. If social media is so disruptive to society then costs shouldn't be externalized onto citizens but the corporations. * Force

by evv555 5y ago

I think that's a false dichotomy. If social media is so disruptive to society then costs shouldn't be externalized onto citizens but the corporations. * Force transparency on the engagement metrics and the algorithms they drive. * Have C level executives face prison time. * Force data interoperability or break up the SM monopolies. All of these options are less extreme then restructuring society around social media corporations and their stakeholders.

andybak 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand this part > costs shouldn't be externalized onto citizens but the corporations. what costs do you mean? Costs in the broadest sense? That's a very amorphous type of cost. > Force transparency on the engagement metrics and the algorithms they drive. We can mostly infer this already and that knowledge isn't helping much > Have C level executives face prison time. This will have hard-to-predict consequences that may or may not be better than the status quo. We're trying to find a balance between free speech and misinformation. Harsh punishments are a blunt weapon. > Force data interoperability or break up the SM monopolies. Not sure how this would solve the problem under discussion. It would merely spread it over a larger surface area.
- evv555 5y ago
  >what costs do you mean? Costs in the broadest sense? That's a very amorphous type of cost. It's clear facebook and twitter are primarily funnels towards polarizing content presented in disjointed snippets which makes real discourse impossible. This is a product of corporations chasing "engagement metric" at the cost of social corrosion and polarization. >We can mostly infer this already and that knowledge isn't helping much Who is "we" in this sentence? Not the average citizen. It's not just about inferring but really understanding and improving upon. >This will have hard-to-predict consequences that may or may not be better than the status quo. We're trying to find a balance between free speech and misinformation. Harsh punishments are a blunt weapon. We're already down the path of hard-to-predict consequences. The root cause of GROWING engagement with misinformation is the architecture of social media. Social media needs to find balance with free speech not the other way around. >Not sure how this would solve the problem under discussion. It would merely spread it over a larger surface area. Two reasons why it might help. Moderation makes more sense in the context of smaller communities. The corrosive nature of social media is in large degree how it's been executed. We need a diversity of examples to see what works and what doesn't.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by evv555 5y ago

andybak 5y ago

I'm not sure I understand this part > costs shouldn't be externalized onto citizens but the corporations. what costs do you mean? Costs in the broadest sense? That's a very amorphous type of cost. > Force transparency on the engagement metrics and the algorithms they drive. We can mostly infer this already and that knowledge isn't helping much > Have C level executives face prison time. This will have hard-to-predict consequences that may or may not be better than the status quo. We're trying to find a balance between free speech and misinformation. Harsh punishments are a blunt weapon. > Force data interoperability or break up the SM monopolies. Not sure how this would solve the problem under discussion. It would merely spread it over a larger surface area.

evv555 5y ago
>what costs do you mean? Costs in the broadest sense? That's a very amorphous type of cost. It's clear facebook and twitter are primarily funnels towards polarizing content presented in disjointed snippets which makes real discourse impossible. This is a product of corporations chasing "engagement metric" at the cost of social corrosion and polarization. >We can mostly infer this already and that knowledge isn't helping much Who is "we" in this sentence? Not the average citizen. It's not just about inferring but really understanding and improving upon. >This will have hard-to-predict consequences that may or may not be better than the status quo. We're trying to find a balance between free speech and misinformation. Harsh punishments are a blunt weapon. We're already down the path of hard-to-predict consequences. The root cause of GROWING engagement with misinformation is the architecture of social media. Social media needs to find balance with free speech not the other way around. >Not sure how this would solve the problem under discussion. It would merely spread it over a larger surface area. Two reasons why it might help. Moderation makes more sense in the context of smaller communities. The corrosive nature of social media is in large degree how it's been executed. We need a diversity of examples to see what works and what doesn't.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]