3 ms·

Unfortunately the manipulation of opinions is exactly what the moderation/censorship schemes on major social media platforms resulted in. Shadowbanning is just

Unfortunately the manipulation of opinions is exactly what the moderation/censorship schemes on major social media platforms resulted in. Shadowbanning is just one problematic tool among many. I’m glad to see studies exploring this, but I feel like it was also an obvious reality for years, and nothing was or has been done about it. Those engaging in censorship and mass manipulation don’t care because they are helping their political goals, even if it is unethical. Personally I don’t think the platforms being private matters - at their scale the big social media platforms are public squares, and should be regulated like that. Or maybe treated like a phone carrier or utility, where even if they’re private they’re subject to regulation that forces them to provide service to all customers.

shadowgovt 2y ago
I'm wondering what it's going to take for people to realize that most of their online fora (present company included) aren't the great Greek philosophical salons of yore; they're bored people on the Internet trading quips for serotonin hits. The amount of accurate information you find online is probably worse than what you find talking to people IRL, but we seem to insist on treating it as a truth source instead of a game people are playing with each other.
- carimura 2y ago
  Yes, but the problem is throughout all of history you could only talk to so many people IRL in a day... (same with newspapers, etc.) Now you can consume nearly unlimited opinions in a day so whatever it is we think about the accuracy of information online, it's shaping impressionable minds faster than biology and society can cope.
anamax 2y ago
> Personally I don’t think the platforms being private matters - at their scale the big social media platforms are public squares, and should be regulated like that. Malls and shopping centers in California are treated as public squares for 1st amendment purposes. It's unclear why Facebook et al aren't given the same treatment, at least in California. (Note this is California, not Federal, law.) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pruneyard-shopping-c...

shadowgovt 2y ago

I'm wondering what it's going to take for people to realize that most of their online fora (present company included) aren't the great Greek philosophical salons of yore; they're bored people on the Internet trading quips for serotonin hits. The amount of accurate information you find online is probably worse than what you find talking to people IRL, but we seem to insist on treating it as a truth source instead of a game people are playing with each other.

carimura 2y ago
Yes, but the problem is throughout all of history you could only talk to so many people IRL in a day... (same with newspapers, etc.) Now you can consume nearly unlimited opinions in a day so whatever it is we think about the accuracy of information online, it's shaping impressionable minds faster than biology and society can cope.

anamax 2y ago

> Personally I don’t think the platforms being private matters - at their scale the big social media platforms are public squares, and should be regulated like that. Malls and shopping centers in California are treated as public squares for 1st amendment purposes. It's unclear why Facebook et al aren't given the same treatment, at least in California. (Note this is California, not Federal, law.) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pruneyard-shopping-c...