4 ms·

> The problem as I see it is that far too few people are interested in seeing that these issues are solved and even fewer are actively engaged in doing somethin

by rhaksw 4y ago

> The problem as I see it is that far too few people are interested in seeing that these issues are solved and even fewer are actively engaged in doing something about solving them. I forgive people for not knowing. The worst mod abuses are hard to see. When you reveal them, the behavior disappears; either the mods leave on their own accord or Reddit removes them. Then, when you can no longer point to an egregious case, people who didn't see the previous abuses wonder what the problem is: what they see isn't that bad. I guess the solution is to continue sharing and chip away at the problem. About the video, I only meant to share that linked clip, 30 seconds or so, although that last panel is quite good. > I'm cynical enough to believe that these trashy distractions are encouraged I don't think that's cynical. The book by Pomerantsev that I mentioned in another comment, "This Is Not Propaganda", argues such distractions are part of the propaganda targeting democracies. I think revealing what gets removed gives people a better idea for how forums are managed and encourages healthier conversations by treating us all as equally worthy of access to information. Not necessarily free access, but equal access to what's publicly accessible. It isn't enough to mark news as fake. Some people won't believe you. But when you start to show what is removed, then people start to have a better sense for what is propaganda and what is not.

hilbert42 4y ago
"I forgive people for not knowing. The worst mod abuses are hard to see. When you reveal them, the behavior disappears" Right, we're (a) not training people properly and a young enough age and (b) we're not telling them the truth - so they end up cynical or misinformed or both. Haven't read Pomerantsev but his background would give him great insight. Similarly, Chomsky's works are full of it - here's just one: Manufacturing Consent, etc.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent. Trouble is, Chomsky is heavy going for the average person, it's dense and almost turgid, it's got all the good oil if one is prepared to mine his books for it. (I actually met him once on a lecture tour 20-plus years ago - he's much easier to understand in person than from reading his books). We need to get simple versions of these ideas out to the population at large but it's always proven difficult. The issue of course is that for quite some time we've pretty much an overview of what the problems are but we don't have the same power resources to implement them as does the 'Establishment'. (Again, there's no doubt that we know the facts: Pomerantsev, Chomsky et al have documented this stuff ad nauseam—latest developments, social media etc. only add nuance to the basic facts—the problem is that we've failed to implement the fixes.) "It isn't enough to mark news as fake. Some people won't believe you. But when you start to show what is removed" Right again, but this takes training (and it can be slow) if it's to be done well. It comes back to what I was saying above about training. One doesn't start training a six-year-old with fake news (although that's difficult not to do these days), rather you train basic logic such as arguments have subjects and predicates or otherwise they make little sense, and to understand simple fallibility tests, false/contradictory statements, etc. such as 'All swans are white' and 'Western Australia has black swans'. Even very young kids can quickly see that just one exception—even if it's on the other side of the planet—makes the first statement false. In essence, kids need to develop good bullshit filters at a young age. As they grow older, they'll learn to fine tune and better filter what they hear. What concerns me is that this sort of training isn't done as a matter of course. (I suppose I was luckier than many, it was taught at my primary school.)
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > Right, we're (a) not training people properly and a young enough age and (b) we're not telling them the truth - so they end up cynical or misinformed or both. Could be. With or without education, many people are shocked to discover how social media platforms permit anonymous moderators to remove content and, at the same time, still pretend that this content is live to the author of the content. The fact that it's possible to set up a system that way doesn't mean it is expected. I wouldn't say people are dumb for not knowing or expecting that. > Chomsky I understand Chomsky has a lot to say about propaganda. How much attention does he give to the censorship part of the manipulation equation? Pomerantsev, I am discovering, gives no attention to it that I can find. > Right again, but this takes training (and it can be slow) if it's to be done well. Yes and no. Show someone something they posted that's been removed without them knowing and they immediately understand the potential for wider abuse. The trick may be showing people things they care about being removed. > What concerns me is that this sort of training isn't done as a matter of course. (I suppose I was luckier than many, it was taught at my primary school.) Where was that, if you don't mind me asking?

by rhaksw 4y ago

hilbert42 4y ago

"I forgive people for not knowing. The worst mod abuses are hard to see. When you reveal them, the behavior disappears" Right, we're (a) not training people properly and a young enough age and (b) we're not telling them the truth - so they end up cynical or misinformed or both. Haven't read Pomerantsev but his background would give him great insight. Similarly, Chomsky's works are full of it - here's just one: Manufacturing Consent, etc.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent. Trouble is, Chomsky is heavy going for the average person, it's dense and almost turgid, it's got all the good oil if one is prepared to mine his books for it. (I actually met him once on a lecture tour 20-plus years ago - he's much easier to understand in person than from reading his books). We need to get simple versions of these ideas out to the population at large but it's always proven difficult. The issue of course is that for quite some time we've pretty much an overview of what the problems are but we don't have the same power resources to implement them as does the 'Establishment'. (Again, there's no doubt that we know the facts: Pomerantsev, Chomsky et al have documented this stuff ad nauseam—latest developments, social media etc. only add nuance to the basic facts—the problem is that we've failed to implement the fixes.) "It isn't enough to mark news as fake. Some people won't believe you. But when you start to show what is removed" Right again, but this takes training (and it can be slow) if it's to be done well. It comes back to what I was saying above about training. One doesn't start training a six-year-old with fake news (although that's difficult not to do these days), rather you train basic logic such as arguments have subjects and predicates or otherwise they make little sense, and to understand simple fallibility tests, false/contradictory statements, etc. such as 'All swans are white' and 'Western Australia has black swans'. Even very young kids can quickly see that just one exception—even if it's on the other side of the planet—makes the first statement false. In essence, kids need to develop good bullshit filters at a young age. As they grow older, they'll learn to fine tune and better filter what they hear. What concerns me is that this sort of training isn't done as a matter of course. (I suppose I was luckier than many, it was taught at my primary school.)

rhaksw 4y ago
> Right, we're (a) not training people properly and a young enough age and (b) we're not telling them the truth - so they end up cynical or misinformed or both. Could be. With or without education, many people are shocked to discover how social media platforms permit anonymous moderators to remove content and, at the same time, still pretend that this content is live to the author of the content. The fact that it's possible to set up a system that way doesn't mean it is expected. I wouldn't say people are dumb for not knowing or expecting that. > Chomsky I understand Chomsky has a lot to say about propaganda. How much attention does he give to the censorship part of the manipulation equation? Pomerantsev, I am discovering, gives no attention to it that I can find. > Right again, but this takes training (and it can be slow) if it's to be done well. Yes and no. Show someone something they posted that's been removed without them knowing and they immediately understand the potential for wider abuse. The trick may be showing people things they care about being removed. > What concerns me is that this sort of training isn't done as a matter of course. (I suppose I was luckier than many, it was taught at my primary school.) Where was that, if you don't mind me asking?