4 ms·

I think the scope and scale makes it different. Social media has become extremely important to the free and open exchange of ideas between people.

deltree7 4y ago
Sinclair broadcasting has a far broader reach and actually influences ideologies that you can draw a direct correlation to ideology and Sinclair broadcast viewers. None of Twitter/FB/Youtube has that kind of correlation
nkozyra 4y ago
> I think the scope and scale makes it different. Then what is the threshold wherein the natural inability to avoid bias becomes propaganda? Why is Twitter propaganda but not HN or my blog? When does it cross the line?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is the binary bias[1]. You're trying to come up with hard distinctions and categories, when trying to do so is totally uninteresting and without any utility. I notice it's extremely common here on HN[2], perhaps because the job of an engineer involves working with categories, and something that's linguistically fuzzy is uncomfortable to them. I write more about this cognitive failing in the second half of my post here[3]. In short, there is no objective threshold wherein the natural inability to avoid bias becomes propaganda. And nor should we waste time on that point. Such a discussion is merely semantics around the definition of the word "propaganda". We should leave that to the people who compile dictionaries. Such clouded thinking has created a blind spot here in this very thread, e.g. that someone can say something so ridiculous as "How is that different than literally every other website or publication on earth?" and not get downvoted, as if the practical difference between a social media platform with access to hundreds of millions of eyeballs on the one hand, and a small blog on the other, is not self-evident. Such an obvious difference can only not be self-evident to someone who is incapable of understanding that things can vary by degree instead of by category. [1] https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/binary-bias-distorts-how-we-integrate-information.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/binary-bi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32708833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32708833 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32674580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32674580
  - nkozyra 4y ago
    > Such an obvious difference can only not be self-evident to someone who is incapable of understanding that things can vary by degree instead of by category. I'm sorry, but I'm asking how and why the number of people suddenly flips the switch to propaganda and all I'm seeing is a flippant dismissal from you. It's my stance that it is not the number of people who see it that dictates that it's propaganda, and that the definition supplied fails to meet any real criteria for propaganda. This isn't a binary bias, I'm not asking "is it or is it not?" I'm asking someone _why_ they think it's propaganda. I find your response reductionist, and the appeal for downvotes snarky. I'll let citations of your own comments stand on its own merit.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      It was described as a propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative. It is a matter of degree, but you keep insisting it's a matter of category. If the CCP uses networks of bots to amplify pro-CCP stories and viewpoints on Twitter, then that's "different" (to answer your original question) in an extremely important way to if someone pushed those views on their own small blog. It's different because the scale and impact is different. Also, both of those things belong, to some extent, to the category of "propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative". But one belongs to it more, and one is more of an issue, because the world isn't binary.
      - nkozyra 4y ago
        > It was described as a propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative. No, you added the second part. That could indeed bolster the argument, but it wasn't made in the initial claim. If scope is the tipping point - which appears to be your argument here with regard to degree - recall my initial question was about the threshold. Which is conveniently what you're saying we should ignore because it's unimportant. So which is it? I contend that one of the core tenets of "propaganda" is that there needs to be a deliberate and centralized. It's easy to call something propaganda but it's much harder to defend that claim.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  I would say those things absolutely can be propoganda, but the government can only really enforce so much. Is it worth it for a gov employee to look at your blog for foreign government influence on elections? No. Twitter? Yes
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Foreign election influencers absolutely may absolutely use popular blogs, especially when sharing information on other social media to recruit users into a certain personality trait.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  It's impossible to set a definite standard for when a social media site or other website has become so crucial to the public square that it is set apart from general services. You could use a multi-prong test like they do for determining whether an entity constitutes a monopoly. Or you could use the old Justice Stewart's test for obscenity..."I know it when I see it." But given what we've learned of late about the government influencing social media sites to censor citizens on their platforms, I don't think there's a legitimate argument that certain social media sites are not different from the general internet.

deltree7 4y ago

Sinclair broadcasting has a far broader reach and actually influences ideologies that you can draw a direct correlation to ideology and Sinclair broadcast viewers. None of Twitter/FB/Youtube has that kind of correlation

nkozyra 4y ago

> I think the scope and scale makes it different. Then what is the threshold wherein the natural inability to avoid bias becomes propaganda? Why is Twitter propaganda but not HN or my blog? When does it cross the line?

hackerlight 4y ago
This is the binary bias[1]. You're trying to come up with hard distinctions and categories, when trying to do so is totally uninteresting and without any utility. I notice it's extremely common here on HN[2], perhaps because the job of an engineer involves working with categories, and something that's linguistically fuzzy is uncomfortable to them. I write more about this cognitive failing in the second half of my post here[3]. In short, there is no objective threshold wherein the natural inability to avoid bias becomes propaganda. And nor should we waste time on that point. Such a discussion is merely semantics around the definition of the word "propaganda". We should leave that to the people who compile dictionaries. Such clouded thinking has created a blind spot here in this very thread, e.g. that someone can say something so ridiculous as "How is that different than literally every other website or publication on earth?" and not get downvoted, as if the practical difference between a social media platform with access to hundreds of millions of eyeballs on the one hand, and a small blog on the other, is not self-evident. Such an obvious difference can only not be self-evident to someone who is incapable of understanding that things can vary by degree instead of by category. [1] https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/binary-bias-distorts-how-we-integrate-information.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/binary-bi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32708833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32708833 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32674580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32674580
- nkozyra 4y ago
  > Such an obvious difference can only not be self-evident to someone who is incapable of understanding that things can vary by degree instead of by category. I'm sorry, but I'm asking how and why the number of people suddenly flips the switch to propaganda and all I'm seeing is a flippant dismissal from you. It's my stance that it is not the number of people who see it that dictates that it's propaganda, and that the definition supplied fails to meet any real criteria for propaganda. This isn't a binary bias, I'm not asking "is it or is it not?" I'm asking someone _why_ they think it's propaganda. I find your response reductionist, and the appeal for downvotes snarky. I'll let citations of your own comments stand on its own merit.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    It was described as a propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative. It is a matter of degree, but you keep insisting it's a matter of category. If the CCP uses networks of bots to amplify pro-CCP stories and viewpoints on Twitter, then that's "different" (to answer your original question) in an extremely important way to if someone pushed those views on their own small blog. It's different because the scale and impact is different. Also, both of those things belong, to some extent, to the category of "propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative". But one belongs to it more, and one is more of an issue, because the world isn't binary.
    - nkozyra 4y ago
      > It was described as a propaganda network capable of controlling the narrative. No, you added the second part. That could indeed bolster the argument, but it wasn't made in the initial claim. If scope is the tipping point - which appears to be your argument here with regard to degree - recall my initial question was about the threshold. Which is conveniently what you're saying we should ignore because it's unimportant. So which is it? I contend that one of the core tenets of "propaganda" is that there needs to be a deliberate and centralized. It's easy to call something propaganda but it's much harder to defend that claim.
thatguy0900 4y ago
I would say those things absolutely can be propoganda, but the government can only really enforce so much. Is it worth it for a gov employee to look at your blog for foreign government influence on elections? No. Twitter? Yes
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Foreign election influencers absolutely may absolutely use popular blogs, especially when sharing information on other social media to recruit users into a certain personality trait.
illuminerdy 4y ago
It's impossible to set a definite standard for when a social media site or other website has become so crucial to the public square that it is set apart from general services. You could use a multi-prong test like they do for determining whether an entity constitutes a monopoly. Or you could use the old Justice Stewart's test for obscenity..."I know it when I see it." But given what we've learned of late about the government influencing social media sites to censor citizens on their platforms, I don't think there's a legitimate argument that certain social media sites are not different from the general internet.