6 ms·

Given the lack of interest in the industry “self” regulating, and/or taking responsibility of, the content; what other option is there. It seems there’s little

Given the lack of interest in the industry “self” regulating, and/or taking responsibility of, the content; what other option is there. It seems there’s little interest globally. With my direct and indirect experiences of social media; I strongly support this. That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? I do worry about the implementation, especially if government owned. The government has, in the past, said one thing and executed another. (DNS metadata collection for ISP’s, for example) Whilst I have nothing to hide, and am happy to be entirely transparent with them; I can appreciate, respect, and understand the hesitation. And, if government owned; how long until it’s “privatised”. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

immibis 2y ago
"The spying industry isn't spying on people enough, so the government has no choice but to force them to spy harder"
quitit 2y ago
There is zero willingness by Meta and others to even follow through on their own guidelines or government requirements. I think it's time a hard decision was made about the harms spread by these networks. I am definitely not alone in submitting a report about a fake profile only for the system to nearly automatically deny it. Even when the real person being impersonated is literally sitting next to me asking me to help them submit the report. Even illegal drug dealers operate in the open on Meta properties with no recourse whatsoever. The process of eliminating a huge swath of fake and harmful content could be implemented trivially, we have so many ways of muting or limiting the spread of information which is unvetted, dubious origin, has outlier qualities and so on - yet nothing of the type is engaged by these networks to obvious harmful consequences.
- gU9x3u8XmQNG 2y ago
  Thanks for your reply. On a similar note; a family member was being exposed to intense and violent content over Facebook. There was no block, ignore, or report feature on the content exposed. The only option we could find, after researching it; was a “show less of this content” setting buried deep in the Facebook web app (not even available on the standalone app). Honestly; if the account owner has little option to manage the content they are exposed to.. ugh!
  - quitit 2y ago
    Your experience brings about an excellent point (and something that is coming up in discussion frequently with the proposed under-16 social media ban in Australia - a ban that is being supported by all sides of their government.) That point is that even the user making positive attempts to moderate their experience on the platform is futile and in my experience largely ignored. (I actually have the experience that it then shows me more of that content.) Social media platforms are keenly aware that anger and fear drive significantly more engagement and whistleblowers have detailed how Facebook prioritises this content, shovelling it to users specifically to drive usage (and with that ad value and ad impressions).(1)(2)(3)(4) There is a deep commercial incentive for social media networks to act against their own "community guidelines" and legislation. I applaud Australia's direction for recognising that these networks are not acting in good faith and introducing measures that address the proven harms.(5) 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-60-minutes-polarizing-divisive-content/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-... 2. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/578724-5-points-for-anger-1-for-a-like-how-facebooks/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture... 3. https://time.com/6103645/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen/ https://time.com/6103645/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haug... 4. https://time.com/6097704/facebook-instagram-wall-street-journal/ https://time.com/6097704/facebook-instagram-wall-street-jour... 5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039
    - brokenmachine 2y ago
      I have successfully and completely moderated my facebook usage, in the same manner as I do with any site that doesn't respect my wishes. I simply don't use it. I didn't need any government "assistance".
      - quitit 2y ago
        You don’t need to have a Facebook profile to be impersonated on Facebook.
ratmeadow 2y ago
> Given the lack of interest in the industry “self” regulating, and/or taking responsibility of, the content; what other option is there This is surely an important point. People often make the argument of individual freedom. But at the same time, evidently we are excellent at using those freedoms to screw ourselves over. Globally, we've been speedrunning fucking up society in critical areas for decades now. Could the solution be less freedom? Is there some hidden hook whereby more freedom can solve everything?
- johnisgood 2y ago
  History should have taught us that the answer is no, the solution is not less freedom. It does make me want to watch the movie Equilibrium though.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > Globally, we've been speedrunning fucking up society in critical areas for decades now. Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media. It would be very bad to simply return to the authority of editorial boards. What we actually need is to grapple with the social responsibility that comes with this power, which could take decades or even centuries of living with the internet to wrangle. Especially now that we know how little of the world traditional newsrooms are even willing to cover, let alone fund coverage of. Besides, the cat is out of the bag.
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    >Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media This is just plain wrong. Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. That is not an improvement.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      > Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. I mean it's not like the power of domestic propaganda has waned, it's just in a war for the attention of the ignorant with other interests (most of which aren't foreign powers, by the way, but simply capital). Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room and it would be a true loss for any society to sweep the rug out from under the people who care to look beyond the for-profit newsroom (i.e., almost all media that's readily accessible at least to americans).
whiplash451 2y ago
> how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? Solutions will appear naturally to fill the gaps. This is not rocket science.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Agree. Like, local cafe, don't do that.
- RadiozRadioz 2y ago
  And indeed, solutions have already appeared: RSS
whiplash451 2y ago
> I do worry about the implementation The government does not own the implementation. As mentioned in another comment, simply making this illegal would create a significant incentive for soc media companies to implement the solution. The onus is on them to respect the law. They've been slapped in the face in EU court enough now that they'd think about it seriously.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
exe34 2y ago
The law could force a "for kids" version like youtube, and businesses would automatically start there unless they were unsuitable.
- NeutralCrane 2y ago
  I think Kids YouTube is a great example of how Kids social media is as bad or worse than just normal social media.
  - exe34 2y ago
    in what ways? I'm not familiar with the details myself, other than you can't comment.
y1426i 2y ago
I don't think this is a practical solution. And it does not solve the underlying issue, which is the attention economy. Here's a better solution option that is easier to implement; even adults can benefit, and I think it solves some of the problems: 1. Have an easy option to turn off feeds and enforce for non-adults. This would apply not just to meta, twitter, but also to Youtube, LinkedIn, etc. 2. Disable like display. The like counts are what hooks people and gives the dopamine kick. Add the ability to hide it and not show for under 18 easily. 3. Social and news sites should not be allowed to send notifications, period. Not on phones or browsers, at least not for those under 18. Something along these lines would improve social media for everyone, not just kids. Parents' mental health affects kids the same. So blocking it just for kids only goes so far.
- gU9x3u8XmQNG 2y ago
  Thanks for your reply. I think you have valid points, but as noted; the industry has no interest in any form of regulation or responsibility. I don’t see any alternative.
latentsea 2y ago
>That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? If such regulations come in to effect, I think those business / institutions will adapt (eventually) to cater to communicating via additional channels.
NeutralCrane 2y ago
> That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? Probably in a similar way to how they did prior to 2010
- CJefferson 2y ago
  Those methods have gone. My local bus stop timetable is just a QR code now.
  - Baljhin 2y ago
    Those methods have improved, in some places. Some (should be all) bus stops in our area have realtime info displays of schedules, weather, news - and of course, Ads.
account42 2y ago
> That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? I have never needed either of these so maybe those kids will manage too? And especially in the public transport case that information should really be made available outside of private platforms in any case.
- thrw42A8N 2y ago
  I need these multiple times every day, so maybe not. And this information simply isn't available elsewhere, regardless of what we think about it - in many cases it's not official but crowd sourced in a FB group, it's not a matter of simply publishing news articles on a different site.
Nasrudith 2y ago
Ah "taking responsibility for content", that classic weasel phrase for "Do what I specifically want or else." While disregarding the sheer difficulty of moderation at scale. They want a return to a "broadcast" information model and just refuse to admit it.

immibis 2y ago

"The spying industry isn't spying on people enough, so the government has no choice but to force them to spy harder"

quitit 2y ago

There is zero willingness by Meta and others to even follow through on their own guidelines or government requirements. I think it's time a hard decision was made about the harms spread by these networks. I am definitely not alone in submitting a report about a fake profile only for the system to nearly automatically deny it. Even when the real person being impersonated is literally sitting next to me asking me to help them submit the report. Even illegal drug dealers operate in the open on Meta properties with no recourse whatsoever. The process of eliminating a huge swath of fake and harmful content could be implemented trivially, we have so many ways of muting or limiting the spread of information which is unvetted, dubious origin, has outlier qualities and so on - yet nothing of the type is engaged by these networks to obvious harmful consequences.

gU9x3u8XmQNG 2y ago
Thanks for your reply. On a similar note; a family member was being exposed to intense and violent content over Facebook. There was no block, ignore, or report feature on the content exposed. The only option we could find, after researching it; was a “show less of this content” setting buried deep in the Facebook web app (not even available on the standalone app). Honestly; if the account owner has little option to manage the content they are exposed to.. ugh!
- quitit 2y ago
  Your experience brings about an excellent point (and something that is coming up in discussion frequently with the proposed under-16 social media ban in Australia - a ban that is being supported by all sides of their government.) That point is that even the user making positive attempts to moderate their experience on the platform is futile and in my experience largely ignored. (I actually have the experience that it then shows me more of that content.) Social media platforms are keenly aware that anger and fear drive significantly more engagement and whistleblowers have detailed how Facebook prioritises this content, shovelling it to users specifically to drive usage (and with that ad value and ad impressions).(1)(2)(3)(4) There is a deep commercial incentive for social media networks to act against their own "community guidelines" and legislation. I applaud Australia's direction for recognising that these networks are not acting in good faith and introducing measures that address the proven harms.(5) 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-60-minutes-polarizing-divisive-content/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-... 2. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/578724-5-points-for-anger-1-for-a-like-how-facebooks/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture... 3. https://time.com/6103645/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen/ https://time.com/6103645/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haug... 4. https://time.com/6097704/facebook-instagram-wall-street-journal/ https://time.com/6097704/facebook-instagram-wall-street-jour... 5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    I have successfully and completely moderated my facebook usage, in the same manner as I do with any site that doesn't respect my wishes. I simply don't use it. I didn't need any government "assistance".
    - quitit 2y ago
      You don’t need to have a Facebook profile to be impersonated on Facebook.

ratmeadow 2y ago

> Given the lack of interest in the industry “self” regulating, and/or taking responsibility of, the content; what other option is there This is surely an important point. People often make the argument of individual freedom. But at the same time, evidently we are excellent at using those freedoms to screw ourselves over. Globally, we've been speedrunning fucking up society in critical areas for decades now. Could the solution be less freedom? Is there some hidden hook whereby more freedom can solve everything?

johnisgood 2y ago
History should have taught us that the answer is no, the solution is not less freedom. It does make me want to watch the movie Equilibrium though.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Globally, we've been speedrunning fucking up society in critical areas for decades now. Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media. It would be very bad to simply return to the authority of editorial boards. What we actually need is to grapple with the social responsibility that comes with this power, which could take decades or even centuries of living with the internet to wrangle. Especially now that we know how little of the world traditional newsrooms are even willing to cover, let alone fund coverage of. Besides, the cat is out of the bag.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  >Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media This is just plain wrong. Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. That is not an improvement.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. I mean it's not like the power of domestic propaganda has waned, it's just in a war for the attention of the ignorant with other interests (most of which aren't foreign powers, by the way, but simply capital). Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room and it would be a true loss for any society to sweep the rug out from under the people who care to look beyond the for-profit newsroom (i.e., almost all media that's readily accessible at least to americans).

whiplash451 2y ago

> how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? Solutions will appear naturally to fill the gaps. This is not rocket science.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
Agree. Like, local cafe, don't do that.
RadiozRadioz 2y ago
And indeed, solutions have already appeared: RSS

whiplash451 2y ago

> I do worry about the implementation The government does not own the implementation. As mentioned in another comment, simply making this illegal would create a significant incentive for soc media companies to implement the solution. The onus is on them to respect the law. They've been slapped in the face in EU court enough now that they'd think about it seriously.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

exe34 2y ago

The law could force a "for kids" version like youtube, and businesses would automatically start there unless they were unsuitable.

NeutralCrane 2y ago
I think Kids YouTube is a great example of how Kids social media is as bad or worse than just normal social media.
- exe34 2y ago
  in what ways? I'm not familiar with the details myself, other than you can't comment.

y1426i 2y ago

I don't think this is a practical solution. And it does not solve the underlying issue, which is the attention economy. Here's a better solution option that is easier to implement; even adults can benefit, and I think it solves some of the problems: 1. Have an easy option to turn off feeds and enforce for non-adults. This would apply not just to meta, twitter, but also to Youtube, LinkedIn, etc. 2. Disable like display. The like counts are what hooks people and gives the dopamine kick. Add the ability to hide it and not show for under 18 easily. 3. Social and news sites should not be allowed to send notifications, period. Not on phones or browsers, at least not for those under 18. Something along these lines would improve social media for everyone, not just kids. Parents' mental health affects kids the same. So blocking it just for kids only goes so far.

gU9x3u8XmQNG 2y ago
Thanks for your reply. I think you have valid points, but as noted; the industry has no interest in any form of regulation or responsibility. I don’t see any alternative.

latentsea 2y ago

>That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? If such regulations come in to effect, I think those business / institutions will adapt (eventually) to cater to communicating via additional channels.

NeutralCrane 2y ago

CJefferson 2y ago
Those methods have gone. My local bus stop timetable is just a QR code now.
- Baljhin 2y ago
  Those methods have improved, in some places. Some (should be all) bus stops in our area have realtime info displays of schedules, weather, news - and of course, Ads.

account42 2y ago

> That said; how does a young individual get updates to public transport outages that are only available via twitter/x, or read the menu of the local cafe that is only posted on Facebook? I have never needed either of these so maybe those kids will manage too? And especially in the public transport case that information should really be made available outside of private platforms in any case.

thrw42A8N 2y ago
I need these multiple times every day, so maybe not. And this information simply isn't available elsewhere, regardless of what we think about it - in many cases it's not official but crowd sourced in a FB group, it's not a matter of simply publishing news articles on a different site.

Nasrudith 2y ago

Ah "taking responsibility for content", that classic weasel phrase for "Do what I specifically want or else." While disregarding the sheer difficulty of moderation at scale. They want a return to a "broadcast" information model and just refuse to admit it.