6 ms·

"Contradicting science" is exactly how you do science.

by chernevik 4y ago

mhh__ 4y ago
Are adverts scientific research now?
- ComradePhil 4y ago
  They are when pharma does it.
seoaeu 4y ago
Yeah, but then you publish your theory (along with supporting evidence!) in academic publications. Who ever heard of a scientist taking out Twitter ads to push their fringe theory directly to ordinary people?
- endominus 4y ago
  Efforts to ban "misinformation" are gaining ground pretty much everywhere, with full-throated support by government institutions and at most given token resistance from social media companies, if that. Banning misinformation or heterodox opinions in ads is the initial step; does anyone, in good faith, truly believe that's where it will stop? Facebook and YouTube already warn about videos that mention certain topics, hence some YouTubers saying phrases like "Hope you're staying healthy in these trying times" in case the platform deranked them for saying COVID. Soon, as the ability for algorithms to understand context evolves, discussion and especially disagreement of such things at all will be heavily censored (I'm sorry, "downranked") by algorithms on such sites, until they are essentially invisible. Also, it's not just about publishing papers. Scientists use Twitter to network and communicate their ideas with other scientists. To learn about what people are working on, interesting ideas in their field, and so on. If heterodoxy is banned from discussion, it becomes that much harder to challenge existing consensus, because they will be unable to communicate effectively with one another on public platforms.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Scientists use Twitter to get eyes on their papers, talks, and posters. No scientist's work would be meaningfully impacted by the dissolution of Twitter. We had conferences and journals before the web, and we'll have them long after whatever big tech darling of the moment is gone.
  - wtallis 4y ago
    > does anyone, in good faith, truly believe that's where it will stop? If you see the actions of Twitter, et al. as stemming not from a desire to flex power over society but merely as a desire to not be exposed to claims that they're profiting directly from and complicit in harmful disinformation campaigns, then it is reasonable to expect that they won't go too much further. They've certainly dragged their heels thus far. They're clearly trying to put the minimum moderation effort to avoid getting hit by more serious public outcry or government interference, which naturally gives rise to a very error-prone moderation scheme.
    - PolygonSheep 4y ago
      > then it is reasonable to expect that they won't go too much further. Is it reasonable to expect that whatever social/political forces have pushed them to do this will stop there? It makes no difference really if Twitter is out in front leading this or being dragged along kicking and screaming against their will. Is there reason to think "okay you can all stop worrying it's definitely stopped here and won't go any further"?
    - endominus 4y ago
      >If you see the actions of Twitter, et al. as stemming not from a desire to flex power over society Except I don't see that as being the source at all. Like I said, the support for these initiatives originates in government. Hence the government making much of their intent to further legislate and examine the operating models, algorithms, and moderation of these companies. Twitter, Alphabet, Facebook, etc are all acting defensively in response to these pressures, but in the process there's very little appetite to defend free speech proper (even the ACLU, I am given to understand, is not the same organization that at one time defended the KKK's right to march in the streets - although I can't remember too much of the noise around their supposed change in direction). The ratchet only ever goes one way. Other companies are already modifying what discussion is allowed or disfavored on their platforms, as I noted in my post. They can see the headwinds clearly. As more governments discover the power of controlling the narrative, it will only be natural for them to apply pressure to companies that have the greatest power to modify that narrative. Institutions follow incentives just like every other agentic thing. They have an incentive to defend themselves and accumulate power, and so it is often useful to model them as (usually) taking actions that help them do that. Note that I'm not saying that the President is going to call the CEO of Twitter and tell him, "Stop this whole 'Let's go Brandon!' thing." That's not really how it works. To paraphrase the editor of the NYT (iirc), "I've never had to kill a story my journalists wrote for political reasons." And neither, probably, did the editors of Pravda. Once you get to a certain level of awareness, and it's hard to believe the C-suite of these large tech companies lacking that, you have to be able to read the room, politically speaking, and know what the actual big players - the people with the real power - want out of you. Subtle alterations of reported reality is going to be the new normal. "What you're hearing and seeing isn't really what's going on" - a bit more terrifying to realize that that's the capability that's slowly becoming normalized.

"Contradicting science" is exactly how you do science.

mhh__ 4y ago

Are adverts scientific research now?

ComradePhil 4y ago
They are when pharma does it.

seoaeu 4y ago

Yeah, but then you publish your theory (along with supporting evidence!) in academic publications. Who ever heard of a scientist taking out Twitter ads to push their fringe theory directly to ordinary people?

endominus 4y ago
Efforts to ban "misinformation" are gaining ground pretty much everywhere, with full-throated support by government institutions and at most given token resistance from social media companies, if that. Banning misinformation or heterodox opinions in ads is the initial step; does anyone, in good faith, truly believe that's where it will stop? Facebook and YouTube already warn about videos that mention certain topics, hence some YouTubers saying phrases like "Hope you're staying healthy in these trying times" in case the platform deranked them for saying COVID. Soon, as the ability for algorithms to understand context evolves, discussion and especially disagreement of such things at all will be heavily censored (I'm sorry, "downranked") by algorithms on such sites, until they are essentially invisible. Also, it's not just about publishing papers. Scientists use Twitter to network and communicate their ideas with other scientists. To learn about what people are working on, interesting ideas in their field, and so on. If heterodoxy is banned from discussion, it becomes that much harder to challenge existing consensus, because they will be unable to communicate effectively with one another on public platforms.
- stonogo 4y ago
  Scientists use Twitter to get eyes on their papers, talks, and posters. No scientist's work would be meaningfully impacted by the dissolution of Twitter. We had conferences and journals before the web, and we'll have them long after whatever big tech darling of the moment is gone.
- wtallis 4y ago
  > does anyone, in good faith, truly believe that's where it will stop? If you see the actions of Twitter, et al. as stemming not from a desire to flex power over society but merely as a desire to not be exposed to claims that they're profiting directly from and complicit in harmful disinformation campaigns, then it is reasonable to expect that they won't go too much further. They've certainly dragged their heels thus far. They're clearly trying to put the minimum moderation effort to avoid getting hit by more serious public outcry or government interference, which naturally gives rise to a very error-prone moderation scheme.
  - PolygonSheep 4y ago
    > then it is reasonable to expect that they won't go too much further. Is it reasonable to expect that whatever social/political forces have pushed them to do this will stop there? It makes no difference really if Twitter is out in front leading this or being dragged along kicking and screaming against their will. Is there reason to think "okay you can all stop worrying it's definitely stopped here and won't go any further"?
  - endominus 4y ago
    >If you see the actions of Twitter, et al. as stemming not from a desire to flex power over society Except I don't see that as being the source at all. Like I said, the support for these initiatives originates in government. Hence the government making much of their intent to further legislate and examine the operating models, algorithms, and moderation of these companies. Twitter, Alphabet, Facebook, etc are all acting defensively in response to these pressures, but in the process there's very little appetite to defend free speech proper (even the ACLU, I am given to understand, is not the same organization that at one time defended the KKK's right to march in the streets - although I can't remember too much of the noise around their supposed change in direction). The ratchet only ever goes one way. Other companies are already modifying what discussion is allowed or disfavored on their platforms, as I noted in my post. They can see the headwinds clearly. As more governments discover the power of controlling the narrative, it will only be natural for them to apply pressure to companies that have the greatest power to modify that narrative. Institutions follow incentives just like every other agentic thing. They have an incentive to defend themselves and accumulate power, and so it is often useful to model them as (usually) taking actions that help them do that. Note that I'm not saying that the President is going to call the CEO of Twitter and tell him, "Stop this whole 'Let's go Brandon!' thing." That's not really how it works. To paraphrase the editor of the NYT (iirc), "I've never had to kill a story my journalists wrote for political reasons." And neither, probably, did the editors of Pravda. Once you get to a certain level of awareness, and it's hard to believe the C-suite of these large tech companies lacking that, you have to be able to read the room, politically speaking, and know what the actual big players - the people with the real power - want out of you. Subtle alterations of reported reality is going to be the new normal. "What you're hearing and seeing isn't really what's going on" - a bit more terrifying to realize that that's the capability that's slowly becoming normalized.